If the planned leaks are right, Thursday’s new report in Ottawa will dump all over the former Liberal government for doing nothing about climate change. It will be deserved. Greenhouse gas emissions were allowed to rise more than 30% above the targets set in the Kyoto accord. Fact is, we may never recover from that.
But the smugness of Conservatives will be short-lived unless we new guys prove we have a better plan. Because while the economy matters and taxes are important and Afghanistan is a worry and budget cuts are hurtful and crime control is urgent, there will only be one story going forward, which is the deterioration of our planet. Can there be a higher government goal than preventing it?
Yesterday global warming gained some unlikely muscle. California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law a tough climate change act in a slick made-for-TV press conference against the skyline of San Francisco. Complete with video boards and piped-in messages from world leaders, it was pure Hollywood, from a state which has twice elected movie stars to the top political job.
But it might be that very whimsy which has a state with 26 million cars leading the way. Within five years, California will be issuing licenses which determine how much carbon dioxide a business can release. Each year those licenses will be reduced, until the state has cut emissions by 25% in 2020.
This will mean more expensive gasoline, water and electricity. Internal-combustion gas engines will be too costly for many people to operate, paving the way for commercialization of alternative fuel vehicles and something California is bad at – public transit. It will also mean polluting businesses will be put out of business by government decree. No license, no emissions, no company.
Initial reaction yesterday was wild. Within a few hours political pundits were predicting Arnold – a wash-up in the polls just months ago – is headed for another full term in the governor’s mansion. Then maybe the White House.
Here in Canada, the greens weighed in yesterday, as well.
The Green Party plan would use the tax system to encourage environmentally positive behaviour and deter pollution. That would happen by slashing personal income tax, then imposing a new carbon tax, in an attempt to get us to change our wasteful ways. At the same time, more development of the oil sands – one of the country’s greatest sources of greenhouse gases – would be frozen, and tax incentives to companies operating there ended.
The greens would have your car mileage regulated, but also give you a subsidy to buy a fuel efficient vehicle. Good thing, since with curbs put on the oil sands, gasoline prices would likely double.
Against this backdrop, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose is crafting Canada’s plan. With every federal politician from oil-rich Alberta in the Conservative caucus, this will not be an easy task. Any credible climate change strategy will have to target the oil sands, since each barrel of oil coming out of there leaves a legacy of massive amounts of carbon dioxide and contaminated water. But Alberta’s current wealth, and the tilting of the axis of power to the West, is very much thanks to the oil and gas industry.
Choices this time will not be easy. The evidence mounts daily that global warming is our greatest enemy. The earth’s temperature, we heard this week, has not been this high in 12,000 years. The summer just past was the second-hottest on record. Storms and hurricances and droughts plague us. Agriculture is threatened. Two of the MPs who sit closest to me in the House got skin cancer this year.
It could well be this government, and all elected people this decade, will be measured by their reaction to this climate timebomb. Let’s hope Ambrose has the courage and vision to accept the best ideas around her, and to do what is right, even if it’s scandalous in Fort McMurray.
Good policy is still good politics.
26 comments ↓
The Green Party and Garth can promise that virgin lesbians can deliver baby skunks for all I care. There will never be a carbon tax in any nation in which Alberta is a part.
Excellent post Garth, I have voted for the Green party for the last 2 federal elections and 2 provincial elections. When the people running for office came to my door environment wasn’t even in their top 5 prioritys. I am glad to see that this issue is fast moving up the list. Why are the conservatives waiting so long to release their agenda. Certainly we could start somewhere and not need a big photo-op to release the whole thing at once. Start off small and bring the rest into place when needed. I like the greens plan to tax fossil fuels heavily. I am looking forward to seeing gas at least being $1.50/l.
Now Garth, I think you are far too worried about Global Warming. People used to write, just as you have written, about the Coming Ice Age. And also about the Population Time Bomb. Climate is strongly regulated by, wait for it … the sun … and some scientists are calculating the sun is heading for a cooler period.
And on the other hand, I live in Ottawa, where a little warming trend would be welcomed with open arms. I figure that the worst that would happen is that Ottawa would get weather like my boyhood home of Windsor. Peaches in the Ottawa valley, and the moderation of this dreadful winter.
But I fear it is not to be; if the political consensus is that global warming is about to terrorize us, then undoubtedly we are in for a cooling spell.
Trevor Jones
Ottawa
While I agree mankind is contributing to climate changes, let’s not get hysterical. It may be a good marketing ploy, but, a pratical and level headed vision is more appropriate.
For those who want to beat Alberta, look at your own life styles.
Do you tend to drive 120+ down the 401?
Do you tend to buy minivans or SUVs for a 2 or 4 person family?
Do you tend to discard 3 year old PCs, electronics?
Do you tend to discard furnishing and clothing frequently to stay in fashion?
Do you tend to want to live in 1500+ housing?
Do you tend to have swimming pools, emitting chlorine, on postage size lots?
Do you tend to chop trees on your property? Or do you tend to plant more trees on your property?
Do you tend to use air conditioning from May to October, without opening windows when the outside temperature is less than 25 celcius?
Do you tend to use disposal diapers? Or cloth diapers?
Do you tend to buy pre-packaged foods? Or fresh foods?
Do you tend to fly everywhere for your vacation? Or take the train? Or stay put?
Do you tend to lobby your government for carban tax? Or do you lobby for heavy investments in alternative fuels and energies?
Just some thoughts….
Garth, this is off track…
I heard Jason Kenney on CTV say that Maher Arar was actually suing us, Canadian taxpayers, for $400 MILLION dollars? Is this true?
Yes, ture, which is why I’d suspect PMSH is not apologizing! — Garth
While there is no denying that global warming is occuring, there is certainly no consensus among scientists that it is largely due to us (or our emmissions). In fact, there is more and more evidence coming forward that it is likely more of a cyclical planetary thing. Are we willing to cripple our economy to bring in “green” policies on a 50-50 chance that it will not even make any difference?
Even if we stopped driving every single car in this country for 2 years it wouldn’t make any difference since China, India, and the U.S (although they have cut their emissions substantially) will continue to emit on a huge scale when compared to us!
I prefer the route that the Conservatives seem to be taking, let’s clean up our own back yard first by cleaning up our air and water, not only will this help our environment but our health care system too!
I suspect that the reason they have not yet declared their full environmental platform is because they were waiting for the release of today’s AG report on the Liberal’s policies to use as a contrast when introducing their own.
Charley, you are correct in that it is not 100% sure why the earth is warming up, but it is.
It is also certain (to a high degree) that the atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they have been in 800,000 years. It is certain that this higher concentration of atmospheric CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels. It is certain that the rate at which the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing drastically. It is certain that the current levels of CO2 (if we stop burning fossil fuels today) will take thousands and thousands of years to return to previous levels because our carbon sinks (forests and oceans) are being cut down and polluted.
The science behind how CO2 acts as a blanket and can hold the sun’s heat in the earth’s atmosphere is well known, but because it is difficult to recreate and experiment on such a global scale, working theories are the best that can be done at this time.
So Charley, you are correct that we are not 100% certain why the earth is warming up, but it is and it is having drastic effects on the world.
If you need anything explained further, please let me know.
I live in the Ottawa area so I will enjoy the warmer winters while they last. I am quite certain the “warming” will begin “cooling” again in the next 10 years or so (no doubt right after western countries have spend HUGE amounts of money to “reduce global warming”), or maybe the “dimming” will become front and centre as it seems to be the latest environmental catchprase..
If global warming is 100% due to CO2 emmissions then what man-made things would have caused the global warmings of the past? Do volcanoes and other natural phenomena spew much, much more of these harmful gases (it’s not just CO2 that is causing warming) then we ever could with cars or oil sands??
I believe “environmentalism” has become the new “socialism”…
I agree with theories more along the lines of those of Dr. Tim Ball on the environment issues.
I wonder what contributes more CO2 to the atmosphere in a day – all the cars in LA, or this:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=11799
And that’s just one of many going on in the world at any given time.
