Friends of Science Calgary

The Sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not carbon dioxide.

An Honest Debate on Climate Science – It’s Time

 

Freedom of Speech is a Canadian Charter Right.[1]

On Dec. 3, 2015, Ecojustice Canada Society issued a public document calling for an inquiry by the Competition Bureau of Canada into the activities of Friends of Science Society and two other organizations.  Friends of Science Society issues this public response to what we perceive to be a case of ‘law fare,’ a modern day witch hunt, designed to silence rational dissent on climate change catastrophe claims and to prevent informed public objection and debate of economically destructive climate policies.

John G. Diefenbaker Free to speak quote

At this time, Canadians are being led astray by unscientific climate science claims that are not founded on evidence. Canadians are being asked to empty their wallets. For what? For unreliable, unaffordable, intermittent so-called ‘renewable’ devices that have been shown to be wasteful and redundant boondoggles that do not address climate change and that cannot provide suitable energy for our modern societal needs or our extreme climatic conditions.

Question the Cost and Consequences of Climate Policy based on Faulty Science

  • 100% renewable WWS – Wind Water Sunlight/Solar claims that these can replace conventional power generation. Not doable. Energy economist Robert Lyman explains why.
  • Ontario plans $7 billion climate plan Economically disastrous for Ontario; destructive to Canadian confederation. Robert Lyman explains why.
  • LEAP Manifesto claims national wind-hydro grid doable by 2035. Not doable at all. Power generation experts explain why. English French
  • Alberta Early Coal Phase-out >$22 billion for the transition to equivalent natural gas and compensation; loss of 7,000 jobs, devastation to 30 communities due to undue influence of offshore/out-of-province vested interests in renewable wind and solar investors. [2] [3] [4] We explain why coal is not the issue.
  • Canadians simply cannot afford to remain silent or to be silenced.

We demand due diligence from the Alberta government on its claims that early phase-out of coal and a carbon tax will have any measurable effect on global climate and we demand a full cost-benefit analysis.

Challenging counterfactual claims An Honest Debate May 25 2016Challenging counterfactual claims An Honest Debate May 26 2016 REV

cover challening the counterfactual ecojustice

[1] http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

  1. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
  • (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
  • (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

[2] http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Big-Donors-Big-Conflicts-Final1.pdf

[3] http://www.naro-us.org/Resources/NARO%20CA/NARO-CA,%20US%20Senate%20Minority%20Report,%20Billionaires%20Club%20(1).pdf

[4] https://www.neiinvestments.com/documents/Marketing/Transitioning%20to%20a%20Low-carbon%20Energy%20System.pdf

23 Comments

  1. Humans have warmed the earth with ghg’s. We must go to zero carbon energy to be in sync with life on earth.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

    Attribution of recent climate change is the effort to scientifically ascertain mechanisms responsible for recent climate changes on Earth, commonly known as ‘global warming’. The effort has focused on changes observed during the period of instrumental temperature record, when records are most reliable; particularly in the last 50 years, when human activity has grown fastest and observations of the troposphere have become available. The dominant mechanisms (to which the IPCC attributes climate change) are anthropogenic, i.e., the result of human activity. They are:[3]

    increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases
    global changes to land surface, such as deforestation
    increasing atmospheric concentrations of aerosols.
    There are also natural mechanisms for variation including climate oscillations, changes in solar activity, and volcanic activity.

    According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010.[4] The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.[5]

    Multiple lines of evidence support attribution of recent climate change to human activities:[6]

    A basic physical understanding of the climate system: greenhouse gas concentrations have increased and their warming properties are well-established.[6]
    Historical estimates of past climate changes suggest that the recent changes in global surface temperature are unusual.[6]
    Computer-based climate models are unable to replicate the observed warming unless human greenhouse gas emissions are included.[6]
    Natural forces alone (such as solar and volcanic activity) cannot explain the observed warming.[6]
    The IPCC’s attribution of recent global warming to human activities is a view shared by most scientists,[7][8]:2[9] and is also supported by 196 other scientific organizations worldwide[10] (see also: scientific opinion on climate change).

