Survivor Ellesmere

Got your link from Luke's site, not clear what you were doing in that part of the world except it has to do with instrumentation.

How is the global warming looking from there - I hope your instruments are actually providing more than just left-wing propaganda (just hoping, coming from Toronto there is very little hope though - everyone being brainwashed in the school the way they are). But who am I to challenge the scientists ...

Nice pictures, Luke was right, interesting experience there.
 

Hello anonymous.

I'm torn as to how to respond to this, so you're getting both directions.

(1) The instrument I work with measures solar spectra that allow me to determine how much ozone and some of the gases that deplete ozone there is in the atmosphere. There isn't an ozone hole in the Arctic like in the Antarctic, but there can be severe ozone depletion.

Climate change is a serious problem, and the Arctic is the proverbial "canary in a coal mine" for our planet. It is expected to warm at a much faster rate than the rest of the planet. If you don't believe hundreds of thousands of scientists, and decades of research, maybe you'll believe the people who live in the Arctic. The Inuit have been experiencing weird things for the past few years now. Bumblebees and robins have started to appear. The Inuktitut language has no words for these creatures. Iqaluit had to put out a warning a few summers ago about how wasps can sting you. Sea ice is breaking up earlier and freezing later than the elders have ever seen. Thunderstorms have been occuring as far north as Resolute, which is unheard of. The Inuit have been able to survive in the harsh climate of the Arctic by living in harmony with the land. Knowing what the weather is going to do is a matter of life or death for them - setting out on a hunt when a blizzard is coming on would be fatal. The fact that the elders are no longer able to predict the weather means that the general weather patterns are changing, something that is likely a result of climate change. These are all things that concern me, as they should you.

(2) The instrument I work with is actually designed to produce left-wing propaganda. We take it to isolated areas to avoid right-wing interference.
 

Hi Annemarie:

Some 20 years ago at the time I was in school the planet was dying due to the gigantic ozone hole - we were all going to fry - and all scientists agreed that we need to cut down on CFCs. I guess we were that successful at cutting down CFCs since hence why not CO2?

Just because some (it is never -all- by the way, but is usually lots of) scientists strongly believe something does not make it a "scientific" argument (especially when their research grants depend on that particular outcome!). One has just to remember the history of the treatment of gastric ulcer not that long ago - the whole medical community was horrified at just the suggestion that it may be just an infectious problem (they were too hundred thousands I guess). Sure they prescribe antibiotics now without remembering much of the past, and some crazy Australian doctor (I guess too lazy to get acquainted to the medical dogma of the day) got a Nobel Prize for just ignoring them.

I would probably buy the Inuit argument if I would be convinced that is not "induced" through psychological inference. Being raised in communism, I got used to propaganda on an early age and know quite how it works its magic. Poor people will say whatever it takes to elevate their economic position (who can blame them for that – rich ones are doing quite the same for pure greed). That is not to say that the observations are not valid, is just that they are difficult to quantify as they are coming from human elements (I rather trust sensors really, but that's me).

I wish you a long life - the "westerners" may be duped into the Kyoto store (seems a majority is buying into, which is good as lesson can always be learned the hard way), but the "easterners" will not anyway, hence no matter how much we argue things will stay the same, and we will survive a plethora of issues that the "scientists" of the day could not imagine to happen as they are so busy to “protect” the planet while taking advantage of all economic benefits produced by our society (I cannot stop smiling just remembering how nice the 747 was).

Please remove all my comments from the site – it is quite nice what you write on to have silly arguments with fringe elements like me. I read your blog immediately after getting the news feed about Al Gore yesterday and was hard not to comment on it (shame on me for that!). I happen to believe that we destroy the planet (really fast too) but I see the “environmentalists” as one of the biggest contributors, as they focus their energy on the wrong issues most of the time while conveniently benefiting on the current economic shift which is making their economies poorer by te day. That would probably change soon though, as our service-oriented society will be taken over by more manufacturing-oriented societies on which we become more and more dependent – from this perspective it pays to get a job as an “environmentalist” rather than flipping things on minimal wage, as long as the faith is still with the people. Yet once the economic shift will be obvious to all in Canada, the scientists will change their opinions quite fast to adapt to the new economic realities. How I wish to be wrong on that, but unfortunately it all comes down to the mighty dollar.

As for (2) that is really funny – a quote to remember.

I wish you well in your research - truth always comes to light one way or another, yet not because there are tens of thousands of scientists that somehow agree on something, but rather because of the few left that continue to question the obvious.
 

Hello again anonymous.

There is a huge difference in cutting down on CFCs and cutting down on greenhouse gases (including CO2). CFCs were used in only a few places - air conditioner, refrigerators, and aerosol cans. Once they were identified as causing ozone depletion, governments worked quickly to curb their use. Substitutes existed that could essentially be swapped in for CFCs. Such is not the case with greenhouse gases. Essentially any energy we produce also produces CO2, and we're finding it difficult to curb our energy use. It's not a simple substitution, and we're used to driving everywhere, enjoying fresh fruit year round, and homes that are 21C regardless of the weather outside. If I told you tomorrow that you couldn't eat apples anymore, you could easily sub in oranges and not upset your lifestyle too much. If I told you that you could no longer eat fruit, you'd find it a bit more difficult to adapt.

I'm not going to attempt to justify the science behind climate change. The basic science is neither difficult nor controversial. If you are truly interested in the subject, I trust you will investigate in your own way. A good place to start is with the IPCC at www.ipcc.ch. Working group one is in charge of the scientific basis of climate change, and the report does a marvellous job at synthesizing the current scientific understanding of the day.

I will point out that most of the research done that comes out against climate change is funded by the oil and gas industry.

I don't believe in deleting comments, unless they are offensive, and I'm not going to delete yours. You chose to publish your thoughts here, and here they will stay.
 

I worked many years in similar fields (sometimes tangentially to IPCC in UK, but that was mostly related to geomatics and understanding their early modeling efforts) - I also got a PhD directly related to the issues at hand (elevated CO2). I still remember the politically-correct posturing of the time – however I changed fields due to circumstances not morality (yet I am happy now that fate forced me to do so).

The western society has transformed their former prosperity engine, R&D, into a true religion – they do not examine anymore, they just preach the “truth” while odd things abound all around us.

As an aside, the interesting point about CO2 fluctuation will be realized the day when it will eventually start declining – probably triggered by a massive oil disruption resulting in a subsequent decrease in crop production as the nitrogen input will also be reduced with far greater consequences. I agree that there will be no fruits anymore – and we will have once again the chance to see the true face of “humanity”.

Enjoy the glimpse of sun … and the hope that emerging civilization are always replacing the ones lost at sea. Way faster than the air composition, really.
 

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613

Reading this I remembered your blog - yet I cannot argue any better than Bryson himself.

There is another interesting article today - China producing more fumes than the formerly mighty USA. Must be their left-wing propaganda - not much interference really.
 

Hello again Anonymous,

I refer you to the second half of that article, the part where they talk to another scientist who refutes everything Bryson says using *evidence*. Crazy, I know, to use data to back up a scientific argument.

You've obviously made up your mind on the subject, and I'm not here to change it. This blog does not exist to convert anyone to the climate-change-ism, nor is it here to debate the subject. It exists to point out how cool musk ox are.

I may mention climate change here and there, because, you know, it's actually something we should all be concerned about, but please don't take that to mean I'm a priest of my science-religion. I'll leave the preaching to Pope Al Gore and the cardinals of the IPCC.
 

Causality as opposed to correlation does not permeate much of the American scientists these days. My British PhD supervisor (at that time a lecturer, now a professor) was not able of performing basic arithmetics - let alone understand statistics. Funny, she also kept arguing that God does not exist - never understood that one, as she was almost militant in that regard (when very few really cared what she believed in that respect).
It took me quite a while to connect the dots - but I remember the vehemence in denying God (by the way, I am not religious in any form or shape - 'been through the Commies, the church was the first one to turn people to the Security Services, I cannot forget that).

Just for curiosity, how would you define a causal experiment - I might be inclined to say that global warming is due to albedo changes that cause the release of increasing CO2 from the oceans. But lets not even consider the CO2 thing - in general terms, how would you discriminate cause-effect from correlation - or the musk ox research only correlates facts: the cooler they are, the more they dissapear. As opposed to - they dissapear fast because they are cool / or we think that they are cool because they dissapear fast.
 

So much for the millions of ... scientists ... Funny, it was a Canadian to "correct" the church of NASA. I guess he was not a UofT graduate - how can one escape the brainwash beyond comprehension, yet living proof right in the cake.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=61b0590f-c5e6-4772-8cd1-2fefe0905363

Cheers - same old.