Don you take some convincing.I will allow the planet has been warmer in the
past than it is now.I think it is a mistake however to confuse cyclic weather
events with global warming.As I pointed out the planet does not warm
evenly.Here on the Island we had our coldest wettest spring in 130 years but
that does not mean Mother Earth is not heating up.In fact new weather extremes
both hot and cold are an indication that equilibrium is tipping.Extreme weather
in terms of hurricanes ,flooding and drought offer anecdotal evidence that
things are out of balance.Never in discernable history have we seen such a
rapid increase in CO2 levels and a corresponding rise in global
temperatures.Plants and living things can adapt to changes that occur
incrementally over thousands of years but not this rapidly.I put the same
arguments you now advance to the scientists at the lunch debate previously
referred to.They cautioned me not to confuse weather events with climate change
before they delved in to the evidence they had ascertained from ice cores.
I am convinced ;you are not.You have a scientific background and I do not.I
think you find yourself in the contrarian ranks but you argue your point
well.That’s what a good debate is all about.My regards Don,Bryan
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 6, 2022, at 9:06 AM, Donald Hoyda <donaldhoyda@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello Bryan, I’m encouraged to hear that you recognize the scale and
cyclicity of natural climate change as displayed by the five global
glaciations over the last 450,000 years. Few people appreciate that only
18,000 years ago Edmonton was covered by 7,000 feet of ice as well as all of
Alberta except for the Cypress Hills. So much water was captured in the
continental ice sheets that the ocean level dropped 400 feet exposing the
continental shelves. Europe and North America were more than 400 miles closer
to each other than today. Based on our knowledge of these last five Ice Ages
we will probably see another 25 foot increase in ocean levels over the next
one or two thousand years. I mention the above to illustrate the severity of
natural climate change.
You state that your primary evidence for man made climate change is the
“accelerated warming trend that has occurred in the last 250 years” which
“coincides with the industrial revolution and the burning of fossil fuels”.
There is a problem with this line of reasoning if one looks at the actual
climate record over the last 100 years. Two events stand out. Firstly the
1930s were a decade of drought and very high temperatures (Dustbowl - North
American prairies). Secondly the 1960s were a decade of intense cold (minus
70 F. in 1964 central Alberta, 42 days of continuous below 0 in 1969-70).
Both of these climate anomalies occurred concurrently with and in spite of
steadily increasing CO2 levels. This shows that there is a disconnect between
rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures. For a whole decade we had high
temperatures and a severe drought then 30 years later we had an abnormally
cold decade. It was so cold for so long that climate scientists at the time
were predicting the start of a new Ice Age. Clearly the theory of rising
temperature due to increasing CO2 levels is flawed.
I grant you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas along with the more important
methane and water vapour. However the recent climate history cited above
shows it is a minor factor in comparison to natural change. CO2 below 180 ppm
extincts all plant life. We are currently at 400 ppm and have been as high as
6500 ppm in the past. My Regards.
Don Hoyda, P.Geol.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 5, 2022, at 8:21 AM, Jim Farmilo <akfarmilo2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
To my way of thinking there are very few government "programs" that
accomplish the intended objectives. They are like a therapy for autoimmune
disease; Intended to stop a mis-directed immune response but in fact
affecting all immune responses. I agree the carbon tax has a large adverse
effect.
I am perplexed by what I consider a lack of strength by the government.
There are environmental limits on pollutants. Just toughen them.if they
need to. Drive innovation in the industries that contribute most to the
problem. However that won't happen. Government exists to start programs.
That is their key performance indicator. As a leader in various business
organizations working "with" government I saw over and over programs
devised, started and then .... nothing. On to the next program. Did the
last one work? Who knows? Usually some pseudo-statistical report would
demonstrate success but rarely would the outcome do what was intended and
no one looked at the report. The situation always reverted back over time.
Likely this was because people are people and behavior modification only
works on a few, not the many.
End of rant!
On Nov. 5, 2022 12:55 a.m., R Bryan Waller <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dave the theory is the carbon tax will restrict consumption and perhaps it
is working in modest ways;people buying more fuel efficient vehicles or
electric vehicles,more public transit etc.Ottawa claims the tax is
redistributed so it is not been used for research.But it’s real effect is to
raise the cost of virtually everything as it causes price increases for food
,heating ,any trucked goods.It is one of the major drivers of our
inflationary spiral,Bryan
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 4, 2022, at 3:13 PM, Dave Kerr <dave.kerr@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
My question to-day is: Is the Carbon Tax being used to help solve climate
change, or is it a redistribution of wealth? How much of the Carbon Tax in
Canada is going towards Scientific options?
It would appear Canadians have no option but to pay the tax as we for the
most part require fuel for heating and travel. Especially those of us in
Rural Alberta. Therefore, we are not reducing our Carbon consumption, yet
paying out of our pocket...to whom? If it was 100% for research purposes,
it would be much easier to understand.
Cheers,
Dave
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 3:05 PM Wynn Payne <wynn.payne@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Bryan
Thanks for the detailed explanation. This makes sense to me.
As a second layer of the problem how much does Canada contribute to the
problem in relation to the whole world? My understand is that China and
India combined represent maybe 85% of the problem and that Canada is maybe
1%. Are those good estimates?
If we are at say 3 % how much change do we have to do a less significant
contributor for the problem? ie we are making our standard of living more
expensive while not being a significant contributor. Unless we can get China
and India on side our efforts have little effect while economically they
manufacturer without the costs of reducing carbon contribution.
This last summer there was an initiative to reduce fertilizer use in grain
production. That seemed to be counter productive to supplying the world
what it needs to survive.
To all, keep the comments coming while remaining courteous.
Thanks
Wynn
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 2:52 PM R Bryan Waller <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Over the millennia earth has been subject to variable climate change
indépendant of the actions of mankind.There have been at least 5 distinct
ice ages in the past 650,000 years.These changes are due to a number of
factors including the tilt of earth orbit,warming and cooling of the
oceans,volcanic activity and variability of energy output by the sun.It is
possible to chart these changes through the examination of ice cores from
the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.In support of those who believe the
changes we are seeing are due to natural causes we are at a point in the
epoch where we are emerging from the most recent ice age and there is a
natural warming trend.
Having said that these natural trends are measured in tens of thousands of
years.Our current
accelerated warming trend has occurred in the last 250 years ,a mere thane
blink of an eye in time.It coïncides with the industrial revolution and the
burning of fossil fuels and explosive population growth.
Earths temperature has increased 5 degrees since the latest ice age more
than 10,000 years ago which averages out to .05 degrees every 100 years.Over
the last 100 years the mean temperature of earth has increased 1.4
degrees.The world is heating up exponentially faster than ever before.That
is an undeniable fact.Of course the warming is not a constant throughout the
globe.Some areas may be cooler than in the previous years.It is the planet
as a whole that is warming at a far greater rate than ever seen in the
determinable record.
The reason is the increase in the so called greenhouse gases.The chief of
these is carbon dioxide but also include other gases such as methane and
nitrous oxide.They are called greenhouse gases because of particular
qualities.They transmit light but absorb and radiate infra red light.The
world would be uninhabitable if we did not have greenhouse gases because of
their role in warming the planet.
By the examination of air bubbles cast in ice cores scientists have
determined over the course of discernable history thé concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has varied from 180 to 300 parts per
million .Modern levels are at more than 400 parts per million and increasing
rapidly.There is no question for the most part these emissions come from the
burning of fossil fuels.Scientist are able to differentiate fossil fuel
carbon dioxide from naturally occurring carbon dioxide.Other greenhouse
gases such as methane and nitrous oxide which have an even greater warming
effect are also increasing.Methane comes from rotting garbage and belching
cows and nitrous oxide from the use of nitrogen fertilizers.
The evidence is overwhelming and is found in the rapidity of these events
far exceeding any natural discernable natural occurrences.There are charts
and scientific literature than explains it far better than I can but here
are the bare bones of the argument.As I have said this is an accepted
conclusion from the vast majority of climate scientists.There may be the odd
outlier but I have never seen one with any credibility.The earth has been
able to adapt to changes over the millennia but can it adapt to dramatic
change over centuries? We humans are ingenious creatures and perhaps we will
adapt ….or perhaps not.Bryan
Sent from my iPad
