View Full Version : Adventurer looks for climate change
Adventurer looks for climate change
Local adventure traveller Chris Cooper saw plenty of snow and ice on a recent excursion to Baffin Island, as you would expect.
Cooper, who has made numerous trips to Canada's arctic, was curious whether the massive frozen island had experienced signs of global warming, a much talked about topic of conversation during the past couple of years.
He talked to Inuit people who lived there, and they told him a different story than the one often heard in the media, that the ice is melting in the Earth's northern regions.
"The people living up there visually can't see anything up there at all," said Cooper, sitting in his Pitt Meadows home after completing his seventh arctic journey.
He couldn't see any signs of global warming during the group's 200-kilometre journey - Cooper said the glaciers were huge and frozen.
"You would never know there's global warming up there," said Cooper.
Global warming is certainly occurring, Cooper believes, but the degree to which it is happening has been blown out of proportion.
"It's way over the top," he said.
Global warming wasn't really a concern until about two years ago, said Cooper.
"But now we hear about it all the time on the news," he said.
Cooper travelled to Baffin Island, the world's fifth largest island, as part of a group of eight people. They skied, hauled a heavy load, and camped out during most of their time there.
"I just feel a fascination to do these sorts of things," said Cooper, who took some some spectacular photos of the frozen northern land during the adventure.
He finds the people as fascinating as the place's geography. The people of Baffin Island were outgoing, accommodating and kind, said Cooper, and they were equally curious about the lives of their southern visitors.
Cooper wouldn't have been able to afford to go if he hadn't had 25,000 Aeroplan points to redeem. The airfare would have cost him about $4,000.
On previous trips to the North, Cooper has had corporate sponsors. He also took travellers on a couple of commercial trips in the 1990s.
Cooper's adventurous spirit will next take him to Great Britain, where he is scheduled to embark next year on a canoe trip around part of Great Britain's coast for six months with Canadian and British paddlers.
He is to complete the second half of that adventure in 2009.
published on 07/06/2007
http://www.mrtimes.com/issues07/071207/community/071207co4.html
Adventurer looks for climate change
Local adventure traveller Chris Cooper saw plenty of snow and ice on a recent excursion to Baffin Island, as you would expect.
Cooper, who has made numerous trips to Canada's arctic, was curious whether the massive frozen island had experienced signs of global warming, a much talked about topic of conversation during the past couple of years.
He talked to Inuit people who lived there, and they told him a different story than the one often heard in the media, that the ice is melting in the Earth's northern regions.
"The people living up there visually can't see anything up there at all," said Cooper, sitting in his Pitt Meadows home after completing his seventh arctic journey.
He couldn't see any signs of global warming during the group's 200-kilometre journey - Cooper said the glaciers were huge and frozen.
"You would never know there's global warming up there," said Cooper.
Global warming is certainly occurring, Cooper believes, but the degree to which it is happening has been blown out of proportion.
"It's way over the top," he said.
Global warming wasn't really a concern until about two years ago, said Cooper.
"But now we hear about it all the time on the news," he said.
Cooper travelled to Baffin Island, the world's fifth largest island, as part of a group of eight people. They skied, hauled a heavy load, and camped out during most of their time there.
"I just feel a fascination to do these sorts of things," said Cooper, who took some some spectacular photos of the frozen northern land during the adventure.
He finds the people as fascinating as the place's geography. The people of Baffin Island were outgoing, accommodating and kind, said Cooper, and they were equally curious about the lives of their southern visitors.
Cooper wouldn't have been able to afford to go if he hadn't had 25,000 Aeroplan points to redeem. The airfare would have cost him about $4,000.
On previous trips to the North, Cooper has had corporate sponsors. He also took travellers on a couple of commercial trips in the 1990s.
Cooper's adventurous spirit will next take him to Great Britain, where he is scheduled to embark next year on a canoe trip around part of Great Britain's coast for six months with Canadian and British paddlers.
He is to complete the second half of that adventure in 2009.
published on 07/06/2007
http://www.mrtimes.com/issues07/071207/community/071207co4.html
Well, mr Cooper is in the minority who think there ISNT global warming.
I live in Borneo and its bloody obvious that things are not normal with the weather patterns, the rainy seasons and dry spells as well as the slight increase in temperatures....
It wasnt like this 10 years ago...
The Reaper
07-08-2007, 09:10
Well, mr Cooper is in the minority who think there ISNT global warming.
I live in Borneo and its bloody obvious that things are not normal with the weather patterns, the rainy seasons and dry spells as well as the slight increase in temperatures....
It wasnt like this 10 years ago...
I disagree.
The weather is always changing, it is changing at a much slower rate than the Chicken Littles would have you believe (a couple of degrees per century), and the cause of it is far from verified as primarily manmade.
His point was about Baffin Island, and the claims that the glaciers and ice caps are melting. Have you spent a lot of time there?
I only have 50 years of weather observations on multiple continents, but I think it is merely the normal cycle.
If you think global warming sucks, wait till you see global cooling (again).:rolleyes:
TR
It wasnt like this 10 years ago...
Do you recall what the weather there was like 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? How about 1,000,000 years ago? There's a reason long-term studies with more data points are generally regarded as being more reliable in science circles.
Everyone has an opinion about global warming. It's like politics, a way to have a good argument.
However, I don't think it would hurt to get a bunch of the pollution out of the air.
The Reaper
07-08-2007, 12:29
Everyone has an opinion about global warming. It's like politics, a way to have a good argument.
However, I don't think it would hurt to get a bunch of the pollution out of the air.
IIRC, the air in the US is cleaner now than it was in the 60s.
Developing countries like China, India, Korea, and even Mexico are another matter.
Unfortunately, the most stringent restrictions are on those who have spent the most to control pollution.
Consequently, there will be little, if any impact on the largest polluters, and a tremedous hit to the industry and economy of those trying the hardest to be clean and green. I think China and India's economies would collapse if the EPA enforced the same laws there as we have here. Maybe we should advocate for our EPA to take over the UN with our environmental laws and enforce them everywhere equally.:rolleyes:
TR
Maybe we should advocate for our EPA to take over the UN with our environmental laws and enforce them everywhere equally.:rolleyes: TR
There would be a whole bunch of people pounding on the desks with their shoes.
82ndtrooper
07-08-2007, 15:29
Do you recall what the weather there was like 100 years ago? 1000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? How about 1,000,000 years ago? There's a reason long-term studies with more data points are generally regarded as being more reliable in science circles.
A million years ago ? Was that the Carboniferous period ? It was something like 90% pure oxygen and erachnids were the size of a small calf:munchin
Lightning often started explosions resulting in hundreds of acres of swampland turning into dust.
http://www.aconvenientfiction.com/
I disagree.
The weather is always changing, it is changing at a much slower rate than the Chicken Littles would have you believe (a couple of degrees per century), and the cause of it is far from verified as primarily manmade.
His point was about Baffin Island, and the claims that the glaciers and ice caps are melting. Have you spent a lot of time there?
I only have 50 years of weather observations on multiple continents, but I think it is merely the normal cycle.
If you think global warming sucks, wait till you see global cooling (again).:rolleyes:
TR
Fair statement; I think you probably do have a point about the weather patterns changing; they dont remain consistent throughout a 100 year period but rather MAYBE work in some sort of a cycle..
:p
IIRC, the air in the US is cleaner now than it was in the 60s.
Developing countries like China, India, Korea, and even Mexico are another matter.
Unfortunately, the most stringent restrictions are on those who have spent the most to control pollution.
Consequently, there will be little, if any impact on the largest polluters, and a tremedous hit to the industry and economy of those trying the hardest to be clean and green. I think China and India's economies would collapse if the EPA enforced the same laws there as we have here. Maybe we should advocate for our EPA to take over the UN with our environmental laws and enforce them everywhere equally.:rolleyes:
TR
Agreed..unless they make an effort..there is little point banging the table....having said that, I would, ONE DAY, like to see us moving away from petrol and diesel to more environmentally friendly options..hopefully we wont need to run out of gas first before they do decide to take the big plunge!
:)
The Reaper
07-09-2007, 08:04
Agreed..unless they make an effort..there is little point banging the table....having said that, I would, ONE DAY, like to see us moving away from petrol and diesel to more environmentally friendly options..hopefully we wont need to run out of gas first before they do decide to take the big plunge!
:)
Again, this is a common misconception that is widely promoted by the environuts.
We will NEVER run out of oil. It will get harder to find, and more difficult to recover, until the price gets so high, that it will no longer be an economically viable energy source.
When it gets to several hundred dollars per barrel, we WILL find an alternative.
If we had continued developing nuclear power over the years for our electric power generation needs, and gotten serious about alternative transportation energy sources, we would have a new energy source already. Environmental idiots have stopped nuclear power development in this country.
Cheap oil prevented serious alternate energy research. As oil and gas prices keep rising, new energy sources will be required, and there will be a huge incentive for whoever comes up with a large scale practical one to replace the petroleum fueled internal combustion engine.
There may be some social disruption if prices spike rather than rising slowly.
Foreign policy will also be radically changed after oil is replaced.
TR
82ndtrooper
07-09-2007, 08:28
Again, this is a common misconception that is widely promoted by the environuts.
We will NEVER run out of oil. It will get harder to find, and more difficult to recover, until the price gets so high, that it will no longer be an economically viable energy source.
When it gets to several hundred dollars per barrel, we WILL find an alternative.
If we had continued developing nuclear power over the years for our electric power generation needs, and gotten serious about alternative transportation energy sources, we would have a new energy source already. Environmental idiots have stopped nuclear power development in this country.
Cheap oil prevented serious alternate energy research. As oil and gas prices keep rising, new energy sources will be required, and there will be a huge incentive for whoever comes up with a large scale practical one to replace the petroleum fueled internal combustion engine.
There may be some social disruption if prices spike rather than rising slowly.
Foreign policy will also be radically changed after oil is replaced.
TR
Then, if foreign policy is radically changed, we can stop laying out the red carpet for the Suadi Royal Family. :)
frostfire
07-09-2007, 09:39
Consequently, there will be little, if any impact on the largest polluters, and a tremedous hit to the industry and economy of those trying the hardest to be clean and green.
In my previous work as an environmental/chemical engineer, I was pitted between residents who want better living condition and factories who want less stringent environmental regulations. Added to the mix are reps who deal with lobbyist and voters. There were hardly ever easy solutions that made everyone happy. Unfortunately, the companies often decided they had enough and would rather move the plants to Brazil, Mexico, or China where they don't have to worry about throwing a "little" dust, chlorine, or investing in $20k RTO (regenerative thermal oxidizer). Then the residents have bigger problem: unemployment.
We do now have much better water/air quality now than just 20 years ago. Just go to any state DNR EPD and/or EPA sites and see the documented emission trend. I'm really curious to know the total pollutant signature of the US with all the SUVs vs. China or Mexico with all the factories that don't use any pollutant controls.
The arguments for global warming is very convincing for the uninitiated general mass. Even discovery & explorer have run shows that note changes with bird migration, glaciers etc. etc. Once an argument appeals to Joe's emotion (ie. very prevalent in M. Moore movies), he's reluctant to use the muscle between his ears.
One example with the uninitiated general mass is the argument for nuclear power. Talk to any chemical engineer lecturer or PE, and they'd tell you nuclear power is the way to go. However, the general mass is super-scared of the idea. What about Chernobyl?! Look at those nuclear power plants. The huge reactor chimneys are letting out thick, white smoke. Evil pollution!!! Well, the thick white smoke is water vapor and those giant structures are not the reactor, but the heat exchanger/cooling system.
I believe it comes down to perspective and choice. Most would rather see and hear what they want to see and hear.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050505_earth_bright.html
Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth
By Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience Senior Writer
While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today.
And in this debate there is little data to go on.
A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next.
Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.
Brighter outlook?
Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed.
Surprising Side Effects of Global Warming
Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming
No Stopping it Now: Seas to Rise 4 Inches or More this Century
Internet Project Concludes Planet Could Warm by Nearly 20 Degrees
2005 Could Become Warmest on Record
"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Long participated in one of two studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed in the May 6 issue of the journal Science.
Thing is, nobody knows what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic activity, or a reduction in pollutants.
This lack of understanding runs deeper.
A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
Reflecting on the problem
The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of atmospheric particles called aerosols.
Amazingly, one of the best techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.
Albedo is a crucial factor in any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."
Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology.
Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.
To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth.
The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues contend.
'Spurious argument'
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway.
Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century.
Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.
One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring."
Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so.
"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not understanding."
There may be some social disruption if prices spike rather than rising slowly.
Foreign policy will also be radically changed after oil is replaced.
TR
With all due respect, Sir - that price spike may be coming sooner rather than later. At least, the IEA report and the Financial Times seem to suggest that may be the case.
The world is facing an oil supply “crunch” within five years that will force up prices to record levels and increase the west’s dependence on oil cartel Opec, the industrialised countries’ energy watchdog has warned.
In its starkest warning yet on the world’s fuel outlook, the International Energy Agency said “oil looks extremely tight in five years time” and there are “prospects of even tighter natural gas markets at the turn of the decade”.
The IEA said that supply was falling faster than expected in mature areas, such as the North Sea or Mexico, while projects in new provinces such as the Russian Far East, faced long delays. Meanwhile consumption is accelerating on strong economic growth in emerging countries.
LINK (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2d97d75a-2e0c-11dc-821c-0000779fd2ac.html)
An interesting discussion of mitigation (alternatives) was produced for DOE by SAIC. LINK (http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf)