1937 - Canada's hottest day on record; temperatures reach 45.0C (114F) in Midale and Yellow Grass, both in southern Saskatchewan. *
And still the dust blew.On June 24 it blew with such fury that it forced the Moose Jaw fair to cancel its horse races and shut down. The force of the storms blowing across southern Saskatchewan was felt as far east as Winnipeg, where once again a dust haze obscured the sun.
Highways became so drifted with dust as to be impassable. South of Moose Jaw the blowing alkali from dried-up Johnstone Lake coated the countryside a dirty white and drove everybody indoors. Sixty miles to the south, near the town of Rockglen, Fife Lake, which had once been thirty-five miles long, dried up completely. Far to the east in the Oxbow area, the Lake of the Rivers went dry and in the process a great mass of prehistoric buffalo bones was uncovered. The farmers of the area lived that year on the returns they got from the fertilizer plants for the carloads of bones them managed to harvest. Near Arcola, the trains were dealyed by the myriads of grasshoppers that lit on the rails and were ground to grease.
The Saskatchewan crop was destroyed by the fourth week of June. Then the heat got worse. At the end of June, 100-degree temperatures were common everywhere and the areas as far north as Prince Albert got a bitter taste of what Regina and Moose Jaw had experienced in 1936. The peak came on July 5 when it touched 110 degrees at Regina, Moose Jaw, and a dozen other southern comminities. For the rest of the summer ninety-degree heat was the rule, for the hot weather extended well into August, and the records established all over on August 23, when it went well over the 100-degree mark again.
There had been hotter Junes than 1937, hotter Julys, and hotter Augusts, but taken together there had never been a longer and hotter summer. - James H. Gray - The Winter Years
I do recall at temp of 42 degrees C in Saskatoon in the late 1980s. Now that was hot (and windy). Sort like a slow roast in a convection oven.
BTW, the Wikipedia link provides just about everything there is to know about Yellow Grass! I particularly love the town map. Pretty hard to get lost there.
While pheasant hunting the SE corner of Alberta we came upon remnants of the dust bowl. Remains of pioneer homes vacated still with personal and household effects left intact (such as a old fort T truck in the front)...people working that dryland farm were just so devistated by the drought they left everything and literally walked away from it with the cloths on their back.
My parents lived through the dirty 30s. The one thing I remember them saying is that they had to turn the plates upside down on the table to prevent them from getting dusty. They were the lucky ones and survived it, but the scares left on the rest of the family......
Can you imagine the outcries that we would hear today, with such a situation? It would all be due to the 'Sin of Industrial Man'.
A few years ago in August of 2003, people were dying in the thousands in France, one of its hottest summers - while Chirac vacationed in Quebec's Eastern Townships with an ambulance sitting by 24 hours in case he should need it. Now, temperatures in Europe and N. America so far are cooler; they are in the high teens and low twenties. No-one says a word.
The weather isn't a simple mechanical system; it's complex and we can neither predict nor control it with any ease.
Lot of wilde ancestors around yellow grass, so I like the place. Could you send your entry to david slizuki so he can comment or maybe even that gorey fellow. Would be a bit of fun to hear what ski and gorey would say.
On the serious side for those who havn't been in a real dust storm it can be frightening. Roads are closed and it's damn hard to see and breath.
Or of those who fled the dust bowl their cars were vertuialy sandblasted of the paint
Now, temperatures in Europe and N. America so far are cooler; they are in the high teens and low twenties. No-one says a word.
huh? did you miss the whole heat wave in greece? over 125 degrees in vegas lately.... half of texas under flood warnings... record flooding in england?
it's about more than the temperature. it's called climate change. wild and weird weather...everywhere.
keep your head in the sand. we'll boot you in the ass when we need you.
That's right, Jeff. Because when we point out that weather isn't so weird, we're told that one can't rely on local weather for signs of climate change... but when an untypical system blows in, we're told that for evidence of global warming to "just look out your window".
The Kyoto Kult is so transparent, it's painful.
Jeff, we've been having October weather in New England.
