The Nonsense of Trudeau's climate change policies

[cougar]

On 4/28/2021 at 12:36 PM, Right To Left said:

 

Are you advocating genocide? How do you plan to reduce "our" population?

Certainly, population numbers all over the world are reducing right now,

 

Without any hesitation I can tell you this can't be true.   Our population globally is still expanding under the pandemic.

At this point I do not recommend genocide; just a complete ban on immigration.

 

[Infidel Dog]

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

It is not getting warner briefly,it is getting warmer period and melting rates will accelerate. What is so difficult to understand about that?[quote]

Matter of opinion. I haven't been a fan of land surface temps since Tom Karl and his gang rewrote the data to make the climate pause disappear. However the satellite temps from UAH look like this:

So to my untrained eye temps were still rising to 98. After that I can draw a straight line from the 98 peak of the red 13 mth average line through to 2021. Any rise in that 23 year period appears negligible. From January temps appear to be plummeting.

i've heard them say it's still rising a bit from 98 but nothing there appears to be as scary as you'd like to make it sound.

Quote

According to your sea level chart, the sea level variation between 1995 and 2000 was about 10 mm. Between 2015 and 2020 it was about 25 mm.

Why stop there if 5 year increments impress you.

Between 2000 and 2005 it's 18 degrees.

2005 - 2010 about 17

2010 - 2015 about 12

2015 - 2020 about 20 (From about 78 to about 98)

So all you've proved is sea level rise is erratic. It goes up and it goes down. 

If this 20 year increment remains consistent it will be about 12 inches of sea level rise by 2120. That's still not frightening. There's no guarantee it will remain consistent. Could be more. Could be less.

 

 

 

[Aristides]

5 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Matter of opinion. I haven't been a fan of land surface temps since Tom Karl and his gang rewrote the data to make the climate pause disappear. However the satellite temps from UAH look like this:

So to my untrained eye temps were still rising to 98. After that I can draw a straight line from the 98 peak of the red 13 mth average line through to 2021. Any rise in that 23 year period appears negligible. From January temps appear to be plummeting.

i've heard them say it's still rising a bit from 98 but nothing there appears to be as scary as you'd like to make it sound.

Why stop there if 5 year increments impress you.

Between 2000 and 2005 it's 18 degrees.

2005 - 2010 about 17

2010 - 2015 about 12

2015 - 2020 about 20 (From about 78 to about 98)

So all you've proved is sea level rise is erratic. It goes up and it goes down. 

If this 20 year increment remains consistent it will be about 12 inches of sea level rise by 2120. That's still not frightening. There's no guarantee it will remain consistent. Could be more. Could be less.

 

 

 

I was pointing out that the increase in sea level rise in the past five years was 2.5 times the increase 20 years ago. Your untrained eye should be able to see that even though yearly rates of increase go up and down, the trend is up, both in average temperature and sea level rise. There are more up years that down years and the trend is up. You seem to think the increase is linear and will stay that way. It isn't and it won't.  The earths average temperature is increasing and the rate of ice melt will increase accordingly. Ice will melt much faster at 20 degrees than at 10 degrees. Why is that so hard to understand?

Edited May 1, 2021 by Aristides

[Argus]

18 hours ago, myata said:

Whatever we want to say about Trudeau, it's a fact that he came to power in 2015. Before him there were several governments, both Liberal and Conservative and nothing real was done to address this problem. The facts simply do not support the statement that this is a partisan problem. This is a Canadian problem and a global one as well.

Nothing was done to address what problem? Global warming? The lack of nuclear power? The absurd regulatory environment?

This IS largely an ideological problem in that the Right mostly doesn't believe we can do anything to seriously impede the world warming and the Left seems willing to destroy the economy in a forlorn attempt to at least have a minute impact on it.

18 hours ago, myata said:

On another send off to the developing world; not that it smacks of hypocrisy, it also does not make much sense logically: if developed countries fail to make real and measurable progress, how likely it would be to happen in poorer countries laced with other problems and challenges?

The developed world has made measurable progress, spending hundreds of billions to do so. But on a world scale, CO2 emissions continue to rise due to the enthusiasm of the developing world for dirty (cheap) energy sources.

