Have climate scientists (or even Al Gore or David Suzuki) said that winter will never happen again?
I’m not saying that the global warming/climate change “alarmists” or “deniers” are right or wrong. But I’d be more convinced by people who can/do point to more “global” evidence. It’s more convincing to say that the entire globe is warming or cooling over a significant period of time (whatever that is… years, decades, centuries).
To say “it’s cold at this place at this one point in time–which happens to be December in the Northern Hemisphere–is less-than-convincing.
anon: the premise has been that there will be no more winters. This winter has been interesting for me. Vancouver (where I live) had snow in NOVEMBER. That never happens. I’m currently sitting in Frankfurt on standby because my original flight to London-Heathrow was cancelled because Heathrow is shut down due to the snow.
I’m just wondering what the global warming panickers will have to say about this.
That’s the problem with computer models. Garbage in means garbage out. Mother nature rules…and sometimes she has a sick sense of humor. Al gore has made his millions on the backs of the gullible and Suzuki should stick to his expertise, which is fruit flies. Climate has and will always change. Cleaning up pollution may be a noble and worthy cause. Everything outside that catagory is just bullshit. As I am freezing my nuts off and my heating bill is going through the roof I am praying for some global warming and am thinking of buying a Hummer just in case I can help. In Canada I can not see a downside to Global warming. Perhaps one of these foam at the mouth, granola crunching tree huggers can point out the disadvantage of having a longer growing season. I also accept donations for carbon offsets as I have a burning barrel in my back yard and my neighbor has two. I’m in the same situation as 3rd world countries.Send lots of money. Save the planet. In return I will send you a nice drawing of a hockey stick graph sure to send chills down your spine. Biodegradable paper of course.
What I find funny is the idea that we can actually change the weather by some form of magic thinking by throwing money at the problem and even more so when the money is a redistribution of wealth scheme that at best might cool the temperature by 1 or 2 degrees. At best and most likely have no effect on the quantities of carbon in the atmosphere but just change who is putting it out there by buying carbon credits !?
What is that all about !? The Chicago Carbon Exchange I think has closed down and the European counties who strongly bought into this scheme have experienced massive fraud in application of the carbon trading: Very much like buying ” indulgences ” from the Catholic Church to be able to spend less time in purgatory after one dies ! And just as real and effective LOL.
Now all the above is true even if we accept the truth and accuracy of the Global Warming theory: So useless and disastrous spending on a non-solution to a probably non-existent problem or one beyond our capabilities to affect the temperature changes should they occur for any reason(s).
If anything should be done it should be in adapting to any temperature changes as they actually occur ? if anything can be done by humans we had better get it right since a technical fix to warming could precipitate an Ice Age if the predicted warming turns out to be a natural cyclic cooling: Something like seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective particles to cool the Earth: Might work but might work much much too well as the Earth turns into a solid ice ball because we made a mistake by not really understanding how the atmosphere works as much as we believe.
This is what annoys me as well. Even if we accepted the theory, how many trillions of dollars, how much misery and suffering would we have to endure for naught? What if global warming was irreversible even if we suddenly became extinct?
Remember all the hype over Peak-Oil and the up coming crisis. Prior to Howard Hughes inventing the Diamond shaped drill head to bore through rock, we were told that Oil came from dead Dinosaurs in the evolution stratas of Earth.
But today we have the Alberta tar-sands at ground level and then we just had the Deep sea Oil rig in the Gulf resting atop of 5000 feet of water and then Drilled down over 20’000 feet into the Gulf bed and hit Oil. Signs of Human habitats have been found below the old theory layer for Dinosaurs, plus Scientists agree that there could not have been enough of them to create all that Oil and the Abiotic Theory makes sense that the heat inside the Earth brews up the Oil that rises to the surface.
Today, the big crisis had to be the new Global-Warming since the Ice-Age scare was a flop. But since Humans and animals have a better chance of survival in warm climates to have fresh Liquid-water and soft natural foods
Street Hockey all years round, water skiing in Toronto’s harbour in January, no more road salt, fewer heating bills , and less winter deaths and car accidents.
So where’s the downside Mr.Gore ?
Not sure why the EDIT feature skip text by itself, but here’s my comment that wasn’t correct.
Today, the big crisis had to be the new Global-Warming since the Ice-Age scare was a flop. But since Humans and animals have a better chance of survival in warm climates to have fresh Liquid-water and soft natural foods it would be a blessing to adapt to new housing to deal with the heat and create new industries to work around the hot climates.
What the hell do the Nations do today that are at the Equator and don’t get snow or have to extract fresh water from the air of salt water?
Canadians line-up to catch a Flight to hot climates for vacations and lets ask them how Canada would look if we never had a winter with snow.
Don from BC:
“Vancouver (where I live) had snow in NOVEMBER. That never happens.”
While it may seem a little unusual, it’s not that uncommon if you look at the DATA. On Nov 19/1973 Vancouver had over 20cm. On average, Vancouver gets about one snowy day a year, whereas December has about 3 days.
peterj says: “In Canada I cannot see a downside to Global warming.”
I work in the forest industry and all I can say is you can’t be looking very hard. Have you not heard of the mountain pine beetle for example? About 13 million hectares and counting as I recall.
If it was’nt the pine beetle it would be something else. It too will run its course. Everything in life has a trade off and it will always be a challange to adapt.Warm climates have their own challanges and no one is talking nirvana here but I will stick to my statement on not seeing a downside.
peterj, i think you’re being intellectually lazy and haven’t provided any arguments or evidence to support your statement that “In Canada I cannot see a downside to Global warming”.
In BC, the science tells us that:
* Many regions and sectors will experience increasing water shortages.
* Increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather and related natural hazards that will impact BC’s infrastructure.
* Forests, the forest industry and forestry-dependent communities are vulnerable to increasing climate-related risks, including pest infestations and forest fires.
* Climate change will exacerbate existing stresses on BC’s fisheries.
* Agricultural sector faces both positive and negative productivity impacts.
The science tells us…..
The science has been wrong too often as there are two opposing camps filled with experts who can not agree on much and conveniently leave out sun activity and the fact that climate has always changed. Funding stops when all is good.
Many regions……..
And that is new???. There is no shortage of water as canada has more than one third of the worlds fresh water supply. Treated water is the problem due to urban population growth.
Increasing frequency…….
Guess work and no proof of any kind that it manmade.
Forests, the forest industy……..
See above. Also, a mere hundred years ago no one fought forest fires unless it threatened a community. It always burned itself out eventually. Pest infections have always been cyclical. There was a pine beetle infection in the 30 s that eventually died out. Plant Spruce.
Climate change will exacerbate……
No it wont, but overfishing certainly has.
Agriculture sector……
Agree, but far more positive than negative. I can hardly wait to grow my first orange or banana. Oh..but wait, we are only talking one or two degrees warmer over the next century.
It certainly adds to the convincingness of the argument. Especially if it’s not “supposed” to be snowing in Australia. (It is their summertime right now, isn’t it?)
I wasn’t suggesting they should be “written off”. I was saying that evidence taking into account more places (and a longer period of time) would be more convincing.
“the premise has been that there will be no more winters.”
I thought that was more of a conclusion than a premise. But whatever. What about claims that global warming could cause an ice age of some sort?
I remember being told about this possibility in a University class 10 or more years ago. Day after Tomorrow stuff (without the sensationalism) though the movie wouldn’t come out till years later.
Elisions ?? What substance to Ian’s points?? This is a opinion forum and Ian and I were simply expressing different opinions. The difference is in the degree we have been brainwashed. Much like you , Ian believes in what he states. You may both be right and only time will tell. What I do know is that we are the second largest country in the world with one of the smallest populations. On a world scale we contribute approx. one percent of the contributing factors considered to change climate IF the global warming crowd is correct, and that is a very big if. For that one percent we are expected to make many sacrifices that I find totally illogical. When people like Al Gore /Susuki walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, perhaps I could gain a bit of respect. Until then I will remain cool-aid free, with the full understanding that opinions are like assholes…everybody’s got one. Really would’nt want it any other way.
Thank you anon1152.I respect all other opinions because they usually come from the heart. That does not mean I agree with them or would expect others to agree with me. As in “Xfiles”…the truth is out there and these forums allow us to put out our own “truths” as we see them.
Hope both you and Ian have a wonderful Christmas.
peterj: “Let’s take your points one at a time.”
>> Firstly how about addressing my first point – you still haven’t provided any evidence to support your statement that “In Canada I cannot see a downside to Global warming”. Most of what you’ve written is uninformed rubbish. A few specific areas:
peterj: “the science has been wrong too often”
>> so if you’re not going with the scientific consensus, what are you using to “inform” your opinion on GW? Fortune telling? WAG? Noted climatologist Glen Beck?
peterj: “there are two opposing camps filled with experts who can not agree on much and conveniently leave out sun activity and the fact that climate has always changed”.
>> You don’t understand the scientific method nor how the IPCC process works. Stop being lazy – read the links that I sent you. The idea that there are 2 opposing camps is a myth,
peterj: “Funding stops when all is good.”
What are you suggesting?. Have you ever looked into who is funding the climate change denial machine? Again you are simply being lazy.
peterj: “There is no shortage of water as canada has more than one third of the worlds fresh water supply”.
>> The myth of abundance is one of our greatest threats. We possess about 7% of the worlds *renewable* water. In Canada, ~85% of the population lives in a narrow southern band, while 60% of our water supply flows north to the Arctic Circle. There are already many areas in Canada with critical water issues (eg, BC’s southern interior). With climate change, the resource and communities will be increasingly at risk. Read the BC water strategy http://www.livingwatersmart.ca
peterj: “Treated water is the problem due to urban population growth.”
>> No, your copmment demonstrates a profound ignorance. it’s not just about drinking water. It’s about environment, community and economic security. For example climate change is going to impact the amount and timing of precipitation which will impact hydro-electric resources. Read BC Hydro’s strategic plan. It’s going to affect the water available for agriculture and industrial processes. Read Alberta’s Water for Life action plan (http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/) or BC’s Living Water Smart plan(www.livingwatersmart.ca).
Peterj: “Increasing frequency…….
Guess work and no proof of any kind that it manmade.”
>> I provided the IPCC report as a reference. You’ve provided nothing to support your statement.
Peterj: “Pest infections have always been cyclical. There was a pine beetle infection in the 30 s that eventually died out. Plant Spruce.”
>> your point being??
Peterj: “Oh..but wait, we are only talking one or two degrees warmer over the next century.”
>> Published estimates suggest the AVERAGE surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 1.8-4.0°C. Warming will not be evenly distributed around the globe. High latitudes will warm more than low latitudes. Land areas will warm more than oceans in part due to water’s ability to store heat (IPCC 2007.)
You are confusing individual weather events with the observed trends and projections made by the scientific community. If you’re interested in what the UK data says, it’s readily available from the UK Climate Impacts Programme: http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/229/500/
BTW, the most interesting quote in your media story is:
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
Other than being off by a few years, he’s right on the mark.
Gary says: plus Scientists agree that there could not have been enough of them to create all that Oil and the Abiotic Theory makes sense that the heat inside the Earth brews up the Oil that rises to the surface.
>> What a bunch of rubbish. Stop being so lazy and pick up a basic geology textbook. The accepted theory is that petroleum is derived from ancient fossilized organic material, largely zooplankton and algae. The abiogenic hypothesis introduced in the 1950s has little support within the geology and scientific community. Regardless it’s irrelevant to the discussion of Peak Oil. Petroleum production is greater than new reserves are being discovered, so do the math.
I’d also point out that what matters is not how much oil (or oil sands, or oil shale, or coal, or natural gas) is in the ground, but how much energy it takes to get to it. The energy return on investment in Albertan oil sands is far far lower than it is in the Saudi Arabian desert. At some point it will take more energy to get this precious energy source than we will gain from the energy source itself.*
*I’m relying on information from Thomas Homer-Dixon’s book: “The Upside of Down”.
