The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[jawagord]

Canada’s emissions officially up for 2018, but don’t despair the national carbon tax hadn’t kicked in yet, apparently having the word ‘’National” in the tax title will make it more effect than AB/BC carbon taxes and the Quebec/Ontario cap and trade programs we had in 2018!

And 2020 will be a good reduction year, response to the Corona virus is kicking the crap out of carbon emissions worldwide and we are growing the economy just as Justin said we could!

A surge in emissions from road traffic, manufacturing, home heating and fossil-fuel production in 2018 almost entirely erased any progress this country had made cutting greenhouse gas emissions since 2005, the federal government reported Wednesday.

Yet Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he remains confident Canada will still be able to hit its emissions cutting targets because most of the government's emissions-cutting policies had not taken effect by 2018.

The latest national inventory report filed with the United Nations showed 2018 emissions at more than 729 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and its equivalents, the gases the gather in the atmosphere, trap heat, and cause climate change.
That's a jump of 15 million tonnes compared to 2017, which is approximately what 3.2 million passenger cars emit over the course of a year.

The 2018 emissions were almost back to the 730 million tonnes Canada emitted in 2005, an important comparison because Canada's current commitment is to cut emissions to 70 per cent of what they were in 2005 by 2030. Under that commitment, Canada is aiming to have annual emissions fall to 511 million tonnes over the next 10 years.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/20.../#.XpiLDi--mfB

In reality, COVID-19 reveals three reasons why fighting climate change is so hard.

First, stopping the spread of this highly contagious disease requires that we all upend our daily lives in dramatic ways—and often do so for the benefit of others....

The second sobering lesson from COVID-19 for climate change efforts is the importance of public buy-in and education.....

The third reason COVID-19 should give pause to expectations about climate change action is because of what it reveals about the strong link between carbon emissions and economic activity.

A huge hit to economic growth would likely mean carbon emissions will fall in 2020 for the first time since the Great Recession of 2008.

That may seem like good news, but it is not. First of all, economic contractions are not a desirable or sustainable way to curb emissions; emissions rebounded sharply after 2009. More importantly, the fact that it takes severe economic slowdowns like the Great Recession or COVID-19 to bring emissions down serves as a reminder of just how strongly tied emissions remain to economic growth—and thus how hard it is to lower them.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/03/27...limate-change/

[milomilo]

Is there a relevant or interesting point in all that? I don't see one.

This pandemic seems to be an excuse for people to make all kind of "gotcha" arguments, but they're always equally as (in)valid as they were before the pandemic.

What seems to be missed here is a deliberate misunderstanding of cause and effect. The economic crisis was not caused by the emissions reduction, it is caused by reduction in productive activity, and the emissions reduction was an effect of that. It does not have to follow that all of our economic production has to be generated by fossil fuels, it can be done in other ways. Obviously this can't be done overnight, but that's why our emissions reduction targets are modest.

[trueviking]

great reply....there is only a strong link between carbon emissions and economic activity because we choose to make it so.

[SaskScraper]

^ with the CoVid19 impact on World Economy, only the extreme far left would want to replicate the scenario of this pandemic for the ultimate advantage of reducing global climate change. Therefore we may have to keep a close eye on trudeau & the fed liberals for the rest of their term to make sure they don't try to extend this pandemic longer than need be, not only so trudeau can't try to have the Summer off with his kids to "work" from home like a Cuban dictator, but also to not allow him to limit Canada's carbon emissions at the expense of the country's economy & hard working Canadian's livelihood.



With the record breaking cold April so far on The Prairies, I'm curious what the snow cover map looks like in Canada for mid April.
Not much different than what I'd normally expect for this time of year. Southern Prairies virtually void of snow, even most of southern Ontario and extreme southern Quebec has areas without snow.

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is there a relevant or interesting point in all that? I don't see one.

This pandemic seems to be an excuse for people to make all kind of "gotcha" arguments, but they're always equally as (in)valid as they were before the pandemic.

What seems to be missed here is a deliberate misunderstanding of cause and effect. The economic crisis was not caused by the emissions reduction, it is caused by reduction in productive activity, and the emissions reduction was an effect of that. It does not have to follow that all of our economic production has to be generated by fossil fuels, it can be done in other ways. Obviously this can't be done overnight, but that's why our emissions reduction targets are modest.

Are you twisting things around on purpose in an attempt to defend your indefensible position? The article laid it out very clearly that the only way we're going to even come close to achieving the ridiculous climate change targets our government has agreed to is by committing economic suicide. This is exactly what I and others have said for years. You claiming that we don't have to use fossil fuels is a nonstarter. By the time we're at that stage there will no economy to worry about. The planet will be a wasteland. Is that what you want?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

Are you twisting things around on purpose in an attempt to defend your indefensible position? The article laid it out very clearly that the only way we're going to even come close to achieving the ridiculous climate change targets our government has agreed to is by committing economic suicide. This is exactly what I and others have said for years. You claiming that we don't have to use fossil fuels is a nonstarter. By the time we're at that stage there will no economy to worry about. The planet will be a wasteland. Is that what you want?

You're doing the same thing, swapping around cause and effect. Try harder.

"The planet will be a wasteland. Is that what you want?". No. Of course not. That's precisely the thing we are trying to avoid by slowing climate change! Did you read a thing I wrote?

[Corndogger]

Originally Posted by milomilo

You're doing the same thing, swapping around cause and effect. Try harder.

"The planet will be a wasteland. Is that what you want?". No. Of course not. That's precisely the thing we are trying to avoid by slowing climate change! Did you read a thing I wrote?

LOL! I read what you wrote and clearly my response went right over your head. If the economy gets destroyed we will end up abandoning cities, etc. and that will result in a wasteland. Climate change is a huge scam. It's nothing but made up science that's being used to cause hysteria in the less educated and to take their money from them. The climate is always changing. Is it caused by human activity? Highly, highly unlikely!

[Corndogger]

More proof that climate models are garbage.

Earth is way dustier than we thought. That may be a problem for climate forecasts.

By Chelsea Gohd 19 hours ago

"When we compared our results with what is predicted by current climate models, we found a drastic difference."

Earth's atmosphere, it turns out, is dustier than scientists previously thought.

Dust in the upper atmosphere interacts with clouds, oceans and even radiation, or heat, from the sun. It can affect weather, precipitation and even has an impact on climate change. In a new study, scientists from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) found that there is four times as much coarse dust in our planet's atmosphere than has previously be seen in climate models.

There is more than one type of dust. In Earth's atmosphere, there is fine dust that is easily picked up by winds in dry areas, as well as coarser dust made of larger grains often from desert regions_ that can actually contribute to global warming in a similar way to greenhouse gases, according to a statement from UCLA. These large, coarse particles absorb radiation coming in from the sun and leaving the Earth, trapping that radiation on our planet. So, it's important for researchers to understand how much dust, especially course dust, is floating around in the atmosphere.

"To properly represent the impact of dust as a whole on the Earth system, climate models must include an accurate treatment of coarse dust in the atmosphere," Adeyemi Adebiyi, the first author on this study and a postdoctoral researcher in UCLA's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, said in the statement.

This team analyzed dozens of dust observations made by aircraft and compared them to how much dust current climate models predict should be in the atmosphere. And, while climate models predict only about 4 million metric tons, the team found that there is closer to 17 metric tons of coarse dust in our atmosphere.

"When we compared our results with what is predicted by current climate models, we found a drastic difference," study co-author Jasper Koka, a UCLA associate professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, said in the statement.

The team also found that dust particles also stay in the air longer than expected. This could mean that, since they're in the atmosphere for longer, they fall back to Earth much farther from the location where they were first picked up by the wind. So dust from a desert could affect ocean ecosystems and even increase how much carbon dioxide oceans absorb, according to the statement.

“Models have been an invaluable tool for scientists,” Adebiyi said. "But when they miss most of the coarse dust in the atmosphere, it underestimates the impact that this type of dust has on critical aspects of life on Earth, from precipitation to cloud cover to ocean ecosystems to global temperature.”

This work was published April 8 in the journal Science Advances.

Source: https://www.space.com/earth-atmosphe...te-models.html

[Corndogger]

This comment to the above article says it all.

We've been studying the atmosphere, meteorology, and climate change since the 1970s, both from beneath and above the atmosphere. When did the sudden four-fold increase in dust occur, and from where did it come? Or have the models purposely ignored the rise in dust, assuming it actually happened? If it turns out that coarse dust in the upper atmosphere is the main cause of climate change, rather than anything man is doing, that certainly would change the political environment, even as it changes the physical environment.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

LOL! I read what you wrote and clearly my response went right over your head. If the economy gets destroyed we will end up abandoning cities, etc. and that will result in a wasteland. Climate change is a huge scam. It's nothing but made up science that's being used to cause hysteria in the less educated and to take their money from them. The climate is always changing. Is it caused by human activity? Highly, highly unlikely!

So you are back to be a full blown climate change denier? Good to know, thanks for making that clear. It used to be you were a weak denier, pretending you cared but also not wanting to do anything about it, and at one point trying to convince us that Scheer's plan would actually reduce emissions more than carbon pricing, despite it not having any mechanisms to do much at all.

But being a climate change denier, that disqualifies you from discussing climate change in this thread. Your views are a decade or so out of date, no one, not even Canadian conservative politicians, are denying climate change is man made any more.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Is there a relevant or interesting point in all that? I don't see one.

What seems to be missed here is a deliberate misunderstanding of cause and effect. The economic crisis was not caused by the emissions reduction, it is caused by reduction in productive activity, and the emissions reduction was an effect of that. It does not have to follow that all of our economic production has to be generated by fossil fuels, it can be done in other ways. Obviously this can't be done overnight, but that's why our emissions reduction targets are modest.

The overlying point is GHG emissions are strongly linked to economic growth. The Liberal fantasy that we can have both economic growth and reduced greenhouse gas emissions is just that, a fantasy.

On a more direct level we have the evidence:

1) Cap and Trade in our two largest provinces and Carbon Taxes in the next two largest provinces did not stop 2018 Canadian GHG emissions from increasing. The economy grew and greenhouse gas emissions grew. And once the low hanging fruit of converting coal fired power plants to gas is over, it will be increasingly difficult to slow Canadian GHG emissions in a growing economy.

2) What you dismiss as simple cause and effect, is what economists would term linkage of oil to the economy. The Corna-Virus shutdown is showing how strong the linkage between oil consumption and the economy is. We are seeing the backwards linkage proven, with the economy going down, oil consumption is going down. The forward linkage has been shown for decades, as the economy increases, oil consumption increases, which should signal to everyone how difficult (globally impossible) it will be to both grow the economy and reduce GHG.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Corndogger

This comment to the above article says it all.

We've been studying the atmosphere, meteorology, and climate change since the 1970s, both from beneath and above the atmosphere. When did the sudden four-fold increase in dust occur, and from where did it come? Or have the models purposely ignored the rise in dust, assuming it actually happened? If it turns out that coarse dust in the upper atmosphere is the main cause of climate change, rather than anything man is doing, that certainly would change the political environment, even as it changes the physical environment.

So now we not only need to reduce emissions of GHG, we need to stop kicking up so much dust!

[wave46]

Originally Posted by jawagord

That may seem like good news, but it is not. First of all, economic contractions are not a desirable or sustainable way to curb emissions; emissions rebounded sharply after 2009. More importantly, the fact that it takes severe economic slowdowns like the Great Recession or COVID-19 to bring emissions down serves as a reminder of just how strongly tied emissions remain to economic growth—and thus how hard it is to lower them.

I think we might have to consider what kind of economic growth we want.

Or how many people we want in this country. Or the world, to be honest.

I mean, I could buy a fleet of pickup trucks and just let them idle in my driveway 24 hours a day. That would increase GDP via production of pickup trucks and consumption of oil. It would do absolutely nothing of any real value to anyone.

We're switching from a growth model based on technological innovation to one of mass consumption. I'm not sure that's a good thing. I mean, the mass consumption GDP growth is easier to make certainly. Bulldoze farmers fields, pave them and plop subdivisions unto infinity, complete with Tim Hortons', Boston Pizza and McDonalds.

I mean, I guess I could stuff my face until I'm morbidly obese and pat myself on the back for being a good consumer. Hey, I produced more GDP by stuffing my face! I don't think anyone else would really consider this a model we should emulate writ large.

The blind focus on GDP growth (the Saudis have LOTS of GDP, but produce nothing of any technological note) to the exclusion of something of real value is concerning.

This COVID thing has also exposed how dependent we are on frivolous consumer spending just to keep the economy going. We put so much effort into consuming that we need to consume just to keep the music going. That sounds weirdly like addiction and dependency to me.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by jawagord

The overlying point is GHG emissions are strongly linked to economic growth. The Liberal fantasy that we can have both economic growth and reduced greenhouse gas emissions is just that, a fantasy.

On a more direct level we have the evidence:

1) Cap and Trade in our two largest provinces and Carbon Taxes in the next two largest provinces did not stop 2018 Canadian GHG emissions from increasing. The economy grew and greenhouse gas emissions grew. And once the low hanging fruit of converting coal fired power plants to gas is over, it will be increasingly difficult to slow Canadian GHG emissions in a growing economy.

2) What you dismiss as simple cause and effect, is what economists would term linkage of oil to the economy. The Corna-Virus shutdown is showing how strong the linkage between oil consumption and the economy is. We are seeing the backwards linkage proven, with the economy going down, oil consumption is going down. The forward linkage has been shown for decades, as the economy increases, oil consumption increases, which should signal to everyone how difficult (globally impossible) it will be to both grow the economy and reduce GHG.

The horseshit is so strong, I can smell it right through my computer screen.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by SaskScraper

^ with the CoVid19 impact on World Economy, only the extreme far left would want to replicate the scenario of this pandemic for the ultimate advantage of reducing global climate change. Therefore we may have to keep a close eye on trudeau & the fed liberals for the rest of their term to make sure they don't try to extend this pandemic longer than need be, not only so trudeau can't try to have the Summer off with his kids to "work" from home like a Cuban dictator, but also to not allow him to limit Canada's carbon emissions at the expense of the country's economy & hard working Canadian's livelihood.

Is this...satire?

[headhorse]

the anti-socialism/china/science propaganda thats been all over the news and facebook lately is really breaking peoples brains

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The horseshit is so strong, I can smell it right through my computer screen.

The smell must have been particularly strong to manage to reach you where you were! (which was certainly not "just a computer screen away from an open SSP page")

Welcome back

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is this...satire?

I also loved his "typical April snow cover" followed by a map with snow in Chicago but with large parts of SK/MB snow-free. Lol

There was a "Palm Trees of Canada" SSP thread on the main forum for a while. I'm expecting a "Palm Trees of Maple Creek" one any day now.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by lio45

I also loved his "typical April snow cover" followed by a map with snow in Chicago but with large parts of SK/MB snow-free.

But think of these "social distancing" measures:

- Avoid nightlife, packed bars, etc.
- Avoid major events
- Shelter in place because it is dangerous to go outside

Saskatchewan has been operating this way since long before March 2020!

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Drybrain

Is this...satire?

I, for one, welcome our new Sakatcha...Saskatachawinian...Saskachatawanian...Saskawachian...our new Prairie overlords.