  2. The climate is quite insensitive to greenhouse gas emissions. The best scientific evidence from global energy balance models, using measured ocean heat content, and accounting for the urban heat island effect (UHIE) and natural climate variability shows that CO2 emissions will cause global temperatures to increase by only 0.57 °C by 2100 if atmospheric CO2 continues to increase at the current rate of 0.55%/year. Climate models do not account for natural climate change or the UHIE. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2205

    Alberta’s climate plan is projected to reduce global temperatures by 0.00007 °C by 2030, which is insignificant and undetectable. CO2 is plant food and increasing CO2 enhances crop and forest yields. CO2 induced warming is very beneficial, especially for Canada. Some economic models consider only costs of warming and assume any warming is harmful, but a social cost of carbon (dioxide) should include social costs and benefits of both warming and CO2 fertilization. The benefits greatly exceed the costs. Warming causes reduced costs for heating, reduced construction costs, greater farming area and increasing crop yields, reduced mortality, less severe storms, better health and many other benefits. The FUND model is the only model that includes both costs and benefits to calculate the social cost of carbon. It shows that Canada benefits by emissions by $190 Billion/year by 2100. CO2 emissions should be subsidized to maximize benefits to Canadians and the world. Do NOT subsidize wind and solar projects. Wind and solar power is extremely expensive, intermittent and unreliable.

    • The earth is actually sensitive to co2 to the point that with climate feedbacks we will get 3*C + or – 1.5*C. Since scientists are conservative, I’m inclined to think we would be in the upper range of the estimate. Long term ocean warming will be a significant issue over the centuries.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Radiative_forcing_due_to_doubled_CO2

      Radiative forcing due to doubled CO2[edit]
      CO2 climate sensitivity has a component directly due to radiative forcing by CO2, and a further contribution arising from climate feedbacks, both positive and negative. “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback”;[12] addition of these feedbacks leads to a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C ± 1.5 °C, which corresponds to a value of λ of 0.8 K/(W/m2).

      • Unfortunately for you, computers don’t contribute data and all of the actual observed data shows precisely the opposite of what you are praying for. Satellites, balloons, Bouys, ships measuring ocean temperature; all indicate the warming stopped over 18 years ago.

      • Unfortunately for you, computers don’t contribute data and all of the actual observed data shows precisely the opposite of what you are praying for. Satellites, balloons, Bouys, ships measuring ocean temperature; all indicate the warming stopped over 18 years ago.

        I count 6 different years warmer or tied with 1998. The 18 year meme does not hunt anymore.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
        Top 16 Warmest Years (NOAA)
        (1880–2015)
        Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
        1 2015 0.90 ……………….1.62
        2 2014 0.74 ……………….1.33
        3 2010 0.70 ……………….1.26
        4 2013 0.66 ……………….1.19
        5 2005 0.65 ……………….1.17
        6 (tie) 1998 0.63 ………..1.13
        6 (tie) 2009 0.63…………1.13

  3. This would be a display of total foolishness on the part of humanity to ever do such a scenario. Short term thinking does not work when the long term of climate change from human influences can practically crush a large portion of life on earth.

    http://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-could-warm-by-17c-if-all-known-fossil-fuels-are-burned-study-says

    Burning all the fossil fuels we know to exist on Earth could push global temperature an average of 8C above preindustrial levels, according to new research. The Arctic would bear the brunt of the warming, with temperatures potentially rising 17C, say the authors.

    Five trillion tonnes
    The starting point for the new study is a world in which there are no efforts to curb emissions. Under this scenario, CO2 stabilises at roughly 2,000 parts per million (ppm) in 2300.

    For context, this is more than five times higher than today’s level (~399ppm) and seven times what it was before humans started industrialising (~280ppm).