Stupid global warming. It's getting so bad that now it's affecting temperatures in other decades.
we point out that weather isn't so weird
you honestly think that by pointing out other extremes in weather from decades ago disproves the science being offered as evidence of climate change?
like most of us, i'm not an expert, just a citizen of the big blue ball. my motives are pretty honest. i want to leave the place a little better than i found it.
i've read enough about the topic to know that the science that supports climate change is far more available than the science that opposes it. the science that refutes climate change tends to circle a pretty specialized group of individuals, i've noticed.
some argue that the kyoto cult, as you call it, is all about separating people from their money for no good reason. that's a tough one to swallow.
who, exactly, is profiting from climate change besides big oil? it sure ain't greenpeace.
as for the weather, it sure seems alot weirder and wackier to me these days.
btw, what, exactly, defines local weather. it seems a very loosey goosey term to me.
Jeff, you must be a young fellow. Us oldsters have been around long enough to smell a scam when we see one. As far as the weather is concerned, I've seen better and I've seen worse in terms of temperature, precipitation, wind velocity, sea levels etc. Nothing weird or wacky about it.
Furthermore, your reference to Big Oil belies a certain political bent that has nothing to do with climate.
IPCC Predictions, NOT !!
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
Predictions of climate
Posted by Oliver Morton on behalf of Kevin E. Trenberth
I have often seen references to predictions of future climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), presumably through the IPCC assessments (the various chapters in the recently completedWorking Group I Fourth Assessment report ican be accessed through this listing). In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.
In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.
Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.
The current projection method works to the extent it does because it utilizes differences from one time to another and the main model bias and systematic errors are thereby subtracted out. This assumes linearity. It works for global forced variations, but it can not work for many aspects of climate, especially those related to the water cycle. For instance, if the current state is one of drought then it is unlikely to get drier, but unrealistic model states and model biases can easily violate such constraints and project drier conditions. Of course one can initialize a climate model, but a biased model will immediately drift back to the model climate and the predicted trends will then be wrong. Therefore the problem of overcoming this shortcoming, and facing up to initializing climate models means not only obtaining sufficient reliable observations of all aspects of the climate system, but also overcoming model biases. So this is a major challenge.
The IPCC report makes it clear that there is a substantial future commitment to further climate change even if we could stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. And the commitment is even greater given that the best we can realistically hope for in the near term is to perhaps stabilize emissions, which means increases in concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases indefinitely into the future. Thus future climate change is guaranteed.
So if the science is settled, then what are we planning for and adapting to? A consensus has emerged that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” to quote the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Working Group I Summary for Policy Makers (pdf) and the science is convincing that humans are the cause. Hence mitigation of the problem: stopping or slowing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere is essential. The science is clear in this respect.
However, the science is not done because we do not have reliable or regional predictions of climate. But we need them. Indeed it is an imperative! So the science is just beginning. Beginning, that is, to face up to the challenge of building a climate information system that tracks the current climate and the agents of change, that initializes models and makes predictions, and that provides useful climate information on many time scales regionally and tailored to many sectoral needs.
We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?
Kevin Trenberth
Climate Analysis Section, NCAR
you can sometime find the old fence lines in Southern Alberta , the wire would hold the weeds and the dust would fill up and they are left as ridges in the landscape.
just a question, does Al Gore III offset both his Prias and his smoke habit with Carbon Credits.
Wow -- never heard of that -- wasn't in the US history books -- must have been terrible...Orlin
"you honestly think that by pointing out other extremes in weather from decades ago disproves the science being offered as evidence of climate change?"
I think the rationale for Kate pointing this out is that using localized data is specious reasoning or perhaps reasoning being used to arrive at a predetermined conclusion. For example, using weather records from 1970 to 2004 as proof of global warming.
"i've read enough about the topic to know that the science that supports climate change is far more available than the science that opposes it. the science that refutes climate change tends to circle a pretty specialized group of individuals, i've noticed."
I am not certain that there is a whole lot of argument about climate change. Climate change is a fact of life on this big blue ball. What is at stake in the argument is whether anthropogenic sources are the root of the climate change or if it is that big yellow ball in the sky. This ties into the Kyoto argument, which I won't go into here. Suffice to say, I don't wish to pay taxes to China, India or other third world countries simply as a guilt tax. I don't think you wish to either.
"who, exactly, is profiting from climate change besides big oil? it sure ain't greenpeace."
I think this has been discussed to death. David Suzuki? Al Gore? Yeah, they aren't making ANY money off this fear factor. I fail to see how big oil is profiting off "climate change", but perhaps I missed your point. (Maybe cause we need heat in the winter - and we use natural gas....?)
