2) The warming oceans have caused an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations to rise from 315 ppmv in 1958 to 397 ppmv today. (2) This is due to out gassing caused by the reduced solubility of CO2 in warm water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solubi...
Though sample of ice-core bubbles can never tell us much about how much CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere naturally vary, (2A) tens of thousands of samples accurate measurements taken from outdoor samples 2 meters above ground at a minimum distance of 100 meters from buildings in rural areas around the world in the 1940s indicate that the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 we are experiencing now is about the same as it was back then. (2B) There is little reason to believe that CO2 will have a significant impact on temperatures despite IPCC propaganda. (2C) This is because the greenhouse (infrared - 15 micron) absorption peaks that CO2 has are saturated, so that there is nothing left for more CO2 to absorb, but anti-greenhouse (red - 2 micron) absorption peaks that CO2 has are not saturated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmosp...
So Canadians will not require much adjustment to the higher levels of CO2.
3) Recent satellite evidence shows that the IPCC was probably wrong about temperature feedbacks (3) being mostly positive. Our best evidence shows that the net feedback is negative. (3A) Thus, Canadians should not worry about run away warming. (3B)
4) Instead, it would be more reasonable for Canadians to worry about entering the cold phase of a bond event sometime during the next few centuries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
If these temperature proxies are to be believed, http://tinyurl.com/mvchr4
Bond events cycle every 15 centuries.
Edit @Climate Realist: "Natural radiation is 300 times times greater than nuclear radiation"
That is meaningless, and your "300 times" is bogus. Your link is irrelevant. It states:
"The above chart is taken from the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) Report No. 93, Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States, 1987. This chart shows that of the total dose of about 360 millirems/year, natural sources of radiation account for about 82% of all public exposure, while man-made sources account for the remaining 18%."
So, you must have been living under a rock if you think that things are still the same as they were back in 1987.
"The oceans are absorbing almost half of the carbon dioxide produced by humans."
- Again irrelevant. The oceans absorb more like 60% NET, but overall they absorb 9 petamoles of CO2 annually compared to 0.6 petamoles produced by humans annually. The problem is that they out gas nearly all that they absorb. The result is determined by equilibrium constants more than the relatively tiny amount that humans produce. http://www.geol.umd.edu/~kaufman/ppt/G43...
These constants change as the temperature of the water changes. How much human production gets ahead of equilibrium or not, is a subject of heated contention. However, it is known that atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase with ocean temperatures regardless of whether or not humans exist. Also:
"The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad. "This total of 51 times the present amount of carbon in atmospheric CO2 exceeds the known reserves of fossil carbon-- it represents more carbon than exists in all the coal, gas, and oil that we can exploit anywhere in the world." -- http://tinyurl.com/c8cq24n
"measurements taken from urban areas."
Rubbish! Read the paper. Start on page 6. (2B)
"direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
Out of date! The date on that is 2001, and it is contradicted by the satellite data since then. (3A)
"Warming is less than expected because the Sun has shown a cooling trend."
That has nothing to do with the feedback study that ran an energy balance. (3A)
Like everyone else, Canada is going to have to switch to solar, wind and nuclear power. But no one is suggesting that we completely stop burning hydrocarbons overnight, so the Alberta oil sands will have a roll to play in supplying these hydrocarbons for several decades.
NW Jack aka Portland
Natural radiation is 300 times times greater than nuclear radiation
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/...
And no Fukushima is not and did not cause a significant increase in cancer risk, and certainly not in Canada.
"even when the radioactivity levels were at their highest, health experts agreed they were still so low that they would cause very few excess cancer cases or deaths, too few in fact to register any change in the normal cancer rate."
http://bigthink.com/risk-reason-and-real...
The oceans are absorbing almost half of the carbon dioxide produced by humans.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
Those were measurements taken from urban areas. Urban areas have more carbon dioxide than the surrounding countryside today.
http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/anthropo...
Incorrect. There is "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v41...
Warming is less than expected because the Sun has shown a cooling trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
You can't refute the link, so you call it "irrelevant." Or do you mean "inconvenient"?
And what has changed, relevant to the question on nuclear radiation? Fukushima? 1987 was one year after a much larger incident at Chernobyl.
The fact that they outgas ALMOST amount they absorb makes your 9 petamole figure irrelevant. What has more influence on the water level in a whirlpool tube? The 20 gallons per minute which the circulation pumps remove and add or the 1 gallon per hour from a dripping faucet?
<"The IPCC postulates an atmospheric doubling of CO2, meaning that the oceans would need to receive 50 times more CO2 to obtain chemical equilibrium," explains Prof. Segalstad.>
Prof. Segalstad's 50 times figure would be true if the equilibrium constant did not change. The equilibrium constant is effected by pH. Carbon dioxide solubility in water decreases with decreasing pH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidi...
and with increasing temperature
http://globalwarmingkids.net/
<"Warming is less than expected because the Sun has shown a cooling trend."
Other studies support strong positive feedbacks.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/60...
YA says my answer is to long, which does not mean that I am out of counterarguements.
The coming cooling decades coming will be especially hard for Canada