18 hours ago, myata said:

And on the last point, what makes you think that after decades of running from responsibility and pointing fingers, politically and internationally, we would be able to come up with a sound, effective and working mitigation strategy?

Right back at ya. What makes you think the international political and media communities could come up with a sound, effective and working CO2 reduction strategy?

[Infidel Dog]

4 hours ago, Aristides said:

I was pointing out that the increase in sea level rise in the past five years was 2.5 times the increase 20 years ago. Your untrained eye should be able to see that even though yearly rates of increase go up and down, the trend is up, both in average temperature and sea level rise.

We can quibble over .5 but I say it was simply double. Another of the 5 year increments from the middle of the chart was pretty much the same as the first one - no real rise. Sea level goes up and down. 

But even if your 5 year burst was significant would it really matter?

You appear to be expecting that to happen every 5 years. Should you?

Judith Curry is a climatologist who is traditionally thought of as what they call a "luke warmer."

She examined all the data and did a 80 some odd page report on what she found. On her site she did a shorter review of of her report.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/

Scroll down to her conclusions.

Basically, stop worrying. Go ahead and buy your beach property like Gore and Obama do.

[Aristides]

53 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

We can quibble over .5 but I say it was simply double. Another of the 5 year increments from the middle of the chart was pretty much the same as the first one - no real rise. Sea level goes up and down. 

But even if your 5 year burst was significant would it really matter?

You appear to be expecting that to happen every 5 years. Should you?

Judith Curry is a climatologist who is traditionally thought of as what they call a "luke warmer."

She examined all the data and did a 80 some odd page report on what she found. On her site she did a shorter review of of her report.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/

Scroll down to her conclusions.

Basically, stop worrying. Go ahead and buy your beach property like Gore and Obama do.

What I got from that is she doesn't know either. What has been established is glacial melts are accelerating. I'm staying well above the flood plane.

[cougar]

13 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Matter of opinion. I haven't been a fan of land surface temps since Tom Karl and his gang rewrote the data to make the climate pause disappear. However the satellite temps from UAH look like this:

So to my untrained eye temps were still rising to 98. After that I can draw a straight line from the 98 peak of the red 13 mth average line through to 2021. Any rise in that 23 year period appears negligible. From January temps appear to be plummeting.

 

 

 

 

To my untrained eye, all the highs in the 80s are lower than the lows of 2010's.

To claim that "any rise is negligible"  will tell me you are full of it.

[Army Guy]

On 4/30/2021 at 7:28 PM, Right To Left said:

While deniers grab for the most dubious claims made by disingenuous self-proclaimed experts who take money from energy companies and other sources who figured out quickly that serious efforts to prevent climate change, and even the half-assed measures our governments have been willing to do in recent times, will hurt the profit numbers of big oil and allied industries who want cheap energy while paying no consequences for the environmental impacts.

 

This is the reason why this will never end, the left is always right, and the right is always wrong. you claim all the sources given to you so far, are disingenuous by self proclaimed experts, funded by big oil.  And yet your side is also made claims by so called experts that are funded by other industries that are making trillions on taking advantage of the climate scare and are pouring bils into making the climate change narrative sound that we need to take immediate action... the faster the better so they can stuff their pockets as well. It is a two edge sword. 

So the worlds ocean levels are rising, according to your graph it's only 3 mm a year,  so what is the danger point here, 1 foot 2 feet, what ? How long is it going to take to get to the critical point ? in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years what ?

 

[dialamah]

2 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

the worlds ocean levels are rising, according to your graph it's only 3 mm a year,  so what is the danger point here, 1 foot 2 feet, what ? How long is it going to take to get to the critical point ? in 50 years, 100 years, 200 years what ?

For some communities, the 'danger point' has already passed. 

US town relocating due to rising seas.

And other places.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, dialamah said:

For some communities, the 'danger point' has already passed. 

US town relocating due to rising seas.

 

 

Nice try, but the Isle de Jean Charles (Louisiana) has been eroding away for many decades before "climate change", because of saltwater intrusion, subsidence, dredging, dams, levees, hurricanes, etc.

 

[Army Guy]

5 minutes ago, dialamah said:

For some communities, the 'danger point' has already passed. 

US town relocating due to rising seas.

And other places.

 

SO we are blaming climate change for the sea levels that have risen over 7 inchs in the last 150 years OK i get that... One could also ask what was the city planer thinking building anything that close to the beach... I say that because storm surges can range from 20 feet to a mere 10 feet....and they happen more than once a year 13 times last year off Florida, with almost 70 topical storms...So they are pretty common....maybe it is not climate change driving all of these moves, but rather they are getting tired of expensive repair bills...

[DogOnPorch]

30 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Nice try, but the Isle de Jean Charles (Louisiana) has been eroding away for many decades before "climate change", because of saltwater intrusion, subsidence, dredging, dams, levees, hurricanes, etc.

 

 

And the Mississippi...it has changed greatly over historical time.

The two Civil War forts in Louisiana on the river are good examples. Ft Jackson & Ft St Philips...

One is still pristine (Jackson) while the other has been slowly eroded by shifting banks (St Philips)...last used as a hippy colony, I believe. Now the state CW preservation society is trying to save what is left...difficult as it is privately owned. They're right across the river from each other.

Edited May 2, 2021 by DogOnPorch

[cougar]

4 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

And the Mississippi...it has changed greatly over historical time.

The two Civil War forts in Louisiana on the river are good examples. ..... They're right across the river from each other.

You have to be kidding me.  An example of what exactly, when we speak of climate change?

Rivers change their course all the time - the outside side of the bend gets eroded , the inside side of the bend usually grows.

[DogOnPorch]

36 minutes ago, cougar said:

You have to be kidding me.  An example of what exactly, when we speak of climate change?

Rivers change their course all the time - the outside side of the bend gets eroded , the inside side of the bend usually grows.

 

No...an example of things changing over time. Of course the bank that gets the full force of ol' Coriolis gets chewed up...especially if the Corp of Engineers doesn't do it job. I thought since I was replying to my chum BC, that might have been apparent seeing what he was saying. I wasn't trying to counter any point you made.

I'm not a "we're all gonna die!!!!" sort of guy...climate wise. Pollution, however...that's something we can actually do something about. Pick-up that plastic...

Hippy colony...lol.

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

46 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No...an example of things changing over time. Of course the bank that gets the full force of ol' Coriolis gets chewed up...especially if the Corp of Engineers doesn't do it job.

 

Indeed...the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has executed countless projects in that region of the Mississippi delta for generations trying to control the river, with mixed success and much environmental "modification".    The Corps is being sued right now for the Yazoo Pumps flood control fiasco.

This is one of the worst possible examples to be a poster child for "climate change".

[DogOnPorch]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Indeed...the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has executed countless projects in that region of the Mississippi delta for generations trying to control the river, with mixed success and much environmental "modification".    The Corps is being sued right now for the Yazoo Pumps flood control fiasco.

This is one of the worst possible examples to be a poster child for "climate change".

 

Sort of like pointing to the Aral Sea (or lack there-of) and not blaming the Soviet hydrogen bomb river diversion projects...

[DogOnPorch]

Ironically, it was the Yazoo River that US Grant used to take out Vicksburg...by redirecting the river and allowing steamboat access around the fort. 

Edited May 2, 2021 by DogOnPorch

[Infidel Dog]

13 hours ago, Aristides said:

What I got from that is she doesn't know either. What has been established is glacial melts are accelerating. I'm staying well above the flood plane.

Glad you acknowledge the "either."

It's true. Nobody knows what's coming. If you want to be scared though, be scared. Maybe you'll be lucky and a meteor will crash into you before the horrendous tidal wave of 7 to 12 inchers per century can get you.

[Infidel Dog]

12 hours ago, cougar said:

To my untrained eye, all the highs in the 80s are lower than the lows of 2010's.

To claim that "any rise is negligible"  will tell me you are full of it.

Why? Who was talking about the 80s? I was talking about the last 20 years more or less. Maybe you can see what I'm talking about clearer in this one from NOAA:

So as I understand it you're going to need about 3 degrees per century to get your frightening future. I'm not seeing much if any kind of a rise so far this century so your going to need the rest in the next 80 years. Unlikely, if you ask me.

 

[Aristides]

On 4/30/2021 at 11:07 PM, cougar said:

Without any hesitation I can tell you this can't be true.   Our population globally is still expanding under the pandemic.

At this point I do not recommend genocide; just a complete ban on immigration.

 

If you ban immigration and don’t keep your own birth rate up to replacement levels you will become a nation of geezers.

[myata]

22 hours ago, Argus said:

This IS largely an ideological problem in that the Right mostly doesn't believe we can do anything to seriously impede the world warming and the Left seems willing to destroy the economy in a forlorn attempt to at least have a minute impact on it.

The developed world has made measurable progress, spending hundreds of billions to do so. But on a world scale, CO2 emissions continue to rise due to the enthusiasm of the developing world for dirty (cheap) energy sources.

Right back at ya. What makes you think the international political and media communities could come up with a sound, effective and working CO2 reduction strategy?

If I can rephrase p.1, "the Right mostly ... we cannot control and limit our emissions and therefore should do nothing about it" that would be a clear position. And there's nothing wrong with this point of view, as a legitimate point of view as long as it's stated clearly and isn't hiding behind "experts" and "data" to the extent that nothing much is happening anyways.

Of course it would mean that we're telling the following generations, you have to keep rolling our roulette and at some point you'll get to see what happens (not us though and hopefully). OK, clear and honest.

On p.2 only the "effort" and "investment" is not enough. Just by the logic, either the prosperous West can demonstrate that with sufficient effort and attention and technology the solution can be found, that is, meaningful and sustainable reduction in emissions and invite others to do it, or there's nothing to show. And that just has not happened as yet, and we'll have to see again come 2030. Till then it's just empty and hardly defendable (and hypocritical) rhetoric: with our wealth and resources we could not do it but you must or it wouldn't make sense. The position in p.1 is at least clear and honest.

Finally, I already said that to me it does not really matter who will find the solution or at least would make a serious and sound effort to find it. If it will be Conservatives I'll be just as fine with it as with Justin. However I do mean concrete and measurable results, not just programs, initiatives, directions, credits and even investments. And that is one of the reasons why in this country I'm not very hopeful to see it soon. Spending even outrageous amounts of public money just does not seem to bring real results here unlike commissions and reports (for more public money) and for some time now. Someone could have noticed and even getting concerns but the skies aren't falling yet so why worry?

Edited May 2, 2021 by myata

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why? Who was talking about the 80s? I was talking about the last 20 years more or less. Maybe you can see what I'm talking about clearer in this one from NOAA:

So as I understand it you're going to need about 3 degrees per century to get your frightening future. I'm not seeing much if any kind of a rise so far this century so your going to need the rest in the next 80 years. Unlikely, if you ask me.

 

Again you expect the rise to be linear but it isn’t. Your graph clearly shows the rise since 1980 to be much steeper than the 100 previous years.

[cougar]

11 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

Why? Who was talking about the 80s? I was talking about the last 20 years more or less.

 

And why would you be looking only at the last 20 years?  Because this is precisely when industry driven climate change started or because this suits you better?  

Hey, you may see if the  temperature is lower today compared to yesterday and claim the Earth is cooling off.

[cougar]

17 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Pollution, however...that's something we can actually do something about. Pick-up that plastic......

.

 

And are you picking up the plastic?

I had over 30 bags collected last week near a landfill and another 3 bags collected yesterday off the side of a highway.  How many did you collect?

Just keep in mind burying the plastic only makes it invisible, but it is still there, affecting the environment.

Edited May 2, 2021 by cougar

[Infidel Dog]

8 hours ago, Aristides said:

Again you expect the rise to be linear but it isn’t. Your graph clearly shows the rise since 1980 to be much steeper than the 100 previous years.

No I don't. I'm showing you that so far this century the line looks almost level so if you expect your scary 3 degrees per century to begin to endanger the people of the 22nd century that line is going to have to get erect like boingggg...in a hurry to make it happen in the next 80 years..

I'm saying don't hold your breath. Now that you mention it though that's an interesting point. The Line is not linear slanting only up. Why not? If you're right about the CO2 being the only cause for the rise what blocks it and prevents the line from being purely linear slanting upward?

Surely you're not suggesting there could be natural controls? Because if there are why do I need to be so scared I need to give Justin a big back slap for driving up the price of gas and everything else along with it and support a "great reset" of more global control.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Infidel Dog