There are plenty more here:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/Archive/natural_hazards_archive.php3?topic=fire
Of course the global warming fanatics will blame the increase in wildfires on global warming, but then that doesn’t account for all of the man made fires used to clear forested land for agriculture. Not only does this add CO2 to the atmosphere, but it removes huge amounts of vegetation from the carbon sink.
Just think of all the land that has been burned and cleared over the past century to make way for agriculture and urban uses.
Aahhh……Just tax Alberta more! It is certainly easier to do! Or so you think!!!
Right on Charley
http://magic-city-news.com/printer_5888.shtml
Global Warming has become a euphemism for a political agenda. There is Socialism, Capitalism and Global Warmingism.
Global warming is far from being caused 100% by CO2 levels. But we do have some understanding of the effects CO2 has on climate and this is something over which we have a degree of control.
Warmer winters would be more comfortable for us but would be catastrophic to the rest of the globe.
Anthropogenic CO2 levels in the atmosphere are at an “all time” high; the earth is warming; weather patterns are changing; the oceans are rising.
Dr Tim Ball’s views include, sitting back and doing more analysis. Unfortunately if climate change is indeed resulting from our actions, reversing it will take centuries, if not millennia… and the longer we wait, the more damage we do and the longer it will take to recover.
The earth has always been in a state of flux, but the evidence suggesting that anthropogenic CO2 may be causing the earth to warm is present and consistent.
I sure hope the scientists like Dr Ball are correct because if they are not, I’m not looking forward to the consequences.
There is no global warming. Garth you know that too but you just like being trendy shame on you !
The Kyoto Accords are not insanity, they are purposeful criminality. EACH YEAR global wildfires equal the whole world burning 100% of recovered petroleum for 337 YEARS.
THEY ARE LYING TO YOU. It is not a good lie. It is crap at face value. Unfathomably huge quantities of CO2 and methane rise up from rotting Siberian and Canadian wet tundra plus rice paddies and swamps (wetlands). CO2 emitted by petroleum combustion is meaninglessly small in comparison to any of them.
If you like sheaves of differential equations rather than arithmetic you can obtain any politically useful answer at will. Statistically rigorous climate prediction on demand has arrived,
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/predict-your-climate.html
Dynamically generated random numbers carved to fit within a trifling statistical envelope will outperform any and all climate models of whatever complexity and computational burden – in a few PC-seconds. The false numbers are double-blind indistinguishable from the “real” ones. One may confidently predict any future climate desired, and submit bills of lading to be paid in the here and now. THEY ARE LYING TO YOU.
The price of American fuel does not Officially impact the economy, nor does the price of food. Shift corn and soy production to gasohol and biodiesel. Expensive animal feed will do to milk, cheese, beef, pork, and poultry what the Arabs did to gasoline and diesel. Washington’s Consumer Price Index is very carefully configured to eructate only happy talk. Will government do for food costs what HHS Medicare did for healthcare costs? Will only privileged minorities be adequately fed?
Uh, Gary V. On what planet have you been living for the past 5 years? Perhaps on Planet Dorko, there is no warming, but our shrinking ice caps, mild winters, hurricanes, unbearably hot summer…does this light anything in that head of yours?
Charley.
Certainly Canada is experiencing global warming, however it is far too soon to conclude the reasons for it, let alone what if anything can we or should we if possible, do anything about it. The Kyoto advocates and those on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have left a lot of questions unanswered:
They have not as yet even attempted to explain why the very close correlation of global temperature change to sun spot activity?
Why the green house gas effect is more affected by water vapor than carbon monoxide?
That some commercial green houses are now releasing CO2 into their greenhouses to enhance growth.
That all of the previous, ice ages ended due to global warming in spite of the fact that man made GHG emissions were essentially zero, otherwise we now would have 1,000 feet of ice over our heads.
The temperature studies of the IPCC are very suspect and are now being challenged by some of the scientific community. Some are now even projecting that the next ice age could start within our lifetimes.
What is the reaction to the suggestion by some scientists who have done considerable research on the effects of glacial melting in the Arctic and on subsequent water movements of the gulf stream and the possible likelihood that global cooling in the northern hemisphere may result, causing another ice age in Europe? IPCC have not addressed this.
That ice ages, interglacial periods (which we are now in), and further ice ages have always occurred and will always continue to occur. We may affect the process but most likely are powerless to reverse it .
Canada has already wasted five billion dollars on Kyoto. We too, wasted thirty billion on the last fear mongered public calamity, the Y2K bug. Too many politicians and not enough real scientists are being heard from.
It is time for more study and not for us to attempt to ’save the world’ when we do not yet know what the affects of our actions may be, except that they would be severe in terms of the negative financial affects to our society.
.
umm Charley … are you aware that Dr. Tim Ball is a “talking head” whose costs for speaking engagements…etc. are paid for by the oil and gas lobby?
I don’t have a problem, per se, with you saying you attach more value to driving the economic engine than you do taking into account environmental concerns, but don’t completely discredit yourself and the economic argument by demonstrating that your side is very clearly in the business of generating doubt by trying to pretend, or spread the word, that environmental concerns are only a theory and/or a hoax. You don’t hear reputable environmentalists and scientists saying stupid things like “economic concerns don’t exist,†do you? There is a balance to be struck, but it appears to me only one side is interested in reaching that balance while the other side is only interested in seeing their point of view prevail. In what way is this responsible?
It’s all a matter of how you establish credibility. In my view those who summarily dismiss what the overwhelming majority of reputable and independent scientists have to say, are only shooting themselves in the foot. Long term, they actually assist the cause they are fighting. How long we have, however, may make the “long term†a very moot point.
Many in the media, have taken it upon themselves to drop all pretense of balance on global warming and instead become committed advocates for the issue.
Here is a quote from Newsweek magazine:
“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.â€
A headline in the New York Times reads: “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output.†Here is a quote from Time Magazine:
“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.â€
All of this sounds very ominous. That is, until you realize that the three quotes I just read were from articles in 1975 editions of Newsweek Magazine and The New York Times, and Time Magazine in 1974. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html
They weren’t referring to global warming; they were warning of a coming ice age.
Let me repeat, all three of those quotes were published in the 1970’s and warned of a coming ice age.
There are many more examples of the media and scientists flip-flopping between warming and cooling scares.
Here is a quote from the New York Times reporting on fears of an approaching ice age.
“Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.â€
That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
Let me repeat. 1895, not 1995.
A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.â€
The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.†An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.â€
By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming:
“America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise†stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933. The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles.
An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared:
“Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.†The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out†and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.â€
A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.â€
The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence†would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.†These past predictions of doom have a familiar ring, don’t they? They sound strikingly similar to our modern media promotion of former Vice president’s brand of climate alarmism.
After more than a century of alternating between global cooling and warming, one would think that this media history would serve a cautionary tale for today’s voices in the media and scientific community who are promoting yet another round of eco-doom.
The problem, Christopher, is that for every “reputable and independant” scientist saying that we’re headed for a global catastrophe of our own making you’ll find another equally reputable and independant scientist saying the exact opposite.
I don’t think you’ll find anyone who would argue that cleaning up our air and water and polluting less is a good thing. But I think you’d find a very different reaction when the environmental nuts start screeching for ridiculous knee-jerk policies that destroy economies, eliminate jobs and cause incredible hardship to people.
Excellent post Jerry! Illustrates my last point perfectly!
Well Charlie, not a bad guy to listen to!!!
TIM BALL has an extensive science background in climatology, especially experience in water resources and areas of sustainable development, pollution prevention, environmental regulations and the impact of government policy on business and economics. He is a regular contributing writer for Country Guide magazine and a researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding problems. After a long academic career at the University of Winnipeg, he moved to Victoria in 1996. He has a B.A. from the University of Winnipeg, an M.A. from the University of Manitoba and a PH.D. (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England.
Career:
1996 – present: Environmental Consultant, Public Speaker, Columnist
1988-1996 Professor, university of Winnipeg
1984-1988 Associate Professor, University of Winnipeg
1977-1978 Acting Dean of Students
1971-1982 Instructor/Lecturer, University of Winnipeg
1964-1968 Operations Officer and Aircrew. 111 Search and Rescue Unit
1962-1964 Operations Officer, Operational Training Unit,Summerside PEI
1960-1962 Aircrew, Navigation, Electronics, 415 Squadron, Summerside, PEI
- Extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition.
- Additional experience in the areas of water resources sustainable development, pollution prevention prevention, environmental regulations, the impact of government policy on business and economics.
- Chair of Provincial Boards on water management, environmental issues, and sustainable development.
- Extensive public speaking experience and presentations to professional societies, business conferences, public forums, and a wide variety of public, private and non-profit organizations. Over six hundred public educational talks on science and the environment in the last ten years.
- Heavily involved throughout his career in local and national committees related to climate, water and river management, hazardous waste. A regular contributing writer for Country Guide, and researcher/author of numerous papers on climate, long range weather patterns, impacts of climate change on sustainable agriculture, ecosystems, historical climatology, air quality, untapped energy resources, silting and flooding problems, bird migration patterns, historical sites development, impact studies on flooding of aboriginal lands in Manitoba.
*****************
In 1996, Dr. Ball left his job at the University of Winnipeg for the more lucrative pursuit of scientific gun-for-hire (“environmental consultant”). It looks like he found a home at the American National Center for Public Policy Research, a Conservative front group supporting whatever initiatives their financial backers want them to endorse.
SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE LIEBERAL!
EXTRA…..EXTRA… read all about it ! Eminent chicken warns sky is falling.
Anything to sell a newspaper. It’s just a big game. Increased circulation = increased advertising revenue. Ethics be damned.
Christopher Gary,
You simply do not know what you are talking about vis-a-vis Dr. Ball being financially sponsored by the oil industry. Categorically, DR. Ball states that this is not just a viscous rumour designed to discredit him, it is an out and out lie. You are repeating that lie Christopher. If you continue to repeat it I will pass onto Dr. Ball your on the record comment, such that if he chooses he can litigate. I suggest to you that you should put brain in gear before engaging mouth. An apology to Dr. Ball would be in order.
Ever wonder why Paul Martin and the Liberals signed onto Kyoto and did NOTHING. Could it be that Canada would have to pay 10 BILLION dollars to China for their credits? And where does Maurice Strong reside these days? Why China!
Oh BTW – who was it that brought emission testing to Ontario? Why it was that big bad Mike Harris! And which province started their investments in alternate fuels and energies years back? Why it was Alberta! See the pattern here…. Liberals and NDP – all talk and no actions. Conservatives -small talk, heavy thinking, and BIG actions and results.
To: “K2†– It is factually incorrect to say that for every “reputable and independent scientist saying that we’re headed for a global catastrophe of our own making you’ll find another equally reputable and independant scientist saying the exact opposite.†The numbers simply do not support you on this one.
To: “Lewis “ – I stand firmly by the information I have provided to readers of this blog about Dr. Tim Ball. I urge you to review Charles Montgomery’s: “Nuturing Doubt About Climate Change Is Big Business.
As for litigious threats contained in your post, I would be more than happy to host a debate of ALL of the issues between each of the parties. This would include of course the environmental debate as well as a tabling of the evidence in support of the claims that Dr. Ball has received financial compensation from the oil and gas lobby for his “contributions†to the global warming argument. You may if you wish have Dr. Ball contact me and I will make the necessary arrangements for this event to occur.
Charley, Jerry, Lewis … (sigh)
Charley, you should be a bit more concerned about the future of that child of yours. Jerry, we’ve jousted on this before, if I’m not mistaken, but a few weeks ago – guess we’ll have to agree to disagree because I read the actual trend data differently then you. Lewis, the sunspot cycle is 11 years, while the warming trend has been trending consistently upward ever since the latter part of Industrial Revolution, about the time that water power gave way to coal and steam. That would be through more than 10 sunspot cycles. The only time there was a bit of a plateau was round about the time that Krakatoa blew its top and put sun-reflecting particulate matter in the atmosphere for several years (made for nice red sunsets though).
Yes DUBE and I had a great time golfing.
