|
Post by Kevin VE3EN on Apr 22, 2009 14:20:45 GMT
Interesting Article. " Suzuki describes the public as "ignorant about science" and complains while his foundation "spent several years trying to educate the Canadian public about climate" it didn't have success. He blames the media, arguing they only care about "very short, very immediate" stories and are "not interested in long-term education of the public." However, that changed dramatically, Suzuki recalls, when one of his campaigners said "let's forget about climate" and tell people "what happens when you burn fossil fuels to the pollution at the ground level -- and looking at the government's data we discovered that 16,000 Canadians die every year of air pollution from burning fossil fuels. "The minute we said that," Suzuki relates, there was "instant, instant interest from the public. Everybody is interested when it affects them or their children." " cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/04/19/9187816-sun.html
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 22, 2009 16:41:19 GMT
Interesting Article. " Suzuki describes the public as "ignorant about science" and complains while his foundation "spent several years trying to educate the Canadian public about climate" it didn't have success. He blames the media, arguing they only care about "very short, very immediate" stories and are "not interested in long-term education of the public." However, that changed dramatically, Suzuki recalls, when one of his campaigners said "let's forget about climate" and tell people "what happens when you burn fossil fuels to the pollution at the ground level -- and looking at the government's data we discovered that 16,000 Canadians die every year of air pollution from burning fossil fuels. "The minute we said that," Suzuki relates, there was "instant, instant interest from the public. Everybody is interested when it affects them or their children." " cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/04/19/9187816-sun.htmlI think this sums it up:
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 22, 2009 17:10:58 GMT
I don't understand the title of this thread. Linking individual weather events to GW is something that science rarely does.
I can think of one example where the 2003 heatwave of Europe which killed 20000 people (many of which whom were *not* at death's door already) was partially linked to GW through a statistical study.
This is surely different from saying "if GW continues then X may happen more often. When X happened in the past, this was the result..."
where X is some weather catastrophe.
As to the article, it ought to be said that William Gray's is just one point of view.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 22, 2009 18:37:19 GMT
I don't understand the title of this thread. Linking individual weather events to GW is something that science rarely does. I can think of one example where the 2003 heatwave of Europe which killed 20000 people (many of which whom were *not* at death's door already) was partially linked to GW through a statistical study. This is surely different from saying "if GW continues then X may happen more often. When X happened in the past, this was the result..." where X is some weather catastrophe. As to the article, it ought to be said that William Gray's is just one point of view. "I can think of one example where the 2003 heatwave of Europe which killed 20000 people (many of which whom were *not* at death's door already) was partially linked to GW through a statistical study."Add hurricanes - especially Katrina and Ike - where there were several scientists that surfaced stating that these hurricanes were a symptom of AGW. That was then taken up as a 'general case' by IPCC and led to the resignation of one of the foremost hurricane experts who strongly disagreed. (I am not including Al Gore in this list although he claims that all extreme weather is due to 'climate catastrophe' )
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2009 10:13:35 GMT
I would count Katrina as an example of X. There is still concern that warming may produce stronger hurricanes. I doubt your guy would say there was no chance of stronger hurricanes.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 23, 2009 12:44:12 GMT
I would count Katrina as an example of X. There is still concern that warming may produce stronger hurricanes. I doubt your guy would say there was no chance of stronger hurricanes. Dr Chris Landsea who was a lead researcher at the US National Hurricane Center - is not 'my guy' "Landsea is among a group of scientists who say the impact of global warming on hurricanes is not clear, and the studies do not account for inaccurate information in storm databases.
“It’s not to say that global warming isn’t causing changes. I don’t dispute the fact that global warming is going on or that it can have an impact on hurricanes,” Mr Landsea said.
He said researchers had data from only two geostationary satellites to monitor storms in 1975. Now, much better pictures were available from eight satellites.
Today’s scientists could get readings on hurricanes around the clock, where only daylight images were available decades ago.
Together, the technology changes meant forecasters were more likely than in the past to determine that a hurricane had higher winds.
“The hurricane doesn’t change. But you’re getting a better analysis of how strong that hurricane is,” Mr Landsea said.
The Science article said reanalysis of historic data had found about 70 previously unrecognised Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the eastern hemisphere from 1978 to 1990. Such a finding would weaken the argument that the number of intense hurricanes is rising.
“For some of the storms in the north Indian Ocean, if they were to occur today, we would say they are Category 4 or 5 and yet they are listed in the data as Category 3 or weaker,” Mr Landsea said.
A cyclone that hit Bangladesh in 1970 and killed up to 500,000 people was not even listed as a hurricane, he said."Or put simply another example of poor science being used as a 'frightener' by the more vociferous AGW proponents. www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=51
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 23, 2009 18:11:00 GMT
Dr Chris Landsea who was a lead researcher at the US National Hurricane Center - is not 'my guy' "Landsea is among a group of scientists who say the impact of global warming on hurricanes is not clear, and the studies do not account for inaccurate information in storm databases.
“It’s not to say that global warming isn’t causing changes. I don’t dispute the fact that global warming is going on or that it can have an impact on hurricanes,” Mr Landsea said.
Sorry, couldn't remember his name, but I remembered the gist of his position.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 25, 2009 1:29:41 GMT
I don't understand the title of this thread. Linking individual weather events to GW is something that science rarely does. I can think of one example where the 2003 heatwave of Europe which killed 20000 people (many of which whom were *not* at death's door already) was partially linked to GW through a statistical study. This is surely different from saying "if GW continues then X may happen more often. When X happened in the past, this was the result..." where X is some weather catastrophe. As to the article, it ought to be said that William Gray's is just one point of view. Ever hear of katrina? Name the study please. I have one too As for Chris Landsea, he left IPCC because the process was becoming politicized. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 25, 2009 10:39:38 GMT
I don't understand the title of this thread. Linking individual weather events to GW is something that science rarely does. I can think of one example where the 2003 heatwave of Europe which killed 20000 people (many of which whom were *not* at death's door already) was partially linked to GW through a statistical study. This is surely different from saying "if GW continues then X may happen more often. When X happened in the past, this was the result..." where X is some weather catastrophe. As to the article, it ought to be said that William Gray's is just one point of view. Ever hear of katrina? Name the study please. I have one too As for Chris Landsea, he left IPCC because the process was becoming politicized. sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.htmlI think Chris Landsea had a point. On the other hand people on both sides of the debate get overly excitable when things appear to be panning out in line with their predictions/hopes/concerns. The question is how *do* you get across to people the severe risks they are taking with their children and grandchildren's lives? For the record, this appears to be the press release Landsea refers to. chge.med.harvard.edu/media/releases/hurricanepress.html
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Apr 25, 2009 17:00:01 GMT
I think Chris Landsea had a point. On the other hand people on both sides of the debate get overly excitable when things appear to be panning out in line with their predictions/hopes/concerns. The question is how *do* you get across to people the severe risks they are taking with their children and grandchildren's lives? For the record, this appears to be the press release Landsea refers to. chge.med.harvard.edu/media/releases/hurricanepress.html" The question is how *do* you get across to people the severe risks they are taking with their children and grandchildren's lives?"Try being honest Claims that if we double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere then sea level will rise by 9 meters and ...(add your own apocalyptic vision). Do not help anyone especially when they are made by a man who stands to make multi-millions of dollars by pushing his own carbon credit derivative trading. Nor do claims that the people involved in providing energy through fossil fuels are involved in 'crimes against humanity' while again pocketing large amounts of funds. The frothing at the mouth extremism when there seems to be less clarity that what is being claimed is so black and white actually starts people wondering if this is just one big con; and, that the panicky language is because the climate is about to show that AGW does not exist and the trough that they have their snouts into will be taken away. So - if the reasonable AGW claims are to be believed, at the end of the century - if things go as they currently are *and* CO 2 continues to be released into the atmosphere at the same rate (questionable due to peak oil) then the atmospheric temperature MIGHT be 1.5C higher on average. Up to what some (I know not you) believe the temperatures were in the MWP - London was not under water, nor was Amsterdam. The opposite extreme is the return to the normal state of the Earth which is ice age. That apparently can happen quite fast within decades the temperatures can go drop precipitously - although obviously kilometer thick glaciers over Tiverton may take a little longer. However, if I had to choose the climate my grandchildren were to live in - then there is absolutely no doubt I would choose warm over cold - even more CO 2 would be good as plants grow better and there will be sufficient food and the climate is likely to be wetter with it meaning no water shortages. Want to scare people into action? Talk about an ice age.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 25, 2009 17:58:48 GMT
The question is how *do* you get across to people the severe risks they are taking with their children and grandchildren's lives? The first rule is to not create more risk. How you create risk is you sell risk. Some minor expenditure for risk avoidance is a good thing, but it easy becomes the progenitor of risk itself. Financial markets are famous for manufacturing too much insurance. Swaps are nothing but an insurance policy.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Apr 25, 2009 23:06:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 26, 2009 14:06:14 GMT
During the last interglacial, temperatures were thought to be about 2C warmer than now, and sea levels were 6 metres higher. There is evidence of sea level rises of greater than a metre occurring in less than 100 years.
If I were being *honest* I would say there is a chance of another 2C of warming leading to a similar sea level and similar rates of sea level rise.
You mention peak oil, but there is no sign of peak coal, so peak oil itself will not prevent a rise of CO2 levels to 550ppm.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Apr 26, 2009 15:29:08 GMT
steve writes "You mention peak oil, but there is no sign of peak coal, so peak oil itself will not prevent a rise of CO2 levels to 550ppm. "
Thank heaven for small mercies. Hopefully, there are enough fossil fuels around to get the CO2 concentration to 1200 ppmv. This is the sort of concentration that seems to me to be about right.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 26, 2009 22:07:27 GMT
During the last interglacial, temperatures were thought to be about 2C warmer than now, and sea levels were 6 metres higher. There is evidence of sea level rises of greater than a metre occurring in less than 100 years. Actually during the last interglacial the temperatures were thought to AVERAGE about 2C warmer than now. They actually peaked at about 5C warmer...higher than for proposed CO2 increases. That's where the 6 meters higher THAN NOW came from. Also temperature and sea levels were higher THAN NOW during the holocene optimum...something AGW alarmists conveniently forget to tell everyone...along with the fact that those warm times were when Africa actually had water. Funny, that little omission as they tell use severe droughts are going to kill us all. Thankfully you were just mistakenly assuming the average of the previous interglacial temperature was what drove sea levels to their PEAK levels...which happens to have involved significantly higher temperatures. The warming rate has never begun to approach even levels necessary to reach 2C of overall increase. The global temperature has risen by about .5C since the 1930's and 40's (the peak of the last warming period). www.poitsplace.com/temp/GISprojected+IPCC.pngAlso, over the past decade while CO2 emissions have risen at a higher rate than expected...atmospheric CO2 levels have fallen well short of the IPCC's guestimates. Sea level rise have also tapered off as the temperatures ahve leveled out and begun to fall. Since we're now in what should be about a 30 year long cooling cycle, sea levels will likely FALL in the near future. [/quote]You mention peak oil, but there is no sign of peak coal, so peak oil itself will not prevent a rise of CO2 levels to 550ppm.[/quote] But again the graph says it all...it assumes a doubling by 2100.
|
|