Sunday, February 04, 2007

G-g-g-lobal warming.

Boy, it's a good thing global warming is now an undisputed reality. Otherwise I'd be a Kensicle right about now.
Temperature: -17, a shade above zero on the old scale. Windchill is currently -27 and it'll get colder overnight.
For you Nunavutians and Saskatoonies this sort of thing is referred to as "balmy". Here in Southern Ontario, not so much. There are blizzard warnings a couple of hours north of us, snowsquall warnings all around us, but we just have this wind chill warning. For once, Environment Canada's warnings are justified: the news tells me snowplows have been taken off the road up north on account of their operators can't even see their own plow blades.
A watermain on our street broke today...the second time in about eight weeks. Along came a plow and sloshed all that water into the snow at the bottom of our driveway. I was out there almost immediately to shovel, but almost immediately was far too late: by some weird alchemy the snow had turned to something approaching the hardness of the concrete beneath it. The best I was able to do was to level out the driveway somewhat. Sigh.
So: global warming. Or more properly, given the frigidity gripping much of the second-largest country on the planet, "climate change". According to the report issued in Paris last week, it's real, we're responsible...and most alarmingly, it's unstoppable. We're past the pivot point: no matter what we do now, temperatures will continue to increase for centuries.
Nice to know they can predict climate over centuries and still can't even guess what next month's weather has in store.
Oh, I'm not disputing their conclusions. I'd still like to think that most scientists are objective and impartial enough to have arrived at the correct proofs without concern for such things as funding. But I do object to the sudden politimedihysteria, not least because problems "solved" hysterically never remain solved for long. It calls to mind a song by the Canadian group the Arrogant Worms:

Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw
Malcolm soves his problems with a chainsaw
Malcolm solves his problems with a chainsaw
And he never has the same problem twice.

Everybody on Parliament Hill is trying to outgreen each other. Normally I'd suggest this is a good thing, as politicians rarely take any notice of anything environmental. But concentrating on greenhouse gas emissions, when Canada--globally speaking--provides a mere two percent of same and the country immediately to our south, which leads the world in emissions, has no intention of reducing theirs, makes little to no sense. And speak to me not of Kyoto, which Harper rightly called a socialist wealth redistribution scheme. What else can it be, since the developing world can utterly disregard it without penalty? And never mind the craziness of classifying China, on the verge of becoming the world's largest economy, as a "developing" nation.
If we're going to get serious about greenhouse gas emissions, we should all get serious, from America to Zimbabwe. Any development in the Third World should be as green as the First World can help make it. And while we're at it, we should substiantially green what used to be called the Second World--the countries that used to be under the Soviet sphere of influence (and will be again, the paranoid in me insists on adding).

But I remain firmly convinced that, while greenhouse gas emissions are indeed a problem, they aren't the chief environmental problem facing the world today--no matter how many headlines I read.
You don't see much about air pollution any more, do you? Or water pollution, or deforestation, or desertification, or soil erosion, or any other sort of pollution that isn't green house gas emission. What, did we clean all that up while I wasn't looking? Didn't think so. Is any of it somehow less of a problem? Don't think so. But the Kyoto Protocol doesn't even mention any of these used-to-be-pressing concerns. Why is that, I wonder?

12 comments:

Peter Dodson said...

Nice to know they can predict climate over centuries and still can't even guess what next month's weather has in store.

I think one of the important things to remember is that weather and climate are different. Climate is the overall pattern of weather - so our climate here in 'toon town is cold.

But I do object to the sudden politimedihysteria, not least because problems "solved" hysterically never remain solved for long

I agree, that's why I hate the fact that so many people are looking at ethanol as the solution. I think the first step is to improve our efficency and to reduce how much energy we consume. In the meantime, let's invest as much as we can to find alternative energy solutions. We need to start now, but you are right, rushing to find the solution may be no solution at all.

But concentrating on greenhouse gas emissions, when Canada--globally speaking--provides a mere two percent of same and the country immediately to our south, which leads the world in emissions, has no intention of reducing theirs, makes little to no sense.

I think part of it, for me, is that as a leader in the world we have to lead by example. We can't pressure the U.S., China, or India to do anything if we aren't. Plus, if we develop the technologies and fuels we need to move away from the oil economy, it will make us rich and everyone likes that.

M@ said...

Boy, it's a good thing global warming is now an undisputed reality.

I know you're not denying that global climate change exists, but this kind of talk is so common and cliched, and completely inaccurate. Or maybe you can extrapolate the global average temperature over time from where you're sitting? Neat trick if you can do it.

Nice to know they can predict climate over centuries and still can't even guess what next month's weather has in store.

"They" can pretty accurately predict the climate for next month -- average temperature, amount of precipitation -- but they can't predict the weather with great accuracy on any particular day. Climate and weather are two different things; your comparison is pointless.

But the Kyoto Protocol doesn't even mention any of these used-to-be-pressing concerns. Why is that, I wonder?

Because global climate change is more dramatic, is accelerating, and can have rapid and devastating effects -- and because a large number of people still reject the reality that has been becoming plainer and plainer over the last forty years.

Plus, reducing greenhouse gases has the side effect of reducing air pollution. In your neck of the woods (also mine), coal-fired power plants are by far the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases and particulate air pollution. Shutting them down solves two problems.

I love those Arrogant Worms lyrics, but I don't know the song. What's the title?

Rocketstar said...

It's funny how some people, like George Will are still not convinced that Global Warming is being caused by human activity or at the least accelerating it when hundreds of scientists who are subject matter experts say that there is a 90% chance that it is so.

The one thing that I find frightewning is that it may be too late to chnage the current trend.

The domonoes may have already started to fall... but that's not to say we should still try.

Joe_Canada said...

Global Warming - The New Age Religion.

Do not deny, do not denounce, do not understand. The UN is God and we must all sacrifice for our sins.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

Peter Dodson said...

So Joe, which aspects of the IPCC report to you dispute?

As for the Mann hockey stick controversy, there are several articles up on Real Climate which talk about it. Check them out and let me know what you think.

Cletus Hookworm said...

Never underestimate the appeal of old ideas in spite of ample evidence that they are false. I'm sure they're willing to expand membership to climate change deniers.

Ken Breadner said...

How many of you are aware that the barest prospectus of the science behing this IPCC report won't even be released for months, yet?
Again, I'm not denying global climate change exists and is a problem. I'll even concede we're at fault. I *do* dispute the claim that sea levels will be thus-and-such, or global temperatures will average out to so-and-so. The predictions on sea levels, in particular, bounce around all over the place. As for temperatures, one major volcanic eruption will bugger those figures. Statistically, we can expect a major volcanic eruption *sometime* in the next century.
M@--The Arrogant Worms song is called "Malcolm".

Matthew said...

Ken, the science behind the IPCC report is nothing new. I think the idea was to have so much scientfic opinion taken into account that it would be difficult to refute.

The only surprise in the entire global climate change debate is that there are still people who refuse to believe the plain facts, or try to wave their hands and make it go away. There are some very scary conclusions to be drawn from the climate work that's out there.

So what is it, exactly, that you dispute in the climate models that are offered? Do you know that such essentially random events as volcano eruptions aren't accounted for in them? Do you think climatologists are unaware of the impact of such an event on the climate?

You dispute the claims of literally thousands of scientists, based on readily-available research. But you don't give any basis for that dispute, other than a suspicion (completely unsupported by research, as far as I can tell) that some of the most facile variables have not been taken into account.

Again, understand that I am not lumping you in with climate change deniers, nor am I singling you out for criticism. But your line of questioning is not uncommon, and deserves to be questioned itself.

Ken Breadner said...

Here's what I don't get/don't like.
1) I still have trouble accepting that science can predict global temperatures/averages based on nothing more than what their computers tell them. Contrary to extremely popular opinion, there is no consensus on temperatures in a century or two, nor on sea levels; every report says something different.
2) The hysteria over climate change does not help matters, nor does the contention that Kyoto has anything to do with a total world reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Any rational examination of the Kyoto Protocol shows it will, at most, shift emission patterns.
If climate change is as much as emergency as we hear it is, Kyoto is a drop in the rain-bucket. We should be looking at a reduction of sixty or seventy percent at a minimum. Not many people will admit this out loud; George Monbiot is one who does, and who has the credentials to back his stance.
3) I don't just not like, but outright *hate*, the precedence Kyoto takes in the minds of sheeple everywhere, now. The prevailing attitude almost seems to be "meet Kyoto and recreate Eden". That won't happen. Kyoto does nothing to directly address air pollution. The most common pollutant in Ontario, at least, isn't suspended particulate, but ozone. Moreover, the vast majority of our pollution here comes from the U.S., which hasn't even signed Kyoto in any event.
Climate change is but one aspect of a very complicated set of concerns, many of which are not understood sufficiently. There is this overarching belief that we know what's going on. In some cases we do, or might, but history--even recent history--is riddled with "everybody knows..." assumptions that turned out to be wrong.
Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't take action here--we should--but it should be planned action, not willy-nilly.

M@ said...

Just a follow-up, here...

http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070212_immortal.html

Cletus Hookworm said...

LOL - excellent cartoon, m@.

bman said...

Global warming is a movement, not a scientific debate. The earth may be warming,but so slightly that it poses no threat. And the causes are not just fossil fuels. The earth is always in a constant cycle of cooling and warming. What this has become is a green movement with bureaucrats, politicians, median, celebs falling over each other to push thier agenda. Kyoto is a bad treaty and was rejected 99-0 by the US Senate. Al Gore is a is ridiculous. He uses more energy than 100 households per year. (Practice what you preach Al). The rich libs and greenies have nothing to lose. They have enough money to pay for all their hypocrisy. All this is going to sock the middle class with ridiculous ethanol and clean energy mandates along with government subsidies. Ethanol production is a bullshit. It uses more energy than producing oil and is unfeasible as real energy source. You can thank this movement in 5-10 years when you're driving some small, underpowered car and paying 4.00 a gallon for diluted fuel in addition to three times as much in energy for your house. I'm more more worried about having a job in a good economy and a real global warming with a nuke fired from the middle east than the ocean rising a foot.