The Nonsense of Trudeau's climate change policies

[Infidel Dog]

BTW, not that it matters much but when we talk about the "rapid decrease of arctic ice" it's worth remembering that we don't actually have much to measure the current speed of arctic melt against. Reasonably accurate measurements began with satellites. 

[Right To Left]

4 hours 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...

I would put it in the opinion or Talking Out of His Ass column! Because he's going to oil-funded sites like "Wattsupwiththat".... seriously! That's the link he's using for atmospheric methane research for this post: The Arctic Methane Scare: Oversold 

In reality, the 'alarmists' on this subject are mostly alarmed because governments and climate research units of top universities have put almost no resources towards measuring and trying to calculate the amount of methane releases into the atmosphere, because it's a more difficult and costly process than measuring CO2 in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is a stable gas that unfortunately, most of it will hang in the atmosphere for at least another thousand years before it is washed out into the world's oceans (lowering water ph levels....nother crisis) or picked off by "rock weathering," - removed from the atmosphere by exposed rocks, or absorbed by soils. Someone who's spent years studying the changes in the Arctic, like Sam Carana, may be classified as an alarmist, since he believes positive feedbacks from carbon release from arctic tundra and ocean clathrates (methane ice crystals) are already rising exponentially, and will continue powering rising CO2 levels regardless of how many electric cars take the roads or solar panels and windmills are built:

Overshoot or Omnicide?  Questions and Answers with Sam Carana

 

https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2021/

As far as the much less stable methane molecule, nobody knows how much recombines with oxygen and ends up as CO2 in the atmosphere, or ends up as carbonic acid in the oceans, because one high altitude station, like Mauna Kea in Hawaii cannot get a read on what methane levels are all over the world, like it does for CO2, oxygen and nitrogen. Hundreds, maybe thousands of methane monitoring stations would have to be set up to get a read on what's going on, and no one has been doing it in more than a handful of places for the past 30 years or so!

 

[Zeitgeist]

I don't support policies that tax existence.  High carbon taxes are essentially accelerants to human extinction, because humans are carbon footprints.  We have to embrace adaptation and technological solutions through natural market forces.  Much of what is driving costly climate change policy is a reaction to natural disasters that impact more people because there are more people.  We hear more about them because of our ultra-fast widespread information conduits.  Koonan is dispelling the myths as governments begin the process of crippling businesses and individuals with carbon costs.  
 

https://apple.news/ApGHLeX7gRfOYoToqh5nGkA

[taxesanddeath]

5 hours ago, myata said:

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.

you better curb your enthusiasm. Human does not cause the climate change.

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, myata said:

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.

I guess i will have to take your word on that, because the other side is saying the same thing, BOTH sides have supported their claims with science as we know it.  

[Army Guy]

 

1 hour ago, Right To Left said:

I

SO what your saying is one scientist is not enough you need thousands to make it a fact... But that does not happen across the science world, people make discoveries all the time, lets take a look at the make up of an atom, for decades it's components were known, and yet a few scientist have discovered another component within the atom. Their discovery is changing how we look at the basic make up of an atom, and throws off all the known science on the topic ... 

 

[Right To Left]

5 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Can i assume you know the answer to that question, could you please explain it?

Which one? I mentioned several questions about arctic methane.

Quote

 

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.

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

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

 

How much did you read about the article you linked? Most of the major ice ages occurred long before there was 'man' and even animals...if we consider the ice ages when the earth's surface was almost frozen solid, 4 of the 6 occurred when Earth was still a microbial world, so studying different kinds of life and what they were doing would be very difficult with nothing besides microtubule (bacteria fossils) left behind in the rock record.  

As for the quote...which doesn't show up with that exact link: 

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.

For the record, the "Quarternary period just includes our warm, glacier-free interlude known as the Holocene Epoch, and the much, much longer, colder and more volatile Pleistocene, which was a 2.5 million year epoch of one glacial advance after another. So, I'm not even sure why they use the term Quarternary for that last ice age, since it all occurs during the previous Pleistocene. And the other missing quote:

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.

 

So, does either quote have anything to do with the link at NSIDC?