He had an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail today.
Good point anon1152. The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) concept is an important consideration…i.e., there is lots of petroleum still untapped but we’ve extracted much of the easier, less energy intensive stuff. The return on energy invested is declining because it is getting harder to find and extract that next increment of fossil fuel. Also useful to think of EROEI when considering alternatives like wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, etc.
Homer-Dixon is a respected authority and a good communicator – I liked his book. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies paints a similar picture to the Globe and Mail story and also addresses the recent cold weather in Northern Europe: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
Much of the time the standard “he’s an alarmist” response is a lazy way of attacking a person’s credibility — works well as a media sound bite but often comes with no substantiative counter argument.
peterj: If you indeed think you are being brainwashed, what are you going to do about it?
I challenge all of us to make a New Year’s resolution that we will better inform ourselves about the science and implications of Climate Change. I’m signing on. Peterj? And what about you MacNair?
Have climate scientists (or even Al Gore or David Suzuki) said that winter will never happen again?
I’m not saying that the global warming/climate change “alarmists” or “deniers” are right or wrong. But I’d be more convinced by people who can/do point to more “global” evidence. It’s more convincing to say that the entire globe is warming or cooling over a significant period of time (whatever that is… years, decades, centuries).
To say “it’s cold at this place at this one point in time–which happens to be December in the Northern Hemisphere–is less-than-convincing.
anon: the premise has been that there will be no more winters. This winter has been interesting for me. Vancouver (where I live) had snow in NOVEMBER. That never happens. I’m currently sitting in Frankfurt on standby because my original flight to London-Heathrow was cancelled because Heathrow is shut down due to the snow.
I’m just wondering what the global warming panickers will have to say about this.
But record cold temps, as are happening in England currently, cannot be just written off because it is winter in the northern hemisphere either.
That’s the problem with computer models. Garbage in means garbage out. Mother nature rules…and sometimes she has a sick sense of humor. Al gore has made his millions on the backs of the gullible and Suzuki should stick to his expertise, which is fruit flies. Climate has and will always change. Cleaning up pollution may be a noble and worthy cause. Everything outside that catagory is just bullshit. As I am freezing my nuts off and my heating bill is going through the roof I am praying for some global warming and am thinking of buying a Hummer just in case I can help. In Canada I can not see a downside to Global warming. Perhaps one of these foam at the mouth, granola crunching tree huggers can point out the disadvantage of having a longer growing season. I also accept donations for carbon offsets as I have a burning barrel in my back yard and my neighbor has two. I’m in the same situation as 3rd world countries.Send lots of money. Save the planet. In return I will send you a nice drawing of a hockey stick graph sure to send chills down your spine. Biodegradable paper of course.
What I find funny is the idea that we can actually change the weather by some form of magic thinking by throwing money at the problem and even more so when the money is a redistribution of wealth scheme that at best might cool the temperature by 1 or 2 degrees. At best and most likely have no effect on the quantities of carbon in the atmosphere but just change who is putting it out there by buying carbon credits !?
What is that all about !? The Chicago Carbon Exchange I think has closed down and the European counties who strongly bought into this scheme have experienced massive fraud in application of the carbon trading: Very much like buying ” indulgences ” from the Catholic Church to be able to spend less time in purgatory after one dies ! And just as real and effective LOL.
Now all the above is true even if we accept the truth and accuracy of the Global Warming theory: So useless and disastrous spending on a non-solution to a probably non-existent problem or one beyond our capabilities to affect the temperature changes should they occur for any reason(s).
If anything should be done it should be in adapting to any temperature changes as they actually occur ? if anything can be done by humans we had better get it right since a technical fix to warming could precipitate an Ice Age if the predicted warming turns out to be a natural cyclic cooling: Something like seeding the upper atmosphere with reflective particles to cool the Earth: Might work but might work much much too well as the Earth turns into a solid ice ball because we made a mistake by not really understanding how the atmosphere works as much as we believe.
i’m guessin it’s about time to stop all the co2 bs.
[...] Global Warming Paralyzes Europe [...]
This is what annoys me as well. Even if we accepted the theory, how many trillions of dollars, how much misery and suffering would we have to endure for naught? What if global warming was irreversible even if we suddenly became extinct?
I wrote more about this before:
http://unambig.com/the-global-warming-risk-assessment-table/
Remember all the hype over Peak-Oil and the up coming crisis. Prior to Howard Hughes inventing the Diamond shaped drill head to bore through rock, we were told that Oil came from dead Dinosaurs in the evolution stratas of Earth.
But today we have the Alberta tar-sands at ground level and then we just had the Deep sea Oil rig in the Gulf resting atop of 5000 feet of water and then Drilled down over 20’000 feet into the Gulf bed and hit Oil. Signs of Human habitats have been found below the old theory layer for Dinosaurs, plus Scientists agree that there could not have been enough of them to create all that Oil and the Abiotic Theory makes sense that the heat inside the Earth brews up the Oil that rises to the surface.
Today, the big crisis had to be the new Global-Warming since the Ice-Age scare was a flop. But since Humans and animals have a better chance of survival in warm climates to have fresh Liquid-water and soft natural foods
Street Hockey all years round, water skiing in Toronto’s harbour in January, no more road salt, fewer heating bills , and less winter deaths and car accidents.
So where’s the downside Mr.Gore ?
Not sure why the EDIT feature skip text by itself, but here’s my comment that wasn’t correct.
Today, the big crisis had to be the new Global-Warming since the Ice-Age scare was a flop. But since Humans and animals have a better chance of survival in warm climates to have fresh Liquid-water and soft natural foods it would be a blessing to adapt to new housing to deal with the heat and create new industries to work around the hot climates.
What the hell do the Nations do today that are at the Equator and don’t get snow or have to extract fresh water from the air of salt water?
Canadians line-up to catch a Flight to hot climates for vacations and lets ask them how Canada would look if we never had a winter with snow.
hey Mcnair …how long do u spend on the internet a day?
Not very long. I don’t have much time these days.
Why?
It’s snowing in Australia, does that count?
anon1152:
“To say “it’s cold at this place at this one point in time–which happens to be December in the Northern Hemisphere–is less-than-convincing.”
Not less-than-convincing, just completely irrelevant.
Don from BC:
“Vancouver (where I live) had snow in NOVEMBER. That never happens.”
While it may seem a little unusual, it’s not that uncommon if you look at the DATA. On Nov 19/1973 Vancouver had over 20cm. On average, Vancouver gets about one snowy day a year, whereas December has about 3 days.
http://climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html
peterj says: “In Canada I cannot see a downside to Global warming.”
I work in the forest industry and all I can say is you can’t be looking very hard. Have you not heard of the mountain pine beetle for example? About 13 million hectares and counting as I recall.
Yes, but Adrian what if it IS happening, and IS “reversible” as you put it. You haven’t addressed that possibility in your simple model.
On average, Vancouver gets about one snowy day *during the month of November* whereas December has about 3 days *on average*
If it was’nt the pine beetle it would be something else. It too will run its course. Everything in life has a trade off and it will always be a challange to adapt.Warm climates have their own challanges and no one is talking nirvana here but I will stick to my statement on not seeing a downside.
peterj, i think you’re being intellectually lazy and haven’t provided any arguments or evidence to support your statement that “In Canada I cannot see a downside to Global warming”.
In BC, the science tells us that:
* Many regions and sectors will experience increasing water shortages.
* Increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather and related natural hazards that will impact BC’s infrastructure.
* Forests, the forest industry and forestry-dependent communities are vulnerable to increasing climate-related risks, including pest infestations and forest fires.
* Climate change will exacerbate existing stresses on BC’s fisheries.
* Agricultural sector faces both positive and negative productivity impacts.
IPCC report: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html
NRCAN report: http://adaptation.nrcan.gc.ca/assess/2007/index_e.php
Let’s take your points one at a time.
The science tells us…..
The science has been wrong too often as there are two opposing camps filled with experts who can not agree on much and conveniently leave out sun activity and the fact that climate has always changed. Funding stops when all is good.
Many regions……..
And that is new???. There is no shortage of water as canada has more than one third of the worlds fresh water supply. Treated water is the problem due to urban population growth.
Increasing frequency…….
Guess work and no proof of any kind that it manmade.
Forests, the forest industy……..
See above. Also, a mere hundred years ago no one fought forest fires unless it threatened a community. It always burned itself out eventually. Pest infections have always been cyclical. There was a pine beetle infection in the 30 s that eventually died out. Plant Spruce.
Climate change will exacerbate……
No it wont, but overfishing certainly has.
Agriculture sector……
Agree, but far more positive than negative. I can hardly wait to grow my first orange or banana. Oh..but wait, we are only talking one or two degrees warmer over the next century.
Oh yea, while I’m at it, here are the experts not too llong ago.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
It certainly adds to the convincingness of the argument. Especially if it’s not “supposed” to be snowing in Australia. (It is their summertime right now, isn’t it?)
I wasn’t suggesting they should be “written off”. I was saying that evidence taking into account more places (and a longer period of time) would be more convincing.
“the premise has been that there will be no more winters.”
I thought that was more of a conclusion than a premise. But whatever. What about claims that global warming could cause an ice age of some sort?
I remember being told about this possibility in a University class 10 or more years ago. Day after Tomorrow stuff (without the sensationalism) though the movie wouldn’t come out till years later.
here’s a story from 5 years agoand another one from 2003 on the same topic.
More recent research has suggested that “global warming” could lead to harsh winters in Europe.
More comprehensive info is here. I like the realclimate.org website, though I assume that you don’t/won’t.
This is funny rather amusing.
“The science tells us…..”
“Many regions……..”
“Increasing frequency…….”
“Forests, the forest industry……..”
“Climate change will exacerbate……”
“Agriculture sector……”
He’s taking Ian’s “points, one at a time”, but completely ignoring the substance of those points. The elisions make this tactic even more clear.
“The elisions make this tactic even more clear.”
Elisions ?? What substance to Ian’s points?? This is a opinion forum and Ian and I were simply expressing different opinions. The difference is in the degree we have been brainwashed. Much like you , Ian believes in what he states. You may both be right and only time will tell. What I do know is that we are the second largest country in the world with one of the smallest populations. On a world scale we contribute approx. one percent of the contributing factors considered to change climate IF the global warming crowd is correct, and that is a very big if. For that one percent we are expected to make many sacrifices that I find totally illogical. When people like Al Gore /Susuki walk the walk instead of just talking the talk, perhaps I could gain a bit of respect. Until then I will remain cool-aid free, with the full understanding that opinions are like assholes…everybody’s got one. Really would’nt want it any other way.
“Much like you , Ian believes in what he states.”
Paradoxically, this statement makes me respect both you and Ian a little bit more.
Thank you anon1152.I respect all other opinions because they usually come from the heart. That does not mean I agree with them or would expect others to agree with me. As in “Xfiles”…the truth is out there and these forums allow us to put out our own “truths” as we see them.
Hope both you and Ian have a wonderful Christmas.
peterj: “Let’s take your points one at a time.”
>> Firstly how about addressing my first point – you still haven’t provided any evidence to support your statement that “In Canada I cannot see a downside to Global warming”. Most of what you’ve written is uninformed rubbish. A few specific areas:
peterj: “the science has been wrong too often”
>> so if you’re not going with the scientific consensus, what are you using to “inform” your opinion on GW? Fortune telling? WAG? Noted climatologist Glen Beck?
peterj: “there are two opposing camps filled with experts who can not agree on much and conveniently leave out sun activity and the fact that climate has always changed”.
>> You don’t understand the scientific method nor how the IPCC process works. Stop being lazy – read the links that I sent you. The idea that there are 2 opposing camps is a myth,
peterj: “Funding stops when all is good.”
What are you suggesting?. Have you ever looked into who is funding the climate change denial machine? Again you are simply being lazy.
peterj: “There is no shortage of water as canada has more than one third of the worlds fresh water supply”.
