Climate Change Thread

[Satchmo]

1 minute ago, Rob Eh said:

And what better example of fair, balanced and centrist could there be?

[4petesake]

1 hour ago, Bob Long said:

 

But Alf, batteries do well in orbit. Cold really isn't a problem.

 

In Norway, not exactly a tropical hot spot, 87% of new vehicle sales are  EVs. Batteries are heated and operate on average at 70% range in cold weather. 
 

By the way gas engines also see a drop in fuel efficiency from 15- 24 % in cold weather as well as requiring block heaters in cold climates.

[flat land fish]

10 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

And what better example of fair, balanced and centrist could there be?

The interesting thing about climate change is it has and will continue to change independent of man's interventions in attempts to control the climate.  

 

It would be great if you could get everyone globally make efforts to reduce pollution especially as it comes to water.  

 

As much as people want to reduce Canada's share of the global air pollution we could make  a much larger dent in global pollution by producing and selling natural gas to China and India so they discontinue coal and burn natural gas.  We can then buy time to replace with a new tech might be an interim replacement with more nuclear while longer term solutions are arranged.

[Bob Long]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Batteries don’t do well in cold as they do in warmer climates. That’s just common sense. Evs aren’t a good idea in our (most of Canada’s) winters. Imagine an EV in a prairie winter or in Northern Ontario. The cold combined with distances travelled make Evs just a no go. Imagine driving an EV from Kenora to Thunderbay in January. That would be actually foolish. 

 

4/5 new cars in Norway are EVs.

 

It was a problem early on, but it isn't anymore.

[Satchmo]

11 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

The interesting thing about climate change is it has and will continue to change independent of man's interventions in attempts to control the climate.  

 

It would be great if you could get everyone globally make efforts to reduce pollution especially as it comes to water.  

 

As much as people want to reduce Canada's share of the global air pollution we could make  a much larger dent in global pollution by producing and selling natural gas to China and India so they discontinue coal and burn natural gas.  We can then buy time to replace with a new tech might be an interim replacement with more nuclear while longer term solutions are arranged.

I'm afraid I don't understand your first sentence while I fully agree with the second.    Yes, natural gas is better than coal but we really must work on replacing them both.

 

I'm not sure how much gas we could (should is another question entirely) sell to India and China.   They seem pretty happy buying Russian gas at a reduced price.

 

 

[Tusk]

1 hour ago, Sharpshooter said:

Elaborate please. Inclusion of what or whom? 

If you had common sense you would understand. Alf gets it. I shouldnt have to explain it to you, maybe you can talk to one of your old professors.

[Tusk]

25 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I'm afraid I don't understand your first sentence while I fully agree with the second.    Yes, natural gas is better than coal but we really must work on replacing them both.

 

I'm not sure how much gas we could (should is another question entirely) sell to India and China.   They seem pretty happy buying Russian gas at a reduced price.

 

 

half of russia has no gas right now.... and for sure India and China are still on coal and oil and they have no need to stop.

[flat land fish]

21 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

I'm afraid I don't understand your first sentence while I fully agree with the second.    Yes, natural gas is better than coal but we really must work on replacing them both.

 

I'm not sure how much gas we could (should is another question entirely) sell to India and China.   They seem pretty happy buying Russian gas at a reduced price.

 

 

All I was getting at the climate has changed wildly in earths history long before humans were a factor gyrating between ice ages and periods of global tropical weather.  Humans have treated earth like a dumpster and massively disrupted ecosystems and rapidly consumed resources.  There is a possibility we mitigate all man-made climate impacts and a super volcano goes off at starts a 10 year winter or a space impact happens starts an ice age.  That's why I think more about pollution as everyone benefits from that.  Government interventions only focusing on domestic emissions mostly pushes those off shore which is why it's been tough to reduce global pollution.

[Satchmo]

14 minutes ago, Tusk said:

half of russia has no gas right now.... and for sure India and China are still on coal and oil and they have no need to stop.

I'm sorry but you'd be better off talking to someone else about it.  I don't even have enough common sense to understand what the word inclusion really means.

 

Edited January 16 by Satchmo
sp

[Spur1]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Yup. It’s pretty obvious our planet is warming way faster than it should. And it because of us. But driving Evs will save us. 

Seriously, Canada is the best country ever. But we need to accept we still have super cold winters and batteries just don’t do as well in cold. 

Alf…battery technology is just in its infancy when coupled with Al. 

[the destroyer of worlds]

4 minutes ago, Spur1 said:

Alf…battery technology is just in its infancy when coupled with Al. 

Yup.  Internal combustion engine powered cars had no problems and companies did no R & D to improve them after the turn of the 20th century. 

 

Hell, we went from a first flight to multiple trips to the Moon in a little over 60 years.

 

I'm pretty sure battery tech will improve significantly over the next 5 to 10 years.

 

Just look at that phone you likely have in your pocket. 

[Sharpshooter]

42 minutes ago, Tusk said:

If you had common sense you would understand. Alf gets it. I shouldnt have to explain it to you, maybe you can talk to one of your old professors.

Settle down. 
 

I asked you a question to give you some benefit of my doubt. 
 

Again, what inclusion are you referring to? 

[Satchmo]

45 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

All I was getting at the climate has changed wildly in earths history long before humans were a factor gyrating between ice ages and periods of global tropical weather.  Humans have treated earth like a dumpster and massively disrupted ecosystems and rapidly consumed resources.  There is a possibility we mitigate all man-made climate impacts and a super volcano goes off at starts a 10 year winter or a space impact happens starts an ice age.  That's why I think more about pollution as everyone benefits from that.  Government interventions only focusing on domestic emissions mostly pushes those off shore which is why it's been tough to reduce global pollution.

I disagree with your main premises but I'd really rather not get in to a long debate at the moment.

 

I hope you will focus on pollution then as that is where your heart and mind seems to be.  I agree that it is a problem sorely in need of a solution.   

[Boudrias]

7 hours ago, flat land fish said:

All I was getting at the climate has changed wildly in earths history long before humans were a factor gyrating between ice ages and periods of global tropical weather.  Humans have treated earth like a dumpster and massively disrupted ecosystems and rapidly consumed resources.  There is a possibility we mitigate all man-made climate impacts and a super volcano goes off at starts a 10 year winter or a space impact happens starts an ice age.  That's why I think more about pollution as everyone benefits from that.  Government interventions only focusing on domestic emissions mostly pushes those off shore which is why it's been tough to reduce global pollution.

I would like to see more info on the impact of solar flares on earth climate. It does not get discussed much. EV is a good idea but even if fully implemented how much will it reduce CO2 compared to total emissions? 

[StrayDog]

12 hours ago, Rob Eh said:

 

 

On X, I follow Jimmy Dore, Jordan B Peterson, Joe Rogan, Cornel West, Roger Waters, Dr. Robert Malone, Russel Brand, Neil Oliver, Elon Musk, Janice Fiamengo, Jody Wilson-Raybould, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Victims Of Communism, Ricky Gervais, RFK jr, APTN News, Stop WEF, The Pleb, Billboard Chris, Tucker Carlson, Caryma Sa'd, Viva Frei, Theo Fluery, Patrick Bet-David, Ron Paul, James O'Keefe, Rob Schneider, Rita Panahi, Simon Ateba and the big man himself for my news.

Fair, balanced and centrist, instead of just copy pasting CNN links, lol.

X is the platform, there are plenty of legit news feeds if you choose to follow them.

You go on and on how many X followers give legitimacy and you bring this list? Aside from Musk, none of them have the most followers.  Barack Obama tops the list, followed by Musk, Justin Beiber, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Christiano Ronaldo, and Taylor Swift (considering the Swiftie movement, I'm surprised she's not higher up). That's according to this list: The Top 50 Most Followed X / Twitter Accounts (techreport.com)

By your own metrics, you should be listening to and retweeting (reXing?) them.

[I.Am.Ironman]

Nothing screams balance and centrism like Trump, Tucker Carlson, Roger Waters and Jimmy Dore.

[Satchmo]

3 hours ago, Boudrias said:

I would like to see more info on the impact of solar flares on earth climate. It does not get discussed much. EV is a good idea but even if fully implemented how much will it reduce CO2 compared to total emissions? 

It does get discussed Bouds, as it should.   

 

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change?

From NASA's Global Climate Change Website

The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth’s climate: We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/ask-nasa-climate/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/

 

Is the Sun causing global warming?

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

 

 

EV's are not going to solve everything but they will solve a lot.

What Are the Solutions to Climate Change?

1. Ending Our Reliance on Fossil Fuels.
2. Greater Energy Efficiency.
3. Renewable Energy.
4. Sustainable Transportation.
5. Sustainable Buildings.
6. Better Forestry Management and Sustainable Agriculture.
7. Conservation-Based Solutions.
8. Industrial Solutions

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, StrayDog said:

You go on and on how many X followers give legitimacy and you bring this list? Aside from Musk, none of them have the most followers.  Barack Obama tops the list, followed by Musk, Justin Beiber, Katy Perry, Rihanna, Christiano Ronaldo, and Taylor Swift (considering the Swiftie movement, I'm surprised she's not higher up). That's according to this list: The Top 50 Most Followed X / Twitter Accounts (techreport.com)

By your own metrics, you should be listening to and retweeting (reXing?) them.

you would have to be kidding.  Those people aren't fair balanced and centrist when compared to the likes of

 

Joe rogan, Jordan Peterson, Anti Vaxxing Robert Malone (lol), Anti Vaxxing RFK jr(lol), Conspiracy heavy Stop WEF (LOL), Screw them leftists The Pleb (LOOOOOL), Gender issues are wrong and criminal Billboard Chris (omg haha), Tucker Carlson( k ), former ppc member Viva Frei, Theo "Lost his mind" Fleury, Anti Vaxxing stop the steal Patrick Bet-David, Bootlicking Trump toady Ron Paul, right Wing Project Veritas co founder and fraudster James O'Keefe, Anti Vaxxing Rob Schneider, "right wing refugee" Rita Panahai, Yelly Screamy Simon Ateba and of course "the big man himself"

 

These are all paragons of unbiased centrist views don't ya know.  The people you listed all have severe left wing bias

 

[Satchmo]

12 hours ago, flat land fish said:

All I was getting at the climate has changed wildly in earths history long before humans were a factor gyrating between ice ages and periods of global tropical weather.  Humans have treated earth like a dumpster and massively disrupted ecosystems and rapidly consumed resources.  There is a possibility we mitigate all man-made climate impacts and a super volcano goes off at starts a 10 year winter or a space impact happens starts an ice age.  That's why I think more about pollution as everyone benefits from that.  Government interventions only focusing on domestic emissions mostly pushes those off shore which is why it's been tough to reduce global pollution.

Ok so last night I was having a scotch and was hesitant to jump in to this.  Now I'm drinking coffee...

 

Yes, it is well known that climate has changed wildly over the life of the planet.  This can't be denied.  But neither can it be denied that co2 in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.  We have known this for over 150 years now and it is an irrefutable fact.  Nature has changed the climate before; humans are changing it now.

 

I fail to see how worries over super volcanos or asteroid impacts should deter us from acting on more clear and present dangers.   

 

All governments are seeing the affects of global warming.  Some governments are dealing with it more aggressively than others.  Good governments lead by example and hope the others will eventually catch on.  Sometimes 'we' force their hands with sanctions and/or incentives.   This is what is going on now.

 

And yes, I fully agree that pollution is a major problem that requires immediate action.  It's not uncommon for us to have multiple problems occurring concurrently.

 

[Rob Eh]

5 hours ago, Boudrias said:

I would like to see more info on the impact of solar flares on earth climate. It does not get discussed much. EV is a good idea but even if fully implemented how much will it reduce CO2 compared to total emissions? 

Real science  like that gets ignored unless it backs up climate hysteria.

[Warhippy]

7 minutes ago, Satchmo said:

Ok so last night I was having a scotch and was hesitant to jump in to this.  Now I'm drinking coffee...

 

Yes, it is well known that climate has changed wildly over the life of the planet.  This can't be denied.  But neither can it be denied that co2 in the atmosphere will cause temperatures to rise.  We have known this for over 150 years now and it is an irrefutable fact.  Nature has changed the climate before; humans are changing it now.

 

I fail to see how worries over super volcanos or asteroid impacts should deter us from acting on more clear and present dangers.   

 

All governments are seeing the affects of global warming.  Some governments are dealing with it more aggressively than others.  Good governments lead by example and hope the others will eventually catch on.  Sometimes 'we' force their hands with sanctions and/or incentives.   This is what is going on now.

 

And yes, I fully agree that pollution is a major problem that requires immediate action.  It's not uncommon for us to have multiple problems occurring concurrently.

 

I was speaking to an individual with significant investments in shipping who is smarter than me.  He has started playing a game of cat and mouse in port cities across the US east, South East Asian and Asian markets.  

 

He invests when it's good.  Then when the storms comes he reads the weather reports for likely destinations of landfall for these storms and sells everything.  Afterwards he reinvests on the low.  Why?  Because the severity of these storms is increasing and it is causing massive damage to port cities and shipping routes across the globe that he says are getting worse every year.

 

Smarter man than me.

[Warhippy]

Oh