Likely not, because I'm sure even climatology students know that there were no major evolutionary changes to plant sizes....we already had all of the major orders of trees...deciduous and firs by the end of the Cretaceous. As for plant volume and photosynthesis, that certainly plays a part in the rising and falling levels of CO2 in the atmosphere over time. During the glacial advances and retreats of the Pleistocene, the measurements of chemical changes in sedimentary rocks show and more accurate trapped air pockets from Antarctic ice core samples tell us that CO2 levels dropped as low as about 180 ppm during the peak of ice accumulation and would rebound to about 300 ppm during the brief interglacial periods when ice was in retreat.  

All that changed during the past approx. 12,000 years, when someone kept the foot on the accelerator and instead of falling back into another ice age period after a few thousand years, CO2 levels went shooting up higher in the early 1800's, never to come back down again. Just to prevent further ice loss, CO2 levels have to be no higher than about 350 ppm. Instead, we've topped 418 and still have time to reach 420 ppm in the next few weeks, since May is usually the time of peak carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere each year before they fall back to the annual minimum in early October. https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

 

[Army Guy]

And while i do believe in Climate change i have very little understanding of the topic, and what little i do know comes from both sides of the spectrum. What is being challenged today is green tech, such as solar and wind power turbines etc, it cost more carbon to produce them than they reduce ... in other words the cure is worse than the disease.

Now i don't really like Michael Moore documentary" planet human" as a source for anything , but he does ask some interesting questions, he disproves that todays green tech has a much higher cost than we once knew. He also charges that a lot of powerful people have cornered the market on green tech and are selling it as the end all be all, to which it is not.. it is almost 2 hours long.... 

 Michael Moore Presents Planet of the Humans Full Documentary Directed by Jeff Gibbs - NL Subs - YouTube 

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, Right To Left said:

Which one? I mentioned several questions about arctic methane.

 

Sorry my bad was trying and failed to multi task. here is the link

 How Many Ice Ages Have Been Recorded In Earth's History? - WorldAtlas

new links 

Glad You Asked: Ice Ages – What are they and what causes them? – Utah Geological Survey

[Right To Left]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

 

SO what your saying is one scientist is not enough you need thousands to make it a fact... But that does not happen across the science world, people make discoveries all the time, lets take a look at the make up of an atom, for decades it's components were known, and yet a few scientist have discovered another component within the atom. Their discovery is changing how we look at the basic make up of an atom, and throws off all the known science on the topic ... 

 

The generally advised rule is Go By The Consensus Of "Expert" Opinion, meaning that the scientists should be specialists in the field they are studying and interpreting results for the public. 

The problem today is that most science that used to be done in university dept. labs and field work was mostly funded by the institution where the scientists worked at and taught students. Over time, more and more science research has become dependent on special grants from billionaire donors.

So, no, one scientist is never enough. And if I side with a minority of experts on any subject...which certainly can happen in this era of bought and paid for news media and universities that are more and more dependent on billionaires and rich alumni to keep going, it's not hard to see how research can easily be contaminated.

Nevertheless, the minority opinion have a heavier burden to carry when it comes to making their case. They have to do a hell of a lot more than raise one or two objections to conventional opinion! They have to explain the how the whole range of results line up the way they do.

For example, when I was spending a lot more time on global warming and climate issues, I noticed that these fake experts would not even talk about the exponential rise in CO2 levels of recent decades. They would just yammer on with claims that Arctic ice wasn't melting or temperatures weren't increasing because of a cold winter somewhere and that was taken as proof of no global warming. ..... I wish I could remember the name of the fool, but there used to be a longtime US senator, who stepped outside during a session and came back in with a snowball, which he threw across the floor, towards his Democrat opposition.....and snow falling in Washington D.C. was supposed to be proof of no climate change ?

[Right To Left]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

And while i do believe in Climate change i have very little understanding of the topic, and what little i do know comes from both sides of the spectrum. What is being challenged today is green tech, such as solar and wind power turbines etc, it cost more carbon to produce them than they reduce ... in other words the cure is worse than the disease.

