Canada: The Great Black North
Dec 8th, 2009 by Richard
Three things you should read if you’re a Canadian.
Collossal Fossil
Canada garners a Fossil of the Day Award at Copenhagen for being a climate dick.
“Canada garnered today’s award for its unwavering commitment to stand firm in its inaction throughout these negotiations [...] Since announcing its emissions target in 2007 of reducing GHG emissions by 20% below the 2006 emission level (equivalent to 3 % below the 1990 level), the Harper government has consistently refused to adopt any regulatory framework to start reducing emissions, namely form the rapidly growing sector of tar sands.”
Canadians want climate action
But 64 per cent of respondents to a Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey said rich nations have a responsibility to commit to higher and harder targets than developing countries.
Most also want to see a binding agreement come out of Copenhagen, and 81 per cent said Canada should act independently of the United States.
The Conservatives insist Canada must tie its policy to that of the U.S. because of the countries’ extensive economic relationship.
The Harper government says it’s waiting for the Obama administration to come out with a suite of policies to which Canada can synchronize its own.
Climate Change and Canadian Unity
Chantal Hébert’s perspective on how Harper is undermining Canadian unity for his Alberta power base.
Harper’s base is in Alberta. His minority government will soon have to address a record federal deficit. The strength of the economic recovery will determine how painful that exercise will be. Over the next few years, the energy sector is expected to soften the impact of a dramatic restructuring of Canada’s manufacturing sector.
The flip side to this lose-lose equation for the environment is that the activist climate-change agenda of the three biggest provinces is not unfolding in a political vacuum.
Together, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec speak for three-quarters of Canadians. Slowly but surely their green ambitions are making the laissez-faire attitude of the Harper government politically unsustainable.
We’ll be glad to get rid of PM Harper and his obstructionism, but the choices for leaders in this country are looking pretty slim. Rather depressing really that we have a group of politicians more interested in vying for power and playing one-up-manship games than actually helping run a country. If the Arctic ice sheets melt all at once perhaps they’ll funnel into the Ottawa River from the west and wash away that assorted mess of debris on the Hill. See if we can do better by starting over (sigh, no, the scum will still rise to fill the vacancies).
MAriana: dont worry about the Arctic “ice sheets” - (I am thinking you mean the ice cap). Extant ice has been growing since 2007, and I will bet you that that trend will continue again this year.
The fact it shrank had more to do with currents than with air temps.
Also you need to consider a couple of thing. Amundsen traversed the northwest passage over 100 years ago, so clearly there was less ice then. An RCMP vessel also did it in the 40’s.
Also 97% of C02 is naturally occuring. Man contributes about 3%. Canada contributes 2% of that 3%.
If you do the math you will find that all of canadas activity results in the addition of 1/5 of 1 part per million of atmospheric C02 per year.
Ward…
really, you’re so far out of your depth here! Why don’t you back out of the room slowly, and go to some place where science and reason don’t matter like Watts Up With That. I’m a science journalist, so I’ve heard all of your arguments before, and none of them holds any water.
It’s obvious that you’re parroting someone else’s arguments without understanding the issues involved.
Since 2007 is the lowest ice extant ever recorded, it would follow that arctic sea ice would increase SLIGHTLY in 2008 and 2009 — relatively cold years because of the influence of La Nina. However, over the last three years, average summer arctic sea ice extent is down by more than 400,000+ square miles when compared to the average of the last 50 years. Additionally, since old sea ice has all but disappeared, and 2010 will likely be the warmest year on record (see NASA, NOAA, Hadley), I’m expecting dramatic losses in arctic sea ice to continue.
The Northwest Passage has be traversed in history, but it was a really tough haul (Remember it took Amundsen 3 years to do it). Now it’s an easy sail, full speed ahead, largely open water. As well, it’s been more than 125,000 years since the Northwest and Northeast Passages have been open simultaneously to the extent that they are now.
Similarly, you are right about humanity being a small source of CO2. But that small source nevertheless tipped the fragile balance. The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere had remained relatively static since the last Ice Age, but it started increasing after the development of the steam engine. Now it stands almost 40 percent higher because we’re pumping 28 billion tons of the stuff annually. All of that shift can be attributed to humanity (since CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels looks different than CO2 emitted by natural sources).
And as for Canada’s role, well, we’re among the world’s worst per capita polluters. The solution to global warming will have to include all of us, especially those who have done the most damage. And right now, Canada, with our measly little 30, million people, is responsible for 2.5 percent of the global warming that has already occurred. So it’s safe to say we’ve created hundreds of thousands of climate refugees. We’re killing people.
But your blinkered view of the world will also condemn Canada to a third-rate economy. By not embracing a low-carbon economy, by promoting the tar sands above all, we’ll on our way to becoming an economic basket case. The world is moving on. We’re not.
BTW… it’s not C-Zero-2 (C02) it’s CO2.
Richard:
Based on your response I don’t think I am at all “out of my depth” (on the blowhard scale maybe) , and I’d encourage anyone who comes across this site to visit Wattsupwiththat.com, you’ll find alot more science there than here.
As for parroting thats a bit rich coming from a guy who throws out Al Gore/IPCC talking points like “climate refugees”.
Regarding the Arctic ice, are you asserting that Arctic ice melt is solely the result of air temperature?
Heres an interactive site that allows you to view the air temp throughout the year at various locations in the Arctic.
Seawater freezes at about -1.8C (depending on its salinity). You will note that that is the maximum summer temp in most of the arctic - the freezing point. The rest of the time it is much colder - well below the freezing point.
http://www.weather.nps.navy.mil/~psguest/polarmet/climate/arcmap.html
Re the navigation of the passage the St. Roch did it in 86 days - from Halifax to Vancouver in 86 days. Pretty fast I’d say. So the passage has been very clear before. Why?
http://www.athropolis.com/arctic-facts/fact-st-roch.htm
The idea that you can casually toss out with any kind of certainty what the ice was like over the last 50 years, is absurd. Sattelite monitoring only goes back to 1979.
C02 (using the number just for you) has only been as low as current levels once before - in the Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
There has been a warming from the mid 70’s to 1998, but there has not been any since then - yet C02 levels continue to rise.
In fact if you were to look at the 30 year period between 1935 and 1965 you will see that while temperatures were dropping, C02 was increasing. If you take that snapshot of time, rather than from 1970 to 1998, you could make the arguement that increases C02 causes cooling. Depends on the data you want to cherry pick.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_Temperatures_and_Climate_Factors_since_1895.pdf
As for Canada being the worst polluters, are you refering to C02? Because as you well know its not a pollutant.
Also the earth is not a static system. The more C02 and temperature there is the more abundant plant life there is - and plants consume C02.
As for economic basket cases, low carbon economies are low standard of living economies. There is one graph where C02 emmisions correlate directly to something (and it aint temp). Its to economic output.
http://ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/Indicators/Issues/Climate/Tech_Sup/ccsup02_e.cfm
If you really want to get the masses cranked up about a danger to our environment why not shed light on dihydrogen monoxide?
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Ward:
I wish I could reply to your comment, point by point, but since I don’t have much time I’ll cut to te quick:
“There has been a warming from the mid 70’s to 1998, but there has not been any since then - yet C02 levels continue to rise.”
Seriously? You’ll immediately dismiss my assertion since I don’t have a link handy (and I suppose I would blame you), but I’m relatively certain you’re in lonely territory believing there’s been no warming since 1998. That may be the most debunked denier talking point out there. While ‘98 was undoubtably hot, there isn’t even consensus it was the warmest year (others believe it was 2005 - I think). But even if ‘98 was the warmest year, statistical trend lines clearly go through the aughts, and many believe 2010 could break either record (1998 or 2005) due to another el niño similar to ‘98 (despite historically low downward forces on temps like solar irradiance).
Another blogger sums up my throughts better than I ever could:
“… there’s inevitable uncertainty about how such a complex system as the global climate functions. But in our own lives, in the real world, we live in a science based world. It’s the premise on which almost everything rests. And pretty much everyone assumes that cell phones will work, bombs will go off, medical treatments will give us the best chance of survival. Only this one example (climate science) is different.”
This is a repost of my prior comment. I couldn’t live with all the type errors. I never thought of myself as much of a writer, but writing with my phone definitely doesn’t help - and even this probably won’t catch all of my mistakes
Ward:
I wish I could reply to your comment, point by point, but since I don’t have much time I’ll cut to the quick. You write:
“There has been a warming from the mid 70’s to 1998, but there has not been any since then - yet C02 levels continue to rise.”
Seriously? You’ll immediately dismiss my assertion since I don’t have a link handy (and I suppose I wouldn’t blame you), but I’m relatively certain you’re in lonely territory believing there’s been no warming since 1998. That may be the most debunked denier talking point out there. While ‘98 was undoubtably hot, there isn’t even consensus it was the warmest year (others believe it was 2005 - I think). But even if ‘98 was the warmest year (and everyone agrees it was right up there), statistical trend lines clearly go up through the aughts, and many believe 2010 could break either record (1998 or 2005) due to another el niño similar to ‘98 (despite historically low levels of other forces on temps, like solar irradiance).
Another blogger sums up my throughts better than I ever could:
“… there’s inevitable uncertainty about how such a complex system as the global climate functions. But in our own lives, in the real world, we live in a science based world. It’s the premise on which almost everything rests. And pretty much everyone assumes that cell phones will work, bombs will go off, medical treatments will give us the best chance of survival. Only this one example (climate science) is different.”
John:
Why are you so desperate to believe the claims of AGW alarmists? Even if you take the claims at face value, it would be far more efficient to adapt to climate change than to try to pretend we can mitigate it.
I wont make a cent saying anything here but we know that Al Gore is getting rich on this issue.
But back to 98. Please when you get back to your computer, send links that will validate your claims. I provided many to back up my assertations in my previous post.
I’d be happy to debate any and all aspects of AGW with any and all here.
And lets keep it to AGW and not try to comingle the AGW issue with other environmental issues (ie groundwater pollution)
Ward:
You immediately get off on the wrong foot with me when you write:
“Why are you so desperate to believe the claims of AGW alarmists?”
You seem to be implying I, or anyone else who is concerned about climate change, lacks the capacity for critical thought. We could just as easily turn your question around and ask why you are so desperate to believe everything is ok. (Though there are several theories one could draw from psychology.)
Either way, I’ll tell you why I’m concerned (again from the phone - it’ll be a while before I can show my MacBook a little love).
Several years ago I was on the climate change fence - as Richard might be able to attest (though he’s got better things to do than worry about some guy he’s never met). My father has worked as a physicist and chemist, mostly for defense contractors. He gets boat load of the journals - partly from curiosity, and in part to keep abreast of the latest discoveries in his fields. He too was on the fence.
Over the last five years I’ve done a lot of reading - mind you, not a fevered investigation looking for evidence to back a preconcieved notion - but from an agnostic point of view (in the beginning). It’s been casual reading, over time: some of it from the news/web, some from my Dad’s journals. I’m not sure I could begin to tell you what, when or where (with a comprehensive list of links), without a lot of effort others may not have to expend. I have a terrible memory for details - it makes me a terrible debater - and perhaps the last person who should join this discussion. (Plus, while I adore my iPhone, it’s not great for googling, research, and pursuasive writing.) However, I’ve been told my mind is good with concepts, collecting information and drawing conclusions. (I’m not sure I believe them - that’s the curse of low self-esteem talking.)
Anyway, over that time my beliefs evolved. Gradually, it became apparent to me a majority of the world’s climate experts came to the conclussion the climate was not just changing - but changing at a rate that was faster and more dangerous than even the worst case scenarios the IPCC predicted in 2007.
Further, they’ve said mitigation will not only be much, much cheaper in the long run (if we start in the short term), but suggest taking adaptation as a strategy may lead to suffering and strife unparalleled in human history.
Are scientists always right? No. Further, they rarely, if ever give you 100 percent odds - and that’s hurt their message, especially when those with less qualifications don’t share their restraint. My Dad’s a good example. He’ll rarely take a position without explaining the argument - as eyes in the room glaze over. However, what’s been telling to me is more and more are speaking in certain terms of late.
And that begs the question: do I, as a non-scientist (let alone expert on the complexities of the climate), take the vast majority of experts at their word, or do I try to come to my own conclussion (based on my own interpretation of data), something I’m clearly not nearly as qualified to do? Your earlier comment about CO2 and plant life is a great example. It seems intuitive to the layman plants feed off CO2, and therefore would thrive on higher levels. However, the climate being a complex system, there are other climate forcing effects which turn this seemingly simple, logical, and intuitive idea on it’s head (from what I’ve read/recall - again I regret I don’t have a link). Will seemingly invigorated plants sequester enough additional CO2 to prevent increasing levels of atmospheric CO2? I think we’ve already seen that’s not the case, with unabated increases in atmospheric CO2 levels over decades. Further, it’s not clear short, near, or long term warming will create more arable land. To the contrary, while some land may warm up to become farmable, others may dry up - like we may already be seeing in the western US.
As for ‘98, while I again don’t have a link, I believe that record was asserted by the Brits (Hadley/CRU?). However, I believe they themselves just released a paper acknowledging they’ve likely underestimated recent increases in global temps, which arguably have been more accurately recorded by NASA (GISS?).
So to address your first question directly: I’m not desperate to believe anything - other than we as a society will do what is right, based on the best information we’ve got. My belief the climate is changing, it’s our fault, and we need change now, is not born of an irrational or arrogant need to be right, but from a fear that an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are right.
Hi John a couple of quick comments:
Your assertation that you could turn my question around at me. I dont think so.
Editor’s Note: OK, I’m cutting this entire piece of BS. Ward doesn’t have one shred of evidence to support anything he says from here on out… his comment has therefore been moderated, and I will follow in a few days a new comment policy. In a nutshell, if you make a claim here, you better have the science to prove it. And linking to blogs run by scientific illiterates doesn’t cut it.
So I’ve cut this comment now, and will eventually transfer it to a new thread where all the conspiracy theorists like Ward can talk among themselves.
Now, of course, Ward will be back to claim censorship and to accuse me of being unfair. To which I will say… If you have a point to make that contradicts virtually every piece of climate science published over the last 25 years, include a link to a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Simple as that.
I’ll be back in a few days to show how Ward’s pervious comment is filled with inaccuracies and falsehoods. I’m on vacation.
Why can’t you simply let others decide whether I have provided evidence or not? Why not let readers decide? Its your blog you can do what you want, but why not an open forum?
Ward, you win hands down.You give the facts and figures, the others just call names and condescend.Good work, the world needs to hear the truth about this greatest hoax in history.
We have been taking tempertures and testing CO2 for so few years, how on earth can anyone then ascertain a significant pattern in climate change, with such a small parcel of time to reflect on.
There will always be a time when the hottest temps, occur, there will always be a time the coldest occur.Every record gets broken sooner or later.But in just 480 months, we now know that climate change has occured because of some small temperture change.
All the planets have risen in temperture, all of them, and no man is on any one of them but earth.Somebody please explain that to me.
It is like waking up in the morning and seeing that it is raining, and then coming to the conclusion that it will rain all day, because it is raining in the morning, tottally ridicules, do we not all agree on that.
So why are we jumping to conclusions on a few hundred months of temperture reflection, tottally riducules, do we not agree.
It will take thousands of years to come up with a pure scientific fact, on whether or not, man is responsible for climate change, thousands of years.To base it on a few hundred months ia absurd and unscientific.
Fear sells alot, many scientists get grants, buildings built, and pensions from pouring gas on this fear, it is a money maker, that is all.
Look, I love this planet as much as all you Global warmer believers, I am a native man, who adores his mother earth, but the science is jumping to conclusions, and this I frown upon.You don’t have to jump on board the Global warming band wagon to prove you love your world.