The Nonsense of Trudeau's climate change policies

[Argus]

Now I don't feel competent to argue the science of climate change. But University of Ottawa Professor Ian Clark doesn't focus mainly on that but on the sheer physical impossibility of meeting the goals Trudeau has set with his "net zero" policy. That is, how many wind turbines and solar farms and nuclear power plants would it take, and where would the rare earths which go into the first two come from. Not to mention the cost. His conclusion is that it's not physically possible to build enough power stations to do it without going mass nuclear. And by mass he means forty new power plants with three hundred more reactors costing a TRILLION dollars to build. And this is to be done by 2050... And would still have no measurable impact on the world's climate. Meanwhile, almost a THOUSAND coal plants are under construction throughout the developing world.

Our hydroelectric capacity has largely been exploited, although the Fraser and Mackenzie rivers remain untamed. Battles over land claims, environmental impacts and daunting costs make B.C.’s Site C and Newfoundland and Labrador’s Muskrat Falls perhaps the last projects for big hydro in Canada. Yet the Mid-Century Strategy assumes we double our hydro with 50 to 80 new projects on the scale of Site C.

How about big wind? Germany favours wind but has learned that its inconsistency requires baseload backup with coal-fired thermal plants. In Canada, net-zero with wind would require upwards of 300,000 turbines, or 50 times more than we have now, plus an extensive distribution network for this decentralized system, plus an equivalent thermal generation backup (unless we resolve to drive and heat our homes only on windy days).

Producing this vast number of wind turbines would require considerable quantities of rare-earth metals for the generators. For net-zero wind, we would need the entire global production of neodymium for the next 15 years — for the next 170 years for dysprosium. As it is, the Mid-Century Strategy will complement doubling hydro with up to 100,000 turbines, which will still require five years’ global supply of neodymium. Conclusion? Renewables clearly cannot play a significant role in our move towards net-zero.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/opinion-net-zero-wont-cure-the-climate-but-it-may-kill-canada

[Infidel Dog]

Then there's the Chi-Comm elephant in the room.

Even if Trudeau could devastate the economy bad enough to reach net zero (and who knows? If anybody could do it, it would be him) China has to reach net zero too or else the whole project is meaningless. And let's be real, that's not going to happen.

China’s strange endorsement of ‘net zero’

"The Chinese path to supposed decarbonization starts with a lot more coal"

 

Edited April 24, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

"The Chinese path to supposed decarbonization starts with a lot more coal"

A quick and easy debate tactic is to just say "OK, sure. Done deal." and then just forget about it completely. That's China: pay some lip service and then just get on with your day as if nothing happened. 

I can't say that I blame them. They have their own scientists so they don't care about the nameless consensus that CNN and Greta Thunberg refer to, and I'm sure that they don't watch John Kerry and Leo DiCaprio's lectures from their private jets. 

[myata]

The idea here is quite simple: if the developed world that is literally bathing in riches on the global scale of standard of living could not or wouldn't do it, nobody will and it does not even matter if they could. So pointing fingers at India or China is meaningless in this question, it won't solve anything guaranteed and stamped.

And then humanity has, in essence two options: pretend that it isn't happening, find reasons and explanations for inaction and procrastination, point fingers at others and: see what happens. Maybe nothing will; or maybe oceans will rise and skies will burn and at that time, when everyone in every little corner will be able to see it with their own eyes (and feel with skin - and some are already seeing it right now) it would be too late to do anything.

The other option is to show that it can be done. To show means make it happen, not write a nicer looking "program". And really, I couldn't care less who will make it happen Justin or Conservatives or Greens. But just observing what's going with Covid it doesn't look very hopeful that anything of substance can be done here anymore, writing programs and pointing fingers of course quite a different story.

Edited April 25, 2021 by myata

[Infidel Dog]

The Kyoto accord was 30 years ago (more or less). 

The above was the song and dance back then. You've had 30 years to make this idea make sense that China just needed to catch up. In the meantime we all would show them how it could be done. 

It was BS then and it's BS now.

If China and India aren't cutting back nothing anybody else does would matter anyway. That's assuming you actually believe an apocalypse of too much nice weather is coming because your civilization got advanced.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[myata]

Right, blame China and India, all the great thinking is coming down to. And it makes it very clear for our children who will inherit either of the two: business as usual i.e. endless waste and burning; or rising seas and burning skies who was the engineer and the ultimate owner of responsibility for the outcome. Who didn't give a darn and hasn't done anything of meaning while they had no excuses whatsoever.

Edited April 25, 2021 by myata

[Argus]

17 hours ago, myata said:

The idea here is quite simple: if the developed world that is literally bathing in riches on the global scale of standard of living could not or wouldn't do it, nobody will and it does not even matter if they could. So pointing fingers at India or China is meaningless in this question, it won't solve anything guaranteed and stamped.

The West has been spending a fortune on reducing emissions over the past decades. But it's a lot harder and more expensive to do that in an already heavily industrialized society than in one which is largely agrarian. So the developing world could do this fairly easily. Instead they're moving in the opposite direction by enthusiastically embracing coal.

17 hours ago, myata said:

And then humanity has, in essence two options: pretend that it isn't happening, find reasons and explanations for inaction and procrastination, point fingers at others and: see what happens. Maybe nothing will; or maybe oceans will rise and skies will burn and at that time, when everyone in every little corner will be able to see it with their own eyes (and feel with skin - and some are already seeing it right now) it would be too late to do anything.

The likely results of climate change have been exaggerated. Especially for countries away from the equator. Canada and other northern countries would get off largely unscathed. It is the already hot countries which would suffer the most, and they are building coal plants.

[OftenWrong]

Probably just more empty posturing by our leader, the Luminous one.

(“sunny ways...”)

[myata]

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

The likely results of climate change have been exaggerated. Especially for countries away from the equator. Canada and other northern countries would get off largely unscathed. It is the already hot countries which would suffer the most, and they are building coal plants.

And I respect this position. It doesn't agree with the science, that is, our current understanding how the Universe around us works but it's OK too, nobody said we have to agree with the science and we have not for a very long stretch of our path as a species. Just say it openly: we do not think it is real, or real enough to the extent that something real would need to be done about it. Just don't hide this position behind India and some professors. Is it so difficult?

And then, let's see where it takes us. Either the science would be proven wrong; or we would know exactly where the blame belongs, and it wouldn't be "India".

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

The West has been spending a fortune on reducing emissions over the past decades. But it's a lot harder and more expensive to do that in an already heavily industrialized society than in one which is largely agrarian. So the developing world could do this fairly easily. Instead they're moving in the opposite direction by enthusiastically embracing coal.

Coal is available right now cheap and fairly easy to use as a technology. We heard many years ago the idea the west would develop technologies and encourage developing nations to implement them. Didnt happen and didnt even get our own show together.

But hey, smile for the camera to make a good impression, that works. And remember to always be polite and stately in mannerism.

Edited April 25, 2021 by OftenWrong
increased level of riding

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, myata said:

Right, blame China and India, all the great thinking is coming down to. And it makes it very clear for our children who will inherit either of the two: business as usual i.e. endless waste and burning; or rising seas and burning skies who was the engineer and the ultimate owner of responsibility for the outcome. Who didn't give a darn and hasn't done anything of meaning while they had no excuses whatsoever.

I'm not blaming anybody. I haven't seen any evidence Warmageddon is coming. For you believers who do though, it's time you face the reality that unless China and India get on board with more than words what you're calling "Net-Zero" is nothing more than a fantasy manufactured by globalists to scam the gullible. 

 

[cougar]

On 4/24/2021 at 9:28 AM, Argus said:

Now I don't feel competent to argue the science of climate change. But University of Ottawa Professor Ian Clark doesn't focus mainly on that but on the sheer physical impossibility of meeting the goals

 

It is also physically impossible to pay off the national debt, but we are still taxed and payments are made.

But yes, it is impossible for as long as our population is that big and continues to expand.

Reduce people and meeting the goals will become easier and easier.

[myata]

8 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

I'm not blaming anybody. I haven't seen any evidence Warmageddon is coming. For you believers

One doesn't need to "believe" in science because it can be verified. The same laws that drive the satellites and iPhones drive masses of gases and control radiation. It may be difficult to believe but that's the reason why a satellite, the truck and iPhone work as they do.

Then, one cannot make or convince people see things that they do not want or stubbornly refuse to see. This is a lost cause from the outset and I see no point in going there.

As said already there are in essence two choices: do nothing and see what happens; or try to do something. Just say it clear and don't hide behind India, we didn't see, some professor said something and so on. However it is explained or justified now wouldn't matter in the end.

[Infidel Dog]

There is science saying climate changes. There is science saying humans can have some effect on change in climate.

There is no science I know of assuring us the end of the world is coming from the 1% of warming per doubling of CO2 in a controlled lab experiment or the 7 inches per century of sea level rise we're currently experiencing. 

The idea governments can control the weather is a political fantasy. It has nothing to do with science. There is definitely nothing even in the realm of common sense saying "Net-Zero" is possible without China and India cutting coal.

 

[Infidel Dog]

I don't know if you'd be interested in the steadily increasing (or at least newly accessible) countervailing opinion of many scientists Myata, but I just stumbled on this new one from my morning scroll for news. Here's a link.

Scientist who served in Obama admin pushes back against prevailing climate change narrative

"Most of the disconnect comes from the long game of telephone that starts with the research literature and runs through the assessment reports to the summaries of the assessment reports and on to the media coverage," Koonin wrote.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, cougar said:

It is also physically impossible to pay off the national debt, but we are still taxed and payments are made.

But yes, it is impossible for as long as our population is that big and continues to expand.

Reduce people and meeting the goals will become easier and easier.

Who would you like to deport and how would you go about doing that? Or did you have in mind something more violent?

[Right To Left]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

There is science saying climate changes. There is science saying humans can have some effect on change in climate.

There is no science I know of assuring us the end of the world is coming from the 1% of warming per doubling of CO2 in a controlled lab experiment or the 7 inches per century of sea level rise we're currently experiencing. 

The idea governments can control the weather is a political fantasy. It has nothing to do with science. There is definitely nothing even in the realm of common sense saying "Net-Zero" is possible without China and India cutting coal.

 

And what about the science which tells us that an Arctic rapidly losing ice is freeing up more and more methane....which up till now, has been trapped in layers of permafrost and clathrates -- frozen methane crystals trapped in sea ice. Melt the glaciers and the Arctic ocean over the next few decades, and where does all the methane go and how does that impact atmospheric CO2 levels?  Or, are these questions that you don't want to know about or hear about, because you've assumed you'll already be dead before the worst aspects of a hotter climate affect you?

[Infidel Dog]

Yes, the artic ice sheet is currently decreasing as it sometimes does. Mostly due to current and wind is what I heard. 

Meanwhile the Antarctic ice was setting growth records not too long ago.

As to methane...that's the scary word of the day, is it?

Here's a guy looking at a study examining the final effect of the methane feedback loop, which I believe is what you're trying to get at.

The Arctic Methane Scare: Oversold

 

As for what this means for the methane/temperature feedback loop during a warming climate, the authors summarize [references omitted]:

The short- and long-term surface air temperature sensitivity based on the 29 years of observed enhancements of CH4 [methane] in air masses coming from the North Slope provides an important basis for estimating the CH4 emission response to changing air temperatures in Arctic tundra. By 2080, autumn (and winter) temperatures in the Arctic are expected to change by an additional 3 to 6°C. Based on the long-term temperature sensitivity estimate made in this study, increases in the average enhancements on the North Slope will be only between -2 and 17 ppb (3 to 6°C x 1.1 ± 1.8 ppb of CH4/°C). Based on the short-term relationship calculated, the enhancements may be as large as 30 ppb. These two estimates translate to a -3 – 45% change in the mean (~65 ppb) CH4 enhancement observed at [Barrow] from July through December. Applying this enhancement to an Arctic-wide natural emissions rate estimate of 19 Tg/yr estimated during the 1990s and implies that tundra-based emissions might increase to as much as 28 Tg/yr by 2080. This amount represents a small increase (1.5%) relative to the global CH4 emissions of 553 Tg/yr that have been estimated based on atmospheric inversions.

In other words, even if the poorly understood long-term processes aren’t sustained, the short term methane/temperature relationship itself doesn’t lead to climate catastrophe.

The favorite thoroughbreds of the methane scare are proving to be little more than a bunch of claimers.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[myata]

A typical resort of climate deniers is to dig out some obscure links as "evidence" of some substance of their claims. Even some governments aren't immune to that.

Don't do that, you don't need to! Just say it plainly, I cannot / don't care to understand the matter and don't want to believe those who work in the field (and I'll be among the first to admit that blind belief to anyone or in anything is not a good idea; always it makes sense to keep an open mind and examine the evidence). Anyways that'll do the trick and it's nothing to do with "India".

[Infidel Dog]

And I notice the preference of the global warming faithful is often to choose to remain ignorant of anything that challenges their faith but prefer out the butt claims from fellow believers in their unsupportable prophecies. If you want to do that, do it, but don't do that then tell me you're the side with what you're calling "the science."

The source the guy I quoted was using to support his argument was Geophysical Research Letters.

You guys like Wikipedia, right? Here's what they say about Geophysical Research Letters.

Quote

Geophysical Research Letters is a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal of geoscience published by the American Geophysical Union that was established in 1974

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal

Edited April 26, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[myata]

Posting a link proves only that an opinion exists. It does not prove or support anything else.

Edited April 26, 2021 by myata

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, myata said:

Posting a link proves only that an opinion exists. It does not prove or support anything else.

Just curious, if infidel dogs link is just an opinion, how do we know that your sources are not just opinion. Intra net is full of opinions that either supports climate change or disproves climate change...Those that believe in it say it is supported by science, and the same for the non believers...

I think most of us here believe there is a change in the climate, where everyone  differs is the extent of the current damage, and the rate of damage being done... There seems to be many different camps on this the Holy shit we are all going to die today if we don't do something drastic right now(green and NDP parties ) and the the yes climate change is real but we are going to play the long game reduce emissions over a period of time with out destroying the economy The liberals are all over the place they did very little over the last 5 years, and now they want to follow Big Joe down south... Justin is a follower not a leader

science has proven that the artic ice is receding at rapid rates, but for some reason can not explain why Antarctica ice sheets are expanding at a rapid rates. Even with the massive sheets that have broken off in the last couple years. 

As for weather wise, our weather is always changing, and has been yoyoing for years at a time. Look at NB weather 10 years ago we had very little snow, and then in the last 4 years we have received record snow falls resulting in record floods, and they blame climate change...and this year we barely had anything in the south NB, they blame it on climate change...but historically it has always been like that. 

 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag (nsidc.org)

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, Right To Left said:

And what about the science which tells us that an Arctic rapidly losing ice is freeing up more and more methane....which up till now, has been trapped in layers of permafrost and clathrates -- frozen methane crystals trapped in sea ice. Melt the glaciers and the Arctic ocean over the next few decades, and where does all the methane go and how does that impact atmospheric CO2 levels?  Or, are these questions that you don't want to know about or hear about, because you've assumed you'll already be dead before the worst aspects of a hotter climate affect you?

Can i assume you know the answer to that question, could you please explain it? The reason i ask is there has been 5 or 6 major ice age events during earths history, man and animals seemed to have survived just fine, why is that.. And why should we be so concerned about this thaw, what makes this one special.

Quote

Several theories exist to explain why the Quaternary Glaciation period has occurred. These theories include everything from the influence of ocean currents to tectonic plate activity.

 Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag (nsidc.org)

Quote

Most theories of how this ice age was first created are primarily rooted in the knowledge that plants on land began to undergo significant evolutionary changes during this time. As these plants grew to immense sizes, they worked to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide and increase the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere. As these changes occurred, the summers were not warm enough to melt the ever-increasing ice sheets around the world.

It would seem some other experts  have had some different opinions, 

[myata]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

Just curious, if infidel dogs link is just an opinion, how do we know that your sources are not just opinion. Intra net is full of opinions that either supports climate change or disproves climate change...Those that believe in it say it is supported by science, and the same for the non believers...

We know it because science is not based on one carefully chosen opinion or selectively plucked bunch of opinions. Human cause of the climate change is a conclusion that is based on many results and observations.

[Infidel Dog]

You're finally right about something. " Science is not based on one carefully chosen opinion or selectively plucked bunch of opinions."

Science - true science - is about challenging opinion with facts. You have an hypothesis. You challenge it with experiment and opposing facts. If it doesn't crash and burn it becomes a theory and waits to be proven wrong. That's something called the scientific method.

If your only interest is in hearing political and media approved opinion and factoids don't you feel a little ridiculous claiming you represent "the science" or even care much about it.

Predictions of worldwide catastrophe caused by human sourced influence is, as of yet, just a hypothesis. And not a very well supported one. There is no "scientific consensus" for CAGW. Maybe AGW, but not CAGW. But even if there were such a consensus, Science - true science - would have to challenge it.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Infidel Dog