Now i don't really like Michael Moore documentary" planet human" as a source for anything , but he does ask some interesting questions, he disproves that todays green tech has a much higher cost than we once knew. He also charges that a lot of powerful people have cornered the market on green tech and are selling it as the end all be all, to which it is not.. it is almost 2 hours long.... 

 Michael Moore Presents Planet of the Humans Full Documentary Directed by Jeff Gibbs - NL Subs - YouTube 

I haven't seen the documentary for some reason...even though it's still available for free on Youtube! But the title "Michael Moore Presents" is a clue that very little of the actual work is from the mind of Michael Moore .... which may be a good thing. The actual producer, director and writer - Jeff Gibbs, making Moore the backseat driver - executive producer. I'm sure they thought that would help promote the film, but Michael Moore doesn't have firsthand knowledge of climate issues, so when he was later confronted by media attacks and bought and paid for environment experts like Mr. 350 - Bill McKibben, he ran, and didn't want to do many public appearances...likely for the first time in his life!

Maybe the reason why I haven't been in too big of a hurry to watch the whole movie is because, from what I've seen of it in clips and the first 10 or 15 minutes, I was already familiar with the main theme that pours cold water on notions that global warming can be fixed by techno-solutions: windmills, solar panels and especially building millions of electric cars, since one of the main experts is Australian environmentalist - Ozzie Zehner, a long time critic of big green capitalists like McKibben who took off when Al Gore recreated himself as an environment hero 20 years ago. 

Zehner's book Green Illusions gave me answers I wanted and apparently a lot of other people needed 8 or 9 years ago, when we first started topping the dreaded 400 ppm carbon threshold, and Mr. 350 and friends were still spinning their wheels about the need to act quickly. When green tech partnered with bankers and created green investments and green industries, then it became obvious they were pedaling bullshit for money. When Bill McKibben buys a big, multimillion dollar mansion in upstate Vermont. 

Simple, unavoidable truth is ensuring a livable climate for future generations is going to require a whole range of changes in the way we do business today. 

[Infidel Dog]

9 hours ago, Right To Left said:

I would put it in the opinion or Talking Out of His Ass column! Because he's going to oil-funded sites like "Wattsupwiththat".... seriously! That's the link he's using for atmospheric methane research for this post: The Arctic Methane Scare: Oversold 

I don't know where you pulled that claim WUWT is an oil-funded site out of. Most likely the the same place your expert - this Sam Carana guy - pulled the idea from that the Arctic would be ice free in 2014. Or the one where he predicted global temperatures would increase ten degrees in ten years. 

So as I understand it global temperatures increased possibly a little over a degree Celsius or so since the end of the little ice age (or as you would tell it, the beginning of the industrial revolution.) If you and Sam are expecting global temps to rise 8 degrees in 5 years don't ever give me what you two are smoking.

Positive feedback loops are rare in the natural world. The problem with expecting a positive feedback methane apocalypse is one of residency. As I understand it Methane resides in the atmosphere for about 10 years as opposed to what's believed to be CO2's residency of a hundred years or so. Even hypothetically you'd need a massive blast of methane to boot the loop. Not even the IPCC is worried about that one.

You don't want to read Skeptic journals even when they're quoting peer review so I'll let you check that one out from the climate alarmists at Real Climate.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

Don't let blogger Sam scam you. Go ahead and buy your beach property. It will still be there in 5 years. Gore and Obama aren't hesitating.

Edited April 27, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[myata]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I guess i will have to take your word on that, because the other side is saying the same thing, BOTH sides have supported their claims with science as we know it.  

Not really. But it's far beyond the scope of an online discussion forum.

[Infidel Dog]

7 hours ago, myata said:

Not really.

Yes. Really.

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

[WestCanMan]

59 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Yes. Really.

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

There are little kids that think that the world is on fire because of climate change.

 

[myata]

As said, this is not a scientific forum to review and discuss research and it's next to impossible to convince anyone change deeply held beliefs. This is a well known general problem with humans, many just couldn't accept anything that they could not see or experience directly (and when can but wouldn't see). So nothing new to be found here and the discussion is pointless. In a generation or two we will know; either the science was wrong. Or at least, our posterity would read these forums and wonder how smart some of us were, stubbornly insisting on remaining blind to the obvious.