>> The myth of abundance is one of our greatest threats. We possess about 7% of the worlds *renewable* water. In Canada, ~85% of the population lives in a narrow southern band, while 60% of our water supply flows north to the Arctic Circle. There are already many areas in Canada with critical water issues (eg, BC’s southern interior). With climate change, the resource and communities will be increasingly at risk. Read the BC water strategy http://www.livingwatersmart.ca
peterj: “Treated water is the problem due to urban population growth.”
>> No, your copmment demonstrates a profound ignorance. it’s not just about drinking water. It’s about environment, community and economic security. For example climate change is going to impact the amount and timing of precipitation which will impact hydro-electric resources. Read BC Hydro’s strategic plan. It’s going to affect the water available for agriculture and industrial processes. Read Alberta’s Water for Life action plan (http://www.waterforlife.alberta.ca/) or BC’s Living Water Smart plan(www.livingwatersmart.ca).
Peterj: “Increasing frequency…….
Guess work and no proof of any kind that it manmade.”
>> I provided the IPCC report as a reference. You’ve provided nothing to support your statement.
Peterj: “Pest infections have always been cyclical. There was a pine beetle infection in the 30 s that eventually died out. Plant Spruce.”
>> your point being??
Peterj: “Oh..but wait, we are only talking one or two degrees warmer over the next century.”
>> Published estimates suggest the AVERAGE surface temperature of the Earth is likely to increase by 1.1-6.4°C by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980-1990, with a best estimate of 1.8-4.0°C. Warming will not be evenly distributed around the globe. High latitudes will warm more than low latitudes. Land areas will warm more than oceans in part due to water’s ability to store heat (IPCC 2007.)
You are confusing individual weather events with the observed trends and projections made by the scientific community. If you’re interested in what the UK data says, it’s readily available from the UK Climate Impacts Programme: http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/229/500/
BTW, the most interesting quote in your media story is:
“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.”
Other than being off by a few years, he’s right on the mark.
Gary says: plus Scientists agree that there could not have been enough of them to create all that Oil and the Abiotic Theory makes sense that the heat inside the Earth brews up the Oil that rises to the surface.
>> What a bunch of rubbish. Stop being so lazy and pick up a basic geology textbook. The accepted theory is that petroleum is derived from ancient fossilized organic material, largely zooplankton and algae. The abiogenic hypothesis introduced in the 1950s has little support within the geology and scientific community. Regardless it’s irrelevant to the discussion of Peak Oil. Petroleum production is greater than new reserves are being discovered, so do the math.
I’d also point out that what matters is not how much oil (or oil sands, or oil shale, or coal, or natural gas) is in the ground, but how much energy it takes to get to it. The energy return on investment in Albertan oil sands is far far lower than it is in the Saudi Arabian desert. At some point it will take more energy to get this precious energy source than we will gain from the energy source itself.*
*I’m relying on information from Thomas Homer-Dixon’s book: “The Upside of Down”.
He had an interesting piece in the Globe and Mail today.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/and-now-the-weather-nasty-and-brutish/article1853702/
Some people in the comments section for that article call him an alarmist. The book title suggests optimism.
Good point anon1152. The Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) concept is an important consideration…i.e., there is lots of petroleum still untapped but we’ve extracted much of the easier, less energy intensive stuff. The return on energy invested is declining because it is getting harder to find and extract that next increment of fossil fuel. Also useful to think of EROEI when considering alternatives like wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, etc.
Homer-Dixon is a respected authority and a good communicator – I liked his book. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies paints a similar picture to the Globe and Mail story and also addresses the recent cold weather in Northern Europe:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010november/
Much of the time the standard “he’s an alarmist” response is a lazy way of attacking a person’s credibility — works well as a media sound bite but often comes with no substantiative counter argument.
peterj: If you indeed think you are being brainwashed, what are you going to do about it?
I challenge all of us to make a New Year’s resolution that we will better inform ourselves about the science and implications of Climate Change. I’m signing on. Peterj? And what about you MacNair?