so, what he's saying is that he doesn't know how to read the assessment. these issues have all been dealt with. the 95% confidence interval on human activity also comes with measurements of effects from other forces like the sun and ocean currents, which are at a very small level of impact since 1950, and even smaller since 1980.

the media needs to stop reporting this like it's an issue up for debate. rather, it needs to focus on explaining what the reports say, and on correcting people like this guy when they say things that are wrong.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/conservative-candidate-questions-whether-climate-change-is-human-caused-1.3262393

longtime_in
Are you familar with the work in the website

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/melting_permafrost.asp

Can you give your opinion?

jessica murray
i'm certainly aware that there's a concern about methane being released as the permafrost melts, and that it is in fact being observed in some places (by watching it bubble up out of the ocean). the fear is that this could set off a "feedback cycle". i'm not sure what kind of opinion you're phishing for, though.

longtime_in
Are you aware of the magnitude of carbon that scientist are talking about?

jessica murray
i'm aware that it's considered to be substantial. i'd have to look up exact numbers. but, i'm not sure where you're going with this.

the ipcc report quantifies concerns such as this and has concluded that they have not been a significant factor of observed warming up to this point. it is thought, however, that this may become a significant additional factor in the near future,

longtime_in
There has been measurable thawing of the perma frost. What if the thawing is to natural causes?

Read the debate on the life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere.

jessica murray
ok, so, as mentioned, what you're demonstrating is that you don't know how to read the ipcc reports. this is what the report does: it acknowledges observed warming and then tries to quantify the causes. it doesn't merely correlate the effects of warming with the increase in carbon. it rules out natural causes. it's the whole point.

it's a valid question, sure. but it's what the report is about. and, if you understand the report, you understand it rules that out.

ThinkorThwim
If the thawing were due to natural causes, there'd be some theory out right now that aligned more closely to the observed temperature fluctuations that we've already seen.

There isn't.

jessica murray
no. it's not just that. the report specifically rules natural causes out. it's the *point* of the report.

for example, one possibility is the sun. up to about 1950, we can actually see a pretty strong correlation of solar effects with global mean temperatures. and, that makes sense, in an atmosphere that is roughly in equilibrium, with natural cycles. but, since 1980, solar output has decreased, while temperatures have increased. that is, the warming has decoupled from solar effects. therefore, the observed warming is not due to solar effects. and that is a big part of what the assessment is all about.

it's not enough to correlate. that would be an error. they also have to rule out other possible causes - and they have, with a high degree of certainty.

it's the point.

so, saying "well, what if it's due to natural causes?" is merely not understanding what the report says.

and the media has done an absolutely terrible job of holding people to account for this.

longtime_in
Jessica, I like your intellectual capability. But I didn't say anything about temperature.

What I talked about is the debate on CO2 residence time in the atmosphere. The current theory is postulated by deduction and not empirical evidence. Thawing perma frost offers further input to the debate on concentration.

I don't think we have enough time to discuss temperature change or the lack of it.

jessica murray
i'm really not able to make sense of what you're saying, or tie a claim about residence (which is a common and easily debunked skeptic argument) to the ipcc report, which rules out natural factors as the cause of the observed warming. i don't see the relevance of the distraction.

again: the purpose of the ipcc report is to rule out natural causes, and they've done so with a high degree of certainty.

longtime_in
Estimates of perma frost carbon are double current atmospheric mass. Perma frost has been thawing and only recently, scientists have postulated we will continue to see steady thawing through the end of the century. This release is NOT included in any of the existing climate models.

You asked what the relevance is of this distraction. Something that is a natural cause that has the potential to increase emissions by orders of magnitude greater than AGW emissions and is not in current climate models tells you the extent to which we are know what is drives "climate change"

jessica murray
i'm still not following you, and i'm going to avoid getting bogged down in specifics, because that's how these debates get sidetracked.

it's well understood that the release of methane stores from the arctic will likely have the effect of accelerating the warming, but i'm not able to tie that to the idea that the observed warming is cyclical. i mean, the idea of the feedback is itself contradictory to a cyclical model - it's understood as a breaking point, where the effects become irreversible.

so, what are you proposing is the cause of the melting that we're seeing in the arctic, if not emissions? are you even proposing that at all, or are you simply pointing out that there's a breaking point where the effect cannot be reversed?

and i again need to point out that the purpose of the ipcc report was to rule out all natural causes that we're aware of. i suppose you could argue that there's some possible natural cause that we're not aware of, but i hope you don't live your life on that principle - it would be quite daunting to accomplish simple tasks.

longtime_in
What I am pointing out is the need for caution in our policy response. There is a great deal we don't understand and our actions should not be injurious.

You said "the 95% confidence interval on human activity also comes with measurements of effects from other forces like the sun and ocean currents,"

I'm suggesting that scientists are not as certain what proportion of this is attributable to human activity and to what extent our actions will affect atmosheric concentration...

jessica murray
ok - i understand you now. you're suggesting that the ipcc report is not convincing because, despite it ruling out all known natural causes, it doesn't rule out unknown natural causes.

yet, you're seemingly unable to suggest what any of these unknown natural causes may be. nor is there any sort of evidence that these unknown unknowns may exist.

you'll have to excuse me for ducking out of the conversation at this point.

i will point out, though, that there is another option, although it's not talked about much. i'm getting the impression that the liberal platform may be skirting around this with it's green infrastructure bank, although it's not entirely clear what the scope they wish to use it in is. i think at the least if they could set it up it would help.

i'm in favour of a carbon tax, but not as a primary measure. i have little faith in carbon trading schemes; it just sounds like a pyramid scheme to me. before a carbon tax can really be useful, the infrastructure has to already exist. i'm not convinced by the idea that a carbon tax will spur the market to react; rather, i think people will eat the price increase and then complain about it. i paid close attention to the message board reaction to the carbon tax when it came in to bc. the hope is that people would say "i will change my consumption patterns". but, instead, you had people respond with things like "i'm going to have to pull my kids out of hockey to pay for my suv.". the intended reaction didn't seem as though it was coming from the policy - because the options to change aren't clear.

rather, i think the actual solution is massive state investment. the biggest problem is electricity generation; so, let's have the government spend billions on clean generation. the next biggest problem is transportation. so, let's get massive government expenditures on clean transportation options.

once the options are in place, then a carbon tax makes sense to try and coerce people to make the right choices.

but, a market solution like a tax or a cap and trade system on it's own is not something i think will be effective. we need state expenditures, first.

Honest Comment
Money talks (carbon tax), BS walks (cap and trade)

Scammers will run circles around bureaucrats trying to administer cap and trade.

If burning carbon costs more, business will find ways to reduce the burn and save a buck.

jessica murray
they'd be more likely to get together and collude with each other to all pass on the costs to consumers, who don't have another option.

i don't actually believe the ndp is serious about the cap and trade, anyways. they'll let the provinces deal with it. the real centerpiece of the ndp platform is an increase in oil taxes. their long term plan is to tax oil to pay for services. that's not consistent with the idea that they want to reduce emissions. rather, it suggests that they want to increase production so they can get more tax revenue out of it.

and, if you look at other issues of their platform, and the language mulcair uses, a level of consistency develops.

that's something that won't happen federally.