Edited April 27, 2021 by myata

[Right To Left]

13 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

I don't know where you pulled that claim WUWT is an oil-funded site out of. Most likely the the same place your expert - this Sam Carana guy - pulled the idea from that the Arctic would be ice free in 2014. Or the one where he predicted global temperatures would increase ten degrees in ten years. 

So as I understand it global temperatures increased possibly a little over a degree Celsius or so since the end of the little ice age (or as you would tell it, the beginning of the industrial revolution.) If you and Sam are expecting global temps to rise 8 degrees in 5 years don't ever give me what you two are smoking.

Positive feedback loops are rare in the natural world. The problem with expecting a positive feedback methane apocalypse is one of residency. As I understand it Methane resides in the atmosphere for about 10 years as opposed to what's believed to be CO2's residency of a hundred years or so. Even hypothetically you'd need a massive blast of methane to boot the loop. Not even the IPCC is worried about that one.

You don't want to read Skeptic journals even when they're quoting peer review so I'll let you check that one out from the climate alarmists at Real Climate.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/

Don't let blogger Sam scam you. Go ahead and buy your beach property. It will still be there in 5 years. Gore and Obama aren't hesitating.

Well, putting our cards on the table, where I pull away from the scientific consensus is where they can be shown as being behind the curve...one of the complaints and motivators behind the anonymous *Sam Carana blogger and real life scientists such as Guy McPherson for being climate doomers is because they've been frustrated for years at growing divide between alarming new evidence and the public statements from NOAA and the annual climate summits, which make future predictions that are always behind the curve on arctic temperatures, global temperature increases, rising CO2 levels, rising sea levels etc.. So many of the changes predicted by the IPCC..which has all of the deniers who go into panic on even the most conservative predictions is that changes predicted for the end of this century, such as "blue ocean events" in the Arctic Ocean (complete summer melting of ice) is getting very close, based on the loss of Arctic ice in recent decades.

Quote

* I don't know if it's verified, but it's always been assumed that the Sam Carana blogger, who still remains anonymous, is really a composite created by 2 or 3 doom-leaning climate scientists, with one being Ottawa-based Paul Beckwith. An anonymous identity of scientists working for universities or government institutions would be a plausible reason for them to want to keep their darkest thoughts out of work they are doing publicly in their own name.

Maybe it's not as quick as Sam Carana predicted 10 years ago, but it's coming our way long before 2090, even by the more recent IPCC statements. My guess would be that, although Sam Carana was doing a lot of research on 'positive feedback effects' in nature...such as how methane and CO2 releases from stored carbon locked in ice, cold water and forests and plant life, would cause a surge in warming that inspired the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis a number of years ago, as an explanation of sudden rapid glacier collapses during the Quarternary period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis 

But some skeptics of a rapid blue ocean event back then, like Gaia Theory creator - James Lovelock, pointed out that there are both positive and negative environmental feedback effects, and reasoned that at some point, some of those negative counter-reactions should be expected.

So, as was discovered after the rapid retreat of ice between 2005 and 2010, the Northern Atlantic Ocean temperatures dropped significantly because of all of the ice passing by Greenland and Norway, and this caused a brief period of colder winters again that helped add to ice in the Far North. The long term prognosis is not good for a cold Arctic that will maintain its ice and cold environment for the many creatures living in the far north have evolved to adapt to over thousands and millions of years!

 Now, on the other hand, if *Sam Carana, Guy McPherson (who predicts most of us will be dead on a suddenly hot planet by 2030) are too alarmist and reaching too far, the generously funded so called skeptics who promote notions that this is all just a few little bumps along the road, and either deny any connection between rising CO2 levels( and other GHG's) and rising global average temperatures, or say temps aren't increasing enough or as much as expected, or some other bullshit reason to carry on with business as usual!

These clowns are all over the map when it comes to their beliefs and their science. One fascinating oddball is Bjorn Lomborg, who as far as anyone can tell, never contends with accepted evidence of climate change or connections between rising temperatures and rising CO2 emissions, but presents a case that it's too late to do anything about it, so we just have to adapt to a changing world.  Worth noting that the same oil, gas and coal-funded sites that promote denial have interviews of Lomborg and quote him extensively when it comes to his opposition to standard mitigation strategies like cutting use of carbon fuels. 

My beef with standard global warming narratives and the way they're presented in MSM is that carbon emissions and warming are presented as the one and only environmental crisis, at a time when we are already living in a mass extinction period, according to the numbers of probable extinctions and population die-offs noticed by biologists studying a whole range of plants and animals. The first to go...as in all extinctions, are the largest animals on land and in the oceans.

So, the whales are facing near term extinction because of warming, declines in sea life they feed off of and the accumulations of more and more plastic residues in the oceans. Next, elephants, rhinos, hippos, and large apex predators - lions, tigers, polar bears will go extinct in the wild in the coming decades. In times past, many of these species shrunk in size during warming events, and grew larger when the earth became colder again. But, the changes now are happening too rapidly for any creatures that are well adapted for very specific climates to deal with.

[Right To Left]

43 minutes ago, myata said:

As said, this is not a scientific forum to review and discuss research and it's next to impossible to convince anyone change deeply held beliefs. This is a well known general problem with humans, many just couldn't accept anything that they could not see or experience directly (and when can but wouldn't see). So nothing new to be found here and the discussion is pointless. In a generation or two we will know;

Or we will all be dead!

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, myata said:

As said, this is not a scientific forum to review and discuss research and it's next to impossible to convince anyone change deeply held beliefs. This is a well known general problem with humans, many just couldn't accept anything that they could not see or experience directly (and when can but wouldn't see). So nothing new to be found here and the discussion is pointless. In a generation or two we will know; either the science was wrong. Or at least, our posterity would read these forums and wonder how smart some of us were, stubbornly insisting on remaining blind to the obvious.

We're already two generations into this bullshit, and the alarmists are ofer.

[Infidel Dog]

3 hours ago, myata said:

As said, this is not a scientific forum to review and discuss research and it's next to impossible to convince anyone change deeply held beliefs. This is a well known general problem with humans, many just couldn't accept anything that they could not see or experience directly (and when can but wouldn't see). So nothing new to be found here and the discussion is pointless. In a generation or two we will know; either the science was wrong. Or at least, our posterity would read these forums and wonder how smart some of us were, stubbornly insisting on remaining blind to the obvious.

However...

Just saying you don't want to see the science skeptics put forward in peer reviewed journals doesn't prove it doesn't exist. 

And it sounds like you don't even want to see the science from your side. You just want to believe it's there and and that's all there is. Basically, only because that's what you want to believe.

Whatever turns your crank Hank but don't be thinking that qualifies you to judge anybody else. Prophets of the apocalypse are not the one and only last word in "the science" just because you want to believe they are.

[Infidel Dog]

Right to left, I don't have anything against you or Sam's hypotheses, as long as we're admitting that's all they are. Hypotheses. Guesses.

They're kind of entertaining, however...I'm not quite ready for this:

based on that.

 

[myata]

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

We're already two generations into this bullshit, and the alarmists are ofer.

And of course there are some real, observable changes; just not here (yet). And this is only a matter of time. A blind person who wants to see can find some ways; but there's nothing in the world that could change the beliefs of consciously and deliberately mentally blind.

[Infidel Dog]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

there's nothing in the world that could change the beliefs of consciously and deliberately mentally blind.

Say that into the mirror 3 times fast every morning.

There still may be hope.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, myata said:

And of course there are some real, observable changes; just not here (yet). And this is only a matter of time. A blind person who wants to see can find some ways; but there's nothing in the world that could change the beliefs of consciously and deliberately mentally blind.

You can tell yourself "All the previous lies from these guys don't matter, this latest round of predictions will suddenly be legit " if you want.

It's not my style. 

[Argus]

7 hours ago, myata said:

And of course there are some real, observable changes; just not here (yet). And this is only a matter of time. A blind person who wants to see can find some ways; but there's nothing in the world that could change the beliefs of consciously and deliberately mentally blind.

I'm not questioning the real, observable changes, just the Liberals' plan to deal with them.