The weather may seem wackier to you Jeff, but I also remember wacky weather as a kid. Snowstorms in July, huge hail storms, and yes, even the occasional tornado. They never got that much press in the 60's and 70's. They sure do today.
There is not one person who does not want to leave the planet better than when they arrived on it. However, should we subject our children to a lower standard of living to supplant the use of hydrocarbons? Perhaps we should keep the same standard of living but increase taxes so that our children can pay to assuage their collective guilt? Or, we could go back to coal, no wait that won't work, umm, nuclear, no, thats out...how about hydroelectric? That'll work well in the mountainous areas, but we need hydrocarbons to build it (vehicles, etc). Thats bad.
See, it just ain't that easy as to blame big oil.
The 'Dust Bowl" of the thirties was a horror.
Was hotter then. And drier, for sure.
The dust came from unprotected fields. Back then farmers had to control weeds by cultivating.
Selective herbicides have allowed farmers to leave standing stubble after harvest to protect the soil.
It is called 'Zero Till'.
Suzuki is against chemicals ----- even though we are living longer and healthier lives because of our abundant and safe food supply.
Zero Till also provides a 'moisture conservation' blanket, reducing the 'dust bowl' problem.
Suzuki is against modern farming practices. Thinks Cuban farmers are better than Canadian farmers.
Zero Till is a great Canadian success story. Suzuki is against that.
I personaly know one of the founders of Zero Till; Gordon McPhee, Dauphin MB. Knows more than 10 Suzukis :)
jeff - a few facts might be of interest to you.
First, scientists who disprove of AGW as the cause of climate change, are not few in number or connected to 'oil industries'. A lot of the 'science' of AGW isn't science at all; it's speculation.
I don't think that the Kyoto Cult is about 'separating people from their money'; I think it's a utopian emotionalism - a psychological phenomenom that sweeps through emotional idealists of the apocalyptic trend, who think that 'ahah! Now we've found the cause of our ills'...and think that by controlling X, we can also control Y and prevent the apocalypse.
How is 'big oil' profiting from climate change? That's puzzling to me. Is it the need for more airconditioners?
You might find websites such as
triple w dot friends of science dot org
of use. It lists other sites.
And, there's real climate dot org.
The earth is not an isolate blip in space; it's networked with other planets and its only source of energy - the sun. The sun is the major cause of climate change - and no-one denies that climate change is a reality.
To claim that humans can control the climate is quite an arrogant assertion. What can be controlled is pollution; that's not climate change, but, we don't see much emotional hysteria devoted to controlling pollution, do we? Why not?
rattfuc,
young fellow is a relative term, just like local weather.
with all due respect.i'm 40 and old enough to demand more than the reassurances of "oldsters" like you that everything is just fine.
Yep, and I am hoping and a praying the rain continues down here in Louisiana, b/c when it stops the temps will hit 100 in 24 hours.
I have longed argued for Global Cycle caused by Mother Nature, not Global Warming caused by man. But, hey, the Libs won't make any money if it ain't caused by man, especially the greedy corporate white man.
But, you know, I have always wondered why no mention from the MSM of De-Forestation as a possible catalyst for our present Global Cycle. I mean, Jesus, I have seen 30,000 acres of 100 - 150 year old Hardwood cut from local Game Reserves, only to be replace by the Lob-lolly Pine Tree that is harvestable in 25 years. Not to mention, that Pine in no way shape or form creates as much shade as the Oaks did, nor does it help retain the moisture in the ground, nor nor, does it produce the nuts needed by the turkeys, squirrels and deer. It's a no-win no-win situation at best. And, that is just in my lil corner of the world, throw in the De-forestation of Africa, S. America, Russia and China and Mother Nature is gona have to step up the rains to grow the world's vegetation back so our lil 3rd rock from the sun can get back to normalization, or at least something close to it.
Oh yea, on another note; Grandma said I would make a fine Canadian-American seeing as how I am half French-Coonass, part Louisiana Blackfoot thrown in with a good mix of Southern Redneck, ;-)
Not sure about the Eh, tho ? But, we do use terms like ya'll, yaonto, ribac and get out a town.
,
ET: The Friends of Science list the Oregon Petition project as an informative website. I would dearly love to discuss the creditability of that petition but I can find no one who is prepared to defend it. In that light I find it hard to take Friends of Science seriously.
John
For a person of 40 years Jeff you have a very narrow and closed minded. Have you actually taken the time to even watch "both" Inconvirenient Truth and The Great Climate Change Swindle. If so why would you take the word of a "burned out" US VP and a Fruit fly guy over that of real "certified " climatoligists?
john cross - I find it very odd that no-one will defend the oregon petition; after all, its conclusion is that climate change is due to fluctuations in solar activity. That's hardly a novel or untenable analysis and is an accepted factor in analyzing planetary climates.
You can also find a list of scientists opposing global warming on wikipedia.
And Lawrence Solomon did a series called The Deniers in the National Post in Nov-Dec of 2006. There's lots of data-based analyses rejecting AGW.
Jeff, Ratt,
If you want to make the world a better place through protection of habitat, preserving species and old-growth forests, by reducing and eliminating dangerous chemicals and effluents, by reducing packaging and waste, by stopping over-fishing (by everyone,) by putting muscle into the ban on whaling by Japan and Norway, by planting trees and setting aside land to nature, I'm in.
If you want to make the world a better place by sending money to China and Russia while reducing plant food (CO2) instead of pollution and making our children poor, I'm out.
As for leaving the planet better, what do you think the air was like in London England in 1750 vs 2007? In the early 1800's (I believe it was 1811 or 1812,) when the industrial revolution was in full swing and homes were heated with charcoal, hundreds suffocated in their homes when a worse-than-usual fog made the air stagnant.
The environment in the western world has been steadily improving by all measures except CO2 for decades. The average car build in 1985 produced 25 TIMES more carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide than the average car made in 2007 despite the increase in SUV's, minivans and small trucks. The old communist industry has been largely shut down and cleaned up.
I remember the Toronto shore of lake Ontario as a kid. We obviously didn't swim in it but while walking along the beach, there was literally millions of dead fish which had all kinds of tumours and growths on them. The great lakes were on their way to being dead lakes. That has changed. The lakes are making a comeback.
In Cincinnati in the 1970's, the river actually caught fire it was so polluted. Now it has been cleaned up. Not perfectly, but one hell of a lot better than it was.
There is one reason and one reason only why the enviroscammers have focused on CO2: it's the one gas that can only be reduced by economic pain and it's the only one which has increased in the past few decades as scrubbers and other anti-pollution measures have cleaned up the other gasses and chemicals from the environment.
These guys have no delusions about a pre-industrial bamby-in-the-bucolic-field notion of climate.
They describe the climate system as intrinsically non-linear and chaotic.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/504.htm
ET: There is no question that the sun is the main source of energy for the earth's climate. The issue is that we have seen no increase in sola output for the last 25 years
One interesting thing about the Oregon petition is that the document it is based on goes out of its way to claim that the satellite record of earth's temperature are so much more accurate than the surface record. Of course that was when the record showed cooling. Now that it shows warming the same as the surface record do you think it would affect the conclusions?
John
Agreed, warwick - the real and important focus should be on pollution. But, it doesn't attract the same kind of apocalyptic hysteria as 'global warming by humans (AGW)' does. Why not?
Is it because the Kyoto Cult is really an emotional cover for a huge financial scam? How does the scam operate?
You define the industrial nations as 'Sinners' because they are industrial, are wealthy, are productive - these are always magnets of hatred for the leftists.
You then insist on Guilt Money to 'atone' for your sins. This money is sent to the non-industrial nations. Not as a loan; as payment for Having Sinned.
The non-industrial nations are 'supposed' to use that money to develop their own industries in non-carbon-emitting ways. Hah. These non-industrial nations are EXEMPT from the Kyoto protocols. They can do whatever they want.
It's a UN scam. Just like the Oil-For-Fraud scam which was ONE of the most recent UN scams.
So, the industrial nations will 'pay for the sin of being industrial' by sending guilt money to the newly industrializing nations. Who will use it to build CHEAP, POLLUTING, EMITTING factors. Just as China is doing. China has now surpassed the US in emitting CO2. As for pollutions - there's no-one to equal China - in the air, and in its manufactured products.
So-jeff, the Kyoto Cult is an emotional guilt-trip, meant to trap the intellectually naive and emotionally vulnerable (to guilt) to hand over billions of dollars to the third world.
It won't do a thing about CO2 emissions. In fact, what it will do, is increase both the CO2 emissions and pollution.
Gotta love the UN, eh?
Warwick:
"There is one reason and one reason only why the enviroscammers have focused on CO2: it's the one gas that can only be reduced by economic pain"
Apart from the fact it absorbs IR radiation of course.
John
[ The year 1936 brought significant amounts of extreme weather. The winter was one of the coldest on record, and the summer was one of the hottest.] Wikipedia.
It is called averaging, heat balance and all that.
Our Earth is balanced --- Gore and Suzuki are UNbalanced --- United Nations UNbalanced :)
Rule of thumb:
I'm opposed to whatever the UN is doing unless I can be convinced that they made a mistake and they're actually doing some good. Aside from that, they're a bad influence on everything with the exception of UNICEF and WHO and even they could use a tune up.
The EU has never had a good idea. They have had many bad ones.
NATO would function better without the continental EU. Sure, it would reduce us to UK, Canada and the US but we'd be better off that way. We could then change the name to add Australia.
If an idea originates from France or Germandy, it must be wrong.
Warwick: I would say that the IMO is a real success of the UN.
John,
"Apart from the fact it absorbs IR radiation of course."
You mean as opposed to sulphur, carbon monoxide, water vapour and all the other GHG's not mentioned by Kyoto? All of these other GHG's have a much, much greater GHG effect than CO2 even if the models are 100% correct.
In the case of sulphur, the effect is estimated at 20 times CO2 if my memory serves. Carbon monoxide is similar. Water Vapour is the largest contributor to climate change aside from the sun.
So why co2 and not the others? There is no logical explanation other than to increase government, redistribute income and create carbon barons (like Gore,) who will profit as the funds are exchanged.
If actual results were important, Kyoto would look very different. This is an economic, not environmental program. Kyoto is a fraud whether you believe in climate change or not. If you believe in climate change and want results, one would think that you'd be more upset with Gore, Suzuki and the UN than the rest of us for manipulating the issue to profit themselves and their clients in the 3rd world instead of doing something to solve the problem.
Kyoto would do zero for the environment even if the computer models have been programed with absolute presision and the data set measured without any error.
Kyoto is all pain and no gain unless you're one of the mandarin elites who, as always, look out for themselves first.
"So, the industrial nations will 'pay for the sin of being industrial' by sending guilt money to the newly industrializing nations. Who will use it to build CHEAP, POLLUTING, EMITTING factors. Just as China is doing. China has now surpassed the US in emitting CO2. As for pollutions - there's no-one to equal China - in the air, and in its manufactured products."
Also, don't forget Mr Kyoto himself, Mo Strong is instrumental in firing up coal fired plants in China! Environmentalist my arse!
I'm Canadian, and I Support Global Warming.
When Al Gore or someone equally moronic thinks we can control the sun, then we'll be able to control global warming; otherwise, bring on the sunshine 'cause I've been freezing my ass off all bloody winter.
"you honestly think that by pointing out other extremes in weather from decades ago disproves the science being offered as evidence of climate change?"
"the science that refutes climate change tends to circle a pretty specialized group of individuals, i've noticed."
[Posted by: jeff at July 5, 2007 11:13 AM]
Disproves climate change? No. Climate has ALWAYS been changing.
Disproves most of the claims of AGW? Yes.
"... specialized group of individuals, i've noticed." Bull s**t! You obviously don't notice things very well or you would have noticed the diversity of those who question the basic facts put forth for AGW. Can you perhaps give some cites that prove your contention?
"with all due respect.i'm 40 and old enough to demand more than the reassurances of "oldsters" like you that everything is just fine."
[Posted by: jeff at July 5, 2007 11:48 AM]
Well Jeff, with all due respect in return, I'm 65+ and I have been sticking my nose into the stratigraphic sections of this earth for a time that spans longer than you have been alive.
Those rocks tell a tale of climate that has been in constant flux for over 4 billion years. The climate in the past has had periods that have been wilder than now, but there has also been periods that were calmer than now. The climate has changed at far faster and more extreme rates than those being experienced now, both warmer trends and colder trends.
For the AGW proponents to claim that the warming trend being experienced now is at a faster rate than ever seen before on earth they are either poorly informed in the extreme, or are lying.
Climate on this earth has ALWAYS changed. Climate on this earth will ALWAYS continue to change. That is CLIMATE CHANGE. It started doing that a very long time ago. Even this *oldster* understands that.
1950-Strontium 90 in milk will poison children- It didn't.
1950-60 Overpopulation of the world will cause global food shortages- It hasn't.
1960- The use of pesticides and herbicides will destroy the earth- It didn't.
1960- Consumption of Saccharin will cause cancer-It doesn't.
1970- Global cooling will destroy the planet- Didn't happen.
2000- Y2K will cause life as we know it to be unalterably changed- Didn't happen.
I could go on but...
The recurring theme in all these predictions is that mankind had a hand in them. None were attributed to natural phenomena, ergo Man is destroying himself through greed and whatever else one can come up with.
Now, ask me why I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming and the universal guilt trip the Gores and Suzukis are laying on us.
My father-in-law told me a lot of farmers took the government’s agricultural advice during the thirties. The government recommend that they harrow? their summer fallow field to keep a ½ inch dust mulch on the soil to conserve moisture. This worked well to cut off the capillary action that wicked water from the soil to the surface. But when the wind blew the soil ended up in drifts along the fence lines. It’s still there to this day.
So much for “Were from the government and we’re here to help you.”
Now his son does Zero Till and the top soil is thicker now than when the land was first broke in 1916.
Pockets: "Stupid global warming. It's getting so bad that now it's affecting temperatures in other decades."
Ha! Good one!
Warwick: CO is a diatomic molecule so it is a very minor GHG. Add in the fact that atmospheric levels range from about 10 to 200 ppb it is negligible compared to CO2.
Regards
John
I haven't had a chance to read all comments,maybe someone has clarified for jeff:
yes, we see climate change(it has never been constant!),we just don't agree that it is anthropogenic(man made)
Warwick...follow the money in UNICEF...I believe you would add that to your list of UN incompetence and corruption.
I'd strongly recommend a visit to climateaudit.org for anyone who is not yet aware of this site. There are many seriously intelligent scientific minds who contribute to this site, and it is evident that they are committed to learning the truth about AGW, whatever that may be. It also seems to me that the contributors come from a wide range of scientific backgrounds, and they are not simply a small select group. They have uncovered huge discrepancies in the work put forward as evidence by the IPCC, work which is in many cases not properly backed up with data, or the authors of the papers are not willing to release the data they used, or in some cases it seems that data has actually been altered to fit a preconceived idea of what the findings should be. I am not sure what this is, but I would suggest that it is not science. There is also a lot of concern about the "urban heat island" effect, and there seems to be a lot of secrecy involved in where these actual temperature measuring stations are located.
I have heard from another source (forgot where, unfortunately) that if the Kyoto protocol were under discussion today, it would never be passed. Why? Because the SCIENCE continues to improve, and things that were thought to be true in the early 1990's have since been disproved. Proponents of AGW seem to have trouble explaining why there has been no further warming, on a global scale, since 1998 (I guess somewhere in there the term was changed from global warming to climate change, so that took care of that); why it is actually getting cooler in the southern hemisphere (again, climate change, how convenient); also the role of the sun is becoming much better understood - and I've never heard an AGW proponent adequately explain the increased temperature noted on other planets, and why that has no bearing on what happens on earth.
As a citizen of planet earth, and someone who in her younger days used to consider herself quite an environmentalist, nothing bothers me more than to hear comments from AGW proponents that indicate they believe that if you have any doubts, it means you don't love the planet, you have to be in the pay of big oil, whatever. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. I think most people who question the dogma seem to have far more enquiring minds than those who swallow the story whole. I live in the country, so like to consider myself a steward of the land (at least my little bit of the land) also have post-secondary scientific training, so like to think that some proof should be offered when such an all-encompassing theory is being put forward to demand huge changes in absolutely every aspect of the way we live our lives. It seems the only rejoinder that people have, if you don't completely "buy in", is that you must have been somehow corrupted by big oil. Another favorite phrase is "that has been debunked". It is complete nonsense.
In a way, I would like to be able to believe in AGW, because if I absolutely believed that correlation equals causation, then I could believe that we humans might have the power to do something positive to change the climate. I don't believe that, and the bottom line for me is that I've read the doubters, and I've read the other side (Suzuki, Gore, etc) and in my opinion, the doubters have a more believable case. I think we need to work on what we can fix (air, water pollution, etc) adapt to what we are powerless to change (climate) and let the sun do what it will (what else can we do, really), without buying into a coming apocalypse. And for me, "environmentalist" has become a bit of a bad word - it has ceased to have any scientific connotation - far more related to a particular political mindset.
John,
The argument isn't how much is found in nature but how much WE put there. An increase in volumn of a scarce substance would have a comparatively greater effect than an increase in a more abundant one, no?
If you have a pool, a glass of water won't overflow it. If you have a shot glass, a glass of water will.
Your argument is self-defeating.
If you are saying the effect of carbon monoxide is less than carbon dioxide because there's less of it, then why are we worring about carbon dioxide when there's a hell of a lot more water vapour than co2?
Also, if CO is 20 times the GHG than CO2 then you only have to emit 1/20th the co to make the same effect.
suec - thank you for a really excellent post. I think you've 'said it all'.
I'd also recommend triple w dot abd dot org dot uk slash links slash gwt dot htm
It has links to both sides of the issue.
What is interesting if the UN Kyoto Mandate, which doesn't seem interested in reducing CO2 emissions but in transfering, not loaning, money from the industrial nations to the third world. That seems to be the basic agenda of the Kyoto Agreement.
After all, if the UN was really worried about CO2, then, they'd insist that the money be spent by the industrial countries, on the emissions.
Instead, they've come up with the Reduction of Sin by Paying to Others tactic. You can keep emitting; you just send billions of money to the third world. What a scam.
And, it's the ultimate in arrogance - to conclude that human beings have the capacity to change the climate; to make it cooler and to make it warmer. The earth's atmopshere - and that of other planets - is far more complex than outlined and, so far, is not in the control of human agents.
What we can control, however, is pollution. And, interestingly, the UN is not interested in this. I wonder if it's because it CAN be dealt with, and thus, 'sin money' that can be transfered to the third world, is not an option.
As weather is a dynamic thing the fact of climate change shouldn't be a surprise. As to man's contribution, I'd say it is truly overblown. A Mount St Helens or any other natural "disasters" can effect climate change much more drastically than cow farts ever could. When Kyoto can show me why the polar ice caps on Mars are melting at the same rate as earth's but it is still man's fault then maybe I'll listen.
BTW, if I had a dollar for every time I heard a local tell me "This is not normal weather for us" where ever I've moved to then I'd be rich. Point of fact: 32" of rain this year so far. Normal is 24" but then six years ago (year before I got here) Tropical Storm Allison dumped 37" in five days, so who knows.
Relevant to the argument
Oh my goodness it has been SIGNIFICANTLY warmer in the past
From todays news.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=TopStories
Wow how did that get out there?
It is interesting that we can comment about the record temp in Yellowgrass in 1937 because it is a record and it is from Canada.
For most of the rest of the world, the extreme heat of the 1930s no longer exists.
The climate record agencies such as GISS, NCDC and the Hadley Centre have systematically re-written all of the historical records so that even the 1930s dustbowl of the US West doesn't show up in the temperature records anymore.
Apparently, it was quite cool in North Dakota and Kansas on July 5, 1937. The hottest years in those states are all in the last decade. Yes, that should make you go hmmm.
It was Orwell in 1984 who stated the now-cliched like:
He who controls the past controls the future;
He who controls the present controls the past.
If our "scientists" are faking the data, they're not scientists but politicians and propagandists engaged in fraud and lies.
Current levels of atmospheric C02 is 383 parts per million. God help us all if it rises to 384 PPM.
Warwick , please don't throw me under the Bus w/Jeff.
I do have a fairly decent background in math and can crunch the numbers when the need arises.
My only question to the Global Warming Folks is why are the Ice Caps melting on Mars ?
,
read the article I referenced.....300,000 years ago it was a lot warmer.....wha happen
They are saying that 1/3 of the greenland ice cap was gone and there were forests.....
SO nopne of this says manmade CO2 has nothing to do with anything it jsut says you cant draw the conclusion that mankind is driving current temperatures....as Kate would say, the sound of settled science......
So next question is what was driving temperature 300,000 years ago....My guess is fred flinstone working at Mr Slate's quarry mine.....