    Another way to express this is the total amount of carbon released since the beginning of the industrial period, known as cumulative emissions. For this scenario of unmitigated fossil fuel burning, a total of 5tn tonnes would have found its way to the atmosphere by 2300 in the form of carbon dioxide, the paper explains.

    This scenario effectively assumes the Paris Agreement – adopted last December – fails to gain any traction. Kasia Tokarska, a PhD student at the University of Victoria in Canada and lead author on the paper, tells Carbon Brief:

    “It is relevant to know what would happen if we do not take actions to mitigate climate change – for example, if we do not ever implement the Paris Agreement…From a scientific perspective, it is interesting to study how the climate system would respond under such high forcing levels.”

    • The above is from a Canadian study of what the consequences are from unlimited carbon energy consumption.

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3036.html#affil-auth

      Affiliations
      School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3V6, Canada
      Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Andrew J. Weaver & Michael Eby
      Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700, STN CSC, Victoria, British Columbia V8W 2Y2, Canada
      Nathan P. Gillett & Vivek K. Arora
      Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada
      Michael Eby

    • pure speculation

  4. The Arctic has been a tropical paradise in the past, long before humans used fossil fuels. Humans affect climate but do not control. Here’s Dr. Ian Clark explaining how the Holocene Hypsithermal resulted in a tropical paradise in the Arctic. https://youtu.be/4uDoKc9_2CQ Carbon dioxide did not cause that though a rise in carbon dioxide is the consequence of warming. Human contributions from industry are nominal compared to the natural carbon cycle. https://youtu.be/gb08wPe4zEc

    • This Canadian study shows mass extinctions across the globe. Paradise would take several million years for the life to adapt to the new climate conditions. Actually after several million years the co2 levels will return to present levels due to the very slow nature of the carbon cycle.

      http://www.carbonbrief.org/arctic-could-warm-by-17c-if-all-known-fossil-fuels-are-burned-study-says

      Sixth extinction event”
      Five trillion tonnes of carbon would raise global temperatures by 6.4-9.5C, relative to preindustrial times, according to the study. The Arctic, which is already warming faster than the rest of the world, would see temperatures rise at least 14.7, even as high as 19.5C.

      As well as a double figure temperature rise, burning all the world’s fossil fuels would result in a factor of four increase in rainfall in the tropical Pacific, say the authors.

      Since model projections already show the loss of whole ecosystems with 4C or 6C, it follows that a 8-10C rise could trigger the loss of more common ecosystems as well. Parmesan says:

      “Grasslands didn’t evolve until CO2 was low enough that grasses could out-compete trees. At least one research group has predicted loss of grasslands at very high CO2…[Overall, it is] likely these types of extreme climate changes would lead to a 6th mass extinction event.”

      • Many research groups have made many catastrophic predictions over the past 35 years, all of which have failed to manifest. An end to snow; perpetual drought; disappearing lakes; disappearing islands; disappearing glaciers; disappearing Polar Bears; more tornadoes; more powerful tornadoes; more hurricanes; more powerful hurricanes; 50 million climate refugees; famine; pestilence; and yes, even mass extinctions.

        My personal favorite was the prediction that African men’s penis’s would fall off due to Global Warming. It seems that there is no prediction, no argument too preposterous as RENEWABLEGUY is here, eager to show.

      • https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Happening-Now.aspx

        Global Warming is Happening Now

        Sea levels are rising

        Sea ice is melting

        Precipitation patterns are changing

        Oceans are acidifying

        Wouldn’t it be nice if this wasn’t true? But it is true and we must face the consequences of our past actions of our human way of life. In the mean time we learn from our past mistakes and move on to a more sustainable way of life living on earth. By the way, we only have one planet. How are we going to take care of it?