This report is a study in contradictions and assumptions; assumptions made on information that is, by all scientific acknowledgement, less that all that needs to be known. The “scientific” models are built on data that the scientists know has gaps and complete holes in places, in some areas that they know as major factors in earth heat generation and cycles.
“This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made pollution,” said Hansen. In recent decades, human-made greenhouse gases have become the largest climate change factor. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and warm the surface. Some greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, occur naturally, while others are due to human activities.”
Contradictions that produce false claims: (a)”human-made greenhouse gases have become the largest climate change factor”; (b)”greenhouse gases which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, while others are due to human activities”; however (c)water vapor is the largest component of “greenhouse gases” responsible for climate change and (d)most atmospheric water vapor is not “human made” and humans have almost zero ability to control it. See: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
“The study notes that the world’s warming is greatest at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and it is larger over land than over ocean areas. The enhanced warming at high latitudes is attributed to effects of ice and snow. As the Earth warms, snow and ice melt, uncovering darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, a process called a positive feedback. Warming is less over ocean than over land because of the great heat capacity of the deep-mixing ocean, which causes warming to occur more slowly there.”
The above statement is not science or it is terribly bad communication. The atmosphere and the oceans circulate any and all earth warming or cooling. Yes, there are temperature differences, due to the specifics of a particular location such as latitude (closer to the poles or closer to the equator), altitude (elevation above sea level), path of prevailing jet-stream and trade wind patterns and other factors. But, the description in the preceding paragraph is a description of affects, not causes. The northern latitudes are not “warming” because the snow and ice are melting, exposing more land. The snow and ice are melting because it is warming there. The heat that is absorbed does contribute to warming ground temperatures, but it does not contribute immensely to warmer atmospheric temperatures and would cease to be a factor if (and when) atmospheric temperatures drop.
What has actually been observed in the northernmost latitudes is areas of snow and ice melt nearest the oceans (like Greenland and Antarctica) which has (a)reduced glaciers at the waters edge and melted snow nearest the oceans, and (b)produced greater local water vapor which when meeting the atmosphere has produced greater snow fall, which has produced much deeper and denser snow packs inland, which in affect is (c)building the makings of the next phase of glacial expansion when the warming cycle recedes again.
“The California researchers obtained a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from the magnesium content in the shells of microscopic sea surface animals, as recorded in ocean sediments……One of the findings ………is that the Western Equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans are now as warm as, or warmer than, at any prior time in the Holocene” – the Holocene is our current “relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. The Western Pacific and Indian Oceans are important because, as these researchers show, temperature change there is indicative of global temperature change.”
Here where the science is slipping up. The oceans cover 2/3 of the earth. What happens in and under the oceans and between the oceans and the atmosphere is 2/3 of the climate story but probably less than 10% of the known data. Why? The earth, through its molten core, its magnetic field, its tectonic activity (shifting plates of land sliding around the earth) is a huge heat generator and dispenser. Most of that heat, from earthquakes, to volcanoes and millions of fissures, from tiny to immense, is dispensed under the oceans, absorbed by ocean water and transported to the atmosphere (and back) in the form of water vapor. Which, the link above has already told you is more dense lately, and the largest contributor to “global warming”. And yet, that activity is not constant in its severity or its distribution. And, this part of the science is the weakest part in terms of data to represent this activity.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180622.htm
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html
“The Western Pacific is important for another reason, too: it is a major source of heat for the world’s oceans and for the global atmosphere.” In contrast to the Western Pacific, the researchers find that the Eastern Pacific Ocean has not shown an equal magnitude of warming. They explain the lesser warming in the East Pacific Ocean, near South America, as being due to the fact this region is kept cool by upwelling, rising of deeper colder water to shallower depths. The deep ocean layers have not yet been affected much by human-made warming.
And yet that explanation should also hold true for the northeastern Pacific, but it does not, because it is warmer than the eastern Pacific in the south and warmer than the western Pacific. Since the water and atmospheric flows are generally west to east (caused by the earth’s rotation), what is under the middle of the northern Pacific that makes it warmer, and thus increases the northern Pacific’s contribution of water vapor – the largest green house gas?