[N_Fiddledog]

Basically Doc, here's what happened.

Bart and I took issue with the meme the media was trying to create that suggested global warming was causing the cold snap, because of "the Polar Vortex". We mocked that being presented as fact.

You said something like "except if it is a fact", and posted this from Scientific American saying...

$1:

But why does the vortex weaken? Now it gets interesting. More and more Arctic sea ice is melting during summer months. The more ice that melts, the more the Arctic Ocean warms. The ocean radiates much of that excess heat back to the atmosphere in winter, which disrupts the polar vortex. Data taken over the past decade indicate that when a lot of Arctic sea ice disappears in the summer, the vortex has a tendency to weaken over the subsequent winter, if related atmospheric conditions prevail over the northern Atlantic Ocean.

I suggest that is not a fact. It's a hypothesis. Correlation is not cause, and I'm not sure the correlation is even that strong there. I believe it appears to be a minority opinion, and what me and Bart were mocking - warming causes cooling cause Time Magazine and other media can say Polar Vortex - certainly is. If that's not what you were contradicting when you started suggesting something was a fact, you didn't get the point.

For now the consensus opinion from the IPCC says we can expect more arctic ice melt, but not to expect more "frequency of cold air outbreaks... in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas."

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

Caleb has been on this forum longer than I have and has posted on a number of topics, from food to firearms. I don't always agree with him but he does what he does with humour and respect. When you first started posting my first impression was that you were a grade 9 student who got a bad mark on a science project. My opinion has changed because of the shear volume of stuff produced. I have begun to think of you as a "Think Tank of University students" trying to win their wings with some right wing institute. Sometimes you are polite and sometimes (more so now) impolite but you are relentless in the cause(s). And (could be just me) yes, I wish you would just STFU, even for a little while, go out with the other fish from the tank and have a few beers at the campus pub and talk about Coeds and football.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

You have a year on me here. You're 2006. I'm 2007. So what. That makes you special, or something?

Did I say that? I don't think so.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

So if we're sharing private thoughts with each other about each other, let me tell you about you. You can STFU yourself if telling me to, and launching your childish personal attacks is all you have to offer to the debate.

You can't make a point on the substance of the argument so you fall back on personal attack. You're a type. It's a type that might intimate some. Doesn't work with me. You should get bright enough to notice.

Actually, I wasn't sharing private thoughts here. Perhaps you will realize that some day.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

When you attacked me for saying it wasn't cool having pedophiles like what's his name involved with the creation of sex ed policy for the TDSB I knew what you were all about.

Remind me. I don't have the time to go through all my posts. What did I say?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

No, I don't think your a pedophile, but you are the kind of guy who won't tolerate critique of your sacred cows no matter how ridiculous or abhorent they are. Here you want to back the warming causes cooling horse by attacking somebody for producing a science and general common sense argument showing why it's silly. Get stuffed. You don't matter.

My sacred cows? Pedophilia?? Where is this coming from??? Please get me up to speed on what I think. And I (ounce again) don't "back the warming causes cooling horse." I just want the media to shut up about this whole thing and let science do it's thing. And yes, I do consider you part of the media. Or at least you act like it.

[desertdude]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Don`t you mean the Day before Yesterday was an Inconvenient Truth in 2012, and we`ll find out 28 years later?
I`m willing to accept some places on the globe will experience warming, but I believe it will be balanced by other important areas experiencing just as dramatic a cooling trend. A closed self regulating system that will eventually find balance. .in the mean time we`re going to have to learn how to cope with change in some areas before the new balance is restored. I`d rather see us concentrate more on reforestation, water pollution and other toxins being introduced into the air and water. Waste being dumped into the oceans is a more pressing concern than CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Halting deforestation combined with an ambitious replanting - reforestation will slow down the CO2 levels, if not eliminate it altogether.

Agreed, land and sea pollution plus deforestation is a much bigger concern and immediate threat than global warming which many are still arguing whether it even exists or not.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Basically Doc, here's what happened.

Bart and I took issue with the meme the media was trying to create that suggested global warming was causing the cold snap, because of "the Polar Vortex". We mocked that being presented as fact.

You said something like "except if it is a fact", and posted this from Scientific American saying...

$1:

But why does the vortex weaken? Now it gets interesting. More and more Arctic sea ice is melting during summer months. The more ice that melts, the more the Arctic Ocean warms. The ocean radiates much of that excess heat back to the atmosphere in winter, which disrupts the polar vortex. Data taken over the past decade indicate that when a lot of Arctic sea ice disappears in the summer, the vortex has a tendency to weaken over the subsequent winter, if related atmospheric conditions prevail over the northern Atlantic Ocean.

Right. Arctic sea ice has the effect that keeps the polar vortex in check. Less ice means the colder arctic vortexes can spawn pressure cells that send frigid systems southward. Those are the facts as presented in the article on Scientific American. Global warming then could cause an increase in cold snaps.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I suggest that is not a fact. It's a hypothesis. Correlation is not cause, and I'm not even sure even the correlation is that strong there.

And I'm saying the phenomenon has been studied for a very long time, taking it into the realm of 'theory' because that fits the available data.

So, if that was your hypothesis - why post drivel about magazine articles from the 1970s and attribute opinions to me that I did not voice?

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I believe it appears to be a minority opinion, and what me and Bart were mocking - warming causes cooling cause we can say Polar Vortex - certainly is.

Opinion also requires faith, and it is not science. The science says that removing the ice that moderates the vortex will cause severe cold storms. It will also cause stronger hurricanes that originate in a warming Africa.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

If that's not what you were contradicting when you started suggesting something was a fact, you didn't get the point.

That's exactly what the articles I posted contradicted. And I only posted a few, I read several more.

When you take the moderating effect off a chaotic system, anything can occur (thermodynamics). When the moderating affect of the polar ice is removed, computer models show that more severe winter storms will be the result. And the computer models are becoming more accurate all the time.

One article I read was a pretty good one, about the sudden warming spell we had in January of last year - at the same time Europe was in the deep freeze - also spawned by the Polar Vortex.

$1:

For now the consensus opinion from the IPCC says we can expect more arctic ice melt, but not to expect more "frequency of cold air outbreaks... in [northern hemisphere] winter in most areas."

Which I found the funniest part of your argument. You, quoting the IPCC?

And yes, the whole point of 'Global' warming it that it occurs 'globally'. Local weather will still be highly variable. The models show the frequency of winter storms decreasing, but the intensity increasing!

[DrCaleb]

desertdude desertdude:

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Don`t you mean the Day before Yesterday was an Inconvenient Truth in 2012, and we`ll find out 28 years later?
I`m willing to accept some places on the globe will experience warming, but I believe it will be balanced by other important areas experiencing just as dramatic a cooling trend. A closed self regulating system that will eventually find balance. .in the mean time we`re going to have to learn how to cope with change in some areas before the new balance is restored. I`d rather see us concentrate more on reforestation, water pollution and other toxins being introduced into the air and water. Waste being dumped into the oceans is a more pressing concern than CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. Halting deforestation combined with an ambitious replanting - reforestation will slow down the CO2 levels, if not eliminate it altogether.

Agreed, land and sea pollution plus deforestation is a much bigger concern and immediate threat than global warming which many are still arguing whether it even exists or not.

But . . but. . . what if we accidentally made a better planet?

[fifeboy]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But . . but. . . what if we accidentally made a better planet?

I guess we would have to suffer the consequences....

[ShepherdsDog]

We`d need to initiate mass sterilization programs immediately, not wait for a gradual natural decrease in birth rates over a few generations brought on through education and affluence...... but that`s not politically correct.

The planet can`t wait that long nor can it sustain the increased demand on finite resources the increased wealth and extended life expectancy would bring......even if Western nations dramatically scaled back their own consumption of resources. The numbers need to be brought down by at least 60 - 75 %.

Perhaps 1 in 10 healthy couples(genetically and psychologically screened) should be allowed to reproduce, and those that don`t or can`t should be given other forms of recompense....financial or societal rewards

[DrCaleb]

A good related article I just read:

$1:

Current news coverage of a high-visibility scientific paper illustrates the difficulties of presenting climate research to the media. How far should scientists and science-information officials go in translating measured, reserved scientific information into meaningful, constructive public information?

In the 2 January Nature, researchers report evidence justifying an expectation of “relatively severe” future global warming. On “the basis of the available data,” they carefully stipulate, “the new understanding presented here pushes the likely long-term global warming towards the upper end of model ranges.” Taking “the available observations at face value,” they write, “implies a most likely climate sensitivity of about 4 °C, with a lower limit of about 3 °C.”

. . .

Slate’s headline proclaims “Climate change vastly worse than previously thought.”

. . .

A Sydney Morning Herald article’s opening contains this line: “The research . . . says a 4-degree rise in temperature would be potentially catastrophic for agriculture in warm regions of the world, including Australia.” In fact, whether or not the research has been so interpreted, the Nature paper itself says no such thing.

The Huffington Post’s headline announces, “Climate change worse than we thought, likely to be ‘catastrophic rather than simply dangerous.’”

Catastrophic? Nothing like that volatile word appears in the Nature paper. But the Huffington Post piece relies on an article in the Guardian, which in turn relies heavily on comments quoted from lead researcher Sherwood.

. . .

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/ma ... /PT.5.8024

[desertdude]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But . . but. . . what if we accidentally made a better planet?

Yeah...that would be great, but what IF there is no such thing, andthe billions squandered, the time and effort wasted, average Joe having to cough up billions on stuff like stupid hybrids, extra taxed fuel, less green house this shit and that shit etc etc. I think people are going to be pissed. This is where my original thought rolls in, that even if concrete, black and white, bright as day evidence does come around that there isn't any, don't think the people who have made a living off this and a very good one in a lot of cases will let the ride stop, the monsters gotten too big now so to say to just walk away from it.

On the other hand almost everything that has been predicted has not come true, first it was the next ice age is coming when I was growing up, then the ozone layer was going to go and then we were all going to be fried by the sun, then by the year 2000 the city I am living in right now was supposed to be underwater, so excuse me for being a tad skeptical oh and add to these the millennium bug, SARS, Ebola and swine flu and not a day has gone by in the last 30 or 40 years where we were all going to die. Probably in another 10 to 20 years some other thing will be bringing the end of the human race as we know it.

EDIT : So maybe instead of fighting this what might or might not turn out to be a fictional creature, lets concentrate more on things which we know are happening and are affecting us right now. Everyday just seeing thick wads of newspapers on doorsteps every day makes me cringe and think, more than some 4C temp rise a 100 years from now.

[martin14]

desertdude desertdude:

Probably in another 10 to 20 years some other thing will be bringing the end of the human race as we know it.

Swimming pools.

The secret killers.
They are watching us even now.
Watching, waiting, planning.
Soon, very soon.
They are coming.

[BartSimpson]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

We`d need to initiate mass sterilization programs immediately, not wait for a gradual natural decrease in birth rates over a few generations brought on through education and affluence...... but that`s not politically correct.

We could implement a mandatory abortion policy on anyone without the right political credentials to have a baby...I'm 100% certain the PC crowd would go for that.

[JaredMilne]

These doorknobs are probably even stupider than they look.

They may think their cute little stunt will help bolster public opinion for their cause, but all it does is just give ammunition to the critics of climate change policy and supporters of the Northern Gateway pipeline, and weaken the arguments of anyone who thinks climate change is a problem or has real concerns about the pipeline.

It's akin to someone shooting himself in the foot, and then celebrating his awesome quick draw skills.

Allow me to turn the mike over to Calgary Herald columnist Licia Corbella, who in my mind has the last word on the subject:

$1:

Ah, Canada! One of the things that makes the true north strong and free so great is that when it comes to our leaders, it isn’t all that necessary for heavily armed men to stand on guard for them.

For the most part, Canada’s premiers and prime ministers — past and present — can walk around the country without security sweeps having to be conducted beforehand.

Much fuss is currently being made about a security breach involving Prime Minister Stephen Harper in Vancouver on Monday.

Two environmental protesters impersonating hotel serving staff walked up onto the same stage Stephen Harper was on and unrolled small signs, one of which read, “Climate Justice Now.”

One of the protesters, Sean Devlin, who can be seen tumbling down about three metal stairs off the stage, complained about being “thrown” down the stairs and being held on the floor of the kitchen at the Fairmont Pacific Rim Hotel before being arrested and then released without charge.

In the U.S., where there has been a long history of presidents and other law makers being assassinated or shot, a similar stunt might have led to Devlin’s untimely demise.

The embarrassed RCMP has said that it “takes this matter very seriously,” but Stephen Harper didn’t seem to. The cool as a cuke PM didn’t flinch, barely turned his head and later cracked a joke, saying: “it wouldn’t be B.C. without it.”

So, while Harper remained calm, some of the reportage about the event is a bit overwrought.

On CBC’s The National, correspondent Terry Milewski actually intimated that every hotel serving staff should have been pre-screened by the RCMP and that Devlin — a well-known protester — should have been recognized by the RCMP. Really? Why? It’s not as if Devlin is well known for packing firearms and making physical threats to the PM. What’s next? Demands that metal detectors be set up at all public events where the PM is to attend to screen every single ticket holder or event delegate? That, of course, happens in the U.S. when the president is involved, but it needn’t happen here.

All of this got me reminiscing about a rather emotional moment in the history of Canada and for me personally.

A couple of days prior to the Quebec referendum on sovereignty — that fright night on the eve of Halloween 1995 — an enormous love-in for Quebec called the Unity Rally took place.

More than 150,000 people from every corner of the country jammed into Place du Canada off of Rene Levesque Boulevard to try to convince Quebecers not to break up the best country in the world. We’ll never know for sure, but that rally may very well have turned the tide in Canada’s favour in what ended up being a very close vote — with 49.4 per cent of Quebecers voting Oui for sovereignty and 50.6 per cent voting Non.

One of the most renowned images from that outpouring of affection for Quebec and Canada consists of an aerial shot of the now-famous enormous Canadian flag being moved over the heads of those in attendance by their up-stretched helping hands.

I too got caught under that flag for a time in that sea of passionate humanity. The flag was so vast, it actually plunged those of us underneath it into semi-darkness, but it certainly worked to lighten most of our spirits. Oddly, during most of the time that the flag passed over my head, I was pressed up face-to-face with Canada’s then very controversial federal Liberal Justice minister, Allan Rock.

At the time, Rock was not a very popular man among a large swath of a heavily armed portion of the Canadian population. He was, after all, responsible for bringing in the hated registry for long guns in Canada.

I remember getting rather emotional thinking about it all. Where else, I wondered, could such a contentious Justice minister wade into an emotional crowd without any security? It made me even more proud of Canada than I already was.

During Ralph Klein’s reign as Alberta premier, it wasn’t unusual to bump into him sans security detail eating chicken and chips at the St. Louis Hotel, or just walking through a mall or a large festivity chatting with Albertans.

While Ralph was a wildly popular premier, there were many in this province who detested him and his government’s deficit slashing agenda. But in Alberta or anywhere else in Canada, the recognizable politician didn’t have anything to fear.

That’s a great national characteristic and one I hope doesn’t stop.

What’s perhaps not understood by people like protesters Devlin and Shireen Soofi, is every time they pull a stunt like this, every time someone pies a premier or scales the Parliament Buildings to unfurl a banner, access to our leaders and public buildings grows more restrictive and chips away at a characteristic as iconic as beavers and maple syrup.

[andyt]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

We`d need to initiate mass sterilization programs immediately, not wait for a gradual natural decrease in birth rates over a few generations brought on through education and affluence...... but that`s not politically correct.

The planet can`t wait that long nor can it sustain the increased demand on finite resources the increased wealth and extended life expectancy would bring......even if Western nations dramatically scaled back their own consumption of resources. The numbers need to be brought down by at least 60 - 75 %.

Perhaps 1 in 10 healthy couples(genetically and psychologically screened) should be allowed to reproduce, and those that don`t or can`t should be given other forms of recompense....financial or societal rewards

Even then might be too late - there's just too many of us. Never going to happen, so might as well more or less throw up our hands. No matter how much we realistically cut back in the west, as countries or individuals, without totally ruining our economies, it won't be near enough.

I just read an article about fusion, and how they actually seem pretty close to making it commercially viable. Didn't realize it was that close. Some countries are investing big bucks in the tech. That input of clean energy might be enough increase the carrying capacity of the planet enough to keep us going for a while. People being people, at some point we'll probably still breed ourselves into disaster. Note how China is backing off the one child policy, because they need more good little workers and consumers to keep their economy going. That's what's wrong with capitalism in the end, - it relies on ever greater expansion, doesn't seem to have a steady state capability. So even if we solve the tech, we're also going to have to solve how we organize ourselves.

[Thanos]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

We`d need to initiate mass sterilization programs immediately, not wait for a gradual natural decrease in birth rates over a few generations brought on through education and affluence...... but that`s not politically correct.

The planet can`t wait that long nor can it sustain the increased demand on finite resources the increased wealth and extended life expectancy would bring......even if Western nations dramatically scaled back their own consumption of resources. The numbers need to be brought down by at least 60 - 75 %.

Perhaps 1 in 10 healthy couples(genetically and psychologically screened) should be allowed to reproduce, and those that don`t or can`t should be given other forms of recompense....financial or societal rewards

Amazing that the puritans are still so hesitant to come out and say this. If their models and predictions are correct then the only way to stop and then reverse climate change is to literally bring a total end to techo-industrial society. In the absence of geo-engineering solutions that would eat up the excessive CO2, solutions that the puritans have also deemed unacceptable, the shutting down of society (on a global scale) as we know it is the only cure. It would, as you said, have to be accompanied by a massive and ruthless cutting of the number of humans in existence (total birth control for at least two generations for anyone outside the presumably privileged class of scientists and environmentalists, culling of useless senior citizens, other forms of elimination of other useless mouths/consumers/shit-dispensers/walking methane-emitters/etc).

Instead we get the environmentalist-lite position that new types of lightbulbs, lots and lots of windmills everywhere, and hybrid automobiles will be sufficient. Not very honest, it would seem, to propose these types of band-aids when a massive surgery instead is what's required. If the situation with runaway CO2 is so radically bad then does it not compute that equally radical solutions (some of them bordering on genocidal if need be) are required to fix the problem? If this is what's needed then why don't they want to talk about it?

[ShepherdsDog]

Make sure you pick up a couple of crullers for this Friday`s meeting