  5. There are several reasons why climate models greatly overestimate the climate sensitivity to greenhouse gas emissions.
    1. Models assume that the ability of land, vegetation and oceans are limited in their ability to sequester CO2, but the fraction of emissions that is absorbed by sinks is actually increasing, so the future CO2 concentrations will be much less that the IPCC forecasts. http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/CO2_Sink_eff.jpg
    2. Aerosols are assumed to cause a large cooling effect and models assume the pre-industrial climate was much sunnier than today. But aerosol expert Stevens and recent CLOUD experiments at CERN show that human-caused aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect, so climate sensitivity must be much less than model predictions. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=505
    3. Water vapour in the upper troposphere has been declining as CO2 increases, allowing excess heat to escape to space. Models predicted water vapor to increase at the 400 mbar level. This cause the temperature rise at 300 – 400 mbar pressure level to be about 1/3 of what the climate models predict. Water vapour: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/SH400mb.jpg Temperature: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS%20Essay/spencer-models-epic-fail.jpg
    4. The main temperature indexes are contaminated by the effects of urban development, so they overstate the temperature rise from 1980 by 0.042 °C/decade on a global basis.
    5. Models fail to account for the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age. The millennium natural cycle recovery from the LIA is estimated at 0.084 °C/century. Energy balance based calculation of climate sensitivity with corrections for the urban heat island and the natural warming from the LIA is only 1.0 °C, not the 3 °C ± 1.5 °C that the renewable guy mindlessly parroted from the IPCC report. Continued CO2 emissions will cause temperatures to increase by only 0.57 °C from now to 2100.

    Canada greatly benefits from CO2 fertilization and warming, and those benefit continually increase throughout the 21st century, The FUND model base assumption show Canada benefits by $190 billion per year by 2100. Globally the net social benefit of emissions is 18 US$/tCO2. http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2205

    • Somehow the doubters think they are smarter than the scientists. How did the scientists miss that one and not correct for it. Interesting. Scientists are quite careful at what they do. People smarter than you are questioning them in the same way with even more insightful thoughts. Good science stands against the negative pressure simply because the data shows us that it is correct.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Global_warming

      Because some parts of some cities may be hotter than their surroundings, concerns have been raised that the effects of urban sprawl might be misinterpreted as an increase in global temperature. Such effects are removed by homogenization from the raw climate record by comparing urban stations with surrounding stations. While the “heat island” warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases trends in the homogenized historical temperature record. For example, urban and rural trends are very similar.[21]

      The Third Assessment Report from the IPCC says:

      However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.[21]

      IPCC (2001). “Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Chapter 2.2 How Much is the World Warming?”. Retrieved 2009-06-18.

    • This becomes the magic wand theory in which the person making the statement is not responsible for any more evidence. Kind of a simpleton explanation.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/A-detailed-look-at-the-Little-Ice-Age.html

      A detailed look at the Little Ice Age

      Posted on 29 September 2010 by dana1981
      The argument that we’re simply “coming out of the Little Ice Age (LIA)” makes one of two assumptions:

      1. The planet oscillates around some natural equilibrium temperature such that after it cools, it must warm to return to this temperature, and vice-versa.

      2. Whatever caused the LIA cooling has reversed phase and is now causing global warming.

      The first assumption demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding what causes planetary temperature changes. The second does not hold up under scrutiny of the empirical data.

      Climate Change Causes

      A long-term increase in the Earth’s average temperature is caused by a change in the planetary energy balance (incoming vs. outgoing energy), also known as a ‘radiative forcing.’ If the amounts of incoming and outgoing energy are equal, the planet is in equilibrium and its temperature will not increase on average.

      The Planet is not Recovering from the LIA

      To sum up, with the exception of the human population, the factors which contributed to the LIA cannot account for the global warming of the past 50-100 years. Further, it is not physically accurate to claim that the planet is simply “recovering” from the LIA. This argument is akin to saying that when you drop a ball off a cliff, it falls because it used to be higher. There is a physical mechanism for these changes. In the case of the ball, it falls because of the gravitational pull at the Earth’s surface. In the case of the global temperature, it is warming from the increased greenhouse effect due to human activities.

    • Co2 does stimulate plant growth as long as the other nutrients are available necessary to the plant. If they aren’t, then they just don’t grow the way some people would hope that they do. CO2 fertilization is quite limited.

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/

      Recent experiments and model calculations, however, suggest that this is unlikely to be the case. A set of controlled experiments known as FACE (“Free Air CO2 Enrichment”) experiments have been performed in which ambient CO2 levels are elevated in forest stands and changes in various measures of productivity are made over several years. Experiments of this sort that have been done at Duke Forest indicate (in agreement with models), that any elevation of productivity is likely to be short-lived and is unlikely to significantly offset any gradual, long-term increases in co2 due to human activity. This is due in part to the fact that other conditions (e.g. availability of nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus) appear to quickly become limiting, even when carbon availability is removed as a constraint on plant growth when ambient CO2 concentrations are sufficiently increased.

      • The other nutrients do not just get used up, they too have a cycle and modern agriculture supplements these anyway. The argument is not that plant life will be stimulated by increased CO2 to take up more CO2 and thus ameliorate the atmospheric levels significantly. The argument is more plant mass will occur and agriculture will be more productive. Increased production levels attributable to, or at least coincident with, increased atmospheric CO2 have already been demonstrated in the real world. There is a benefit to increased CO2 that is denied or ignored by the climate alarmists.

  6. The silliest fake concern is “Oceans are acidifying”.
    For starters, the oceans are basic or alkaline, not acidic. The CO2 sequestration into the oceans have made pH levels decline from 8.12 in 1991 to 8.08 in 2011, or by 0.02 pH unit/decade. At this rate it would take 54 years for the oceans to be neutral pH 7.0! There is no evidence that ocean neutralization will cause any harm, see http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=516

    • I’m curious if you understand what acidification means. Do you? If you decease alkalilnity and yet the solution is still alkaline, that is called acidification. There has been a number of studies to see how marine life will do in a more acidic or another view less alkaline environment. It is not good for life dependent on building shells for themselves.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

      Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth’s oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere.[2] Seawater is slightly basic (meaning pH > 7), and the process in question is a shift towards less basic conditions rather than a transition to acidic conditions (pH < 7).[3]

      2. Caldeira, K.; Wickett, M. E. (2003). "Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH". Nature 425 (6956): 365–365. Bibcode:2001AGUFMOS11C0385C. doi:10.1038/425365a. PMID 14508477. Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help)

      3. The ocean would not become acidic even if it were to absorb the CO2 produced from the combustion of all fossil fuel resources.

      Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of potentially harmful consequences for marine organisms, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.[citation needed] Other chemical reactions are triggered which result in a net decrease in the amount of carbonate ions available. This makes it more difficult for marine calcifying organisms, such as coral and some plankton, to form biogenic calcium carbonate, and such structures become vulnerable to dissolution.[12]

      12 Orr, James C.; et al. (2005). "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms" (PDF). Nature 437 (7059): 681–686. Bibcode:2005Natur.437..681O. doi:10.1038/nature04095. PMID 16193043. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2008-06-25.

      • Very nice, Renewable Guy. You refer to Wikipedia to reinforce your tenacious grip on one of the most mendacious equivocations of the climate consensus. Yes, And not only that, you go right ahead and double down on it…BY QUOTING WIKIPEDIA by direct cut-and-paste.

        “Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of potentially harmful consequences for marine organisms, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching.[citation needed]”

        You’re damned right a citation is needed. It shows the depth of your knowledge about the world’s largest carbon sink: the formation of carbonate minerals. The depth of knowledge that Wikipedia will never provide, I’m afraid. Maybe begin by taking some courses in Carbonate Rocks and their formation. And when you’re finished, put up or shut up.

        Thank you.

  7. Astounding amount of time working on that threadbomb, R-Guy. I’ll give you credit for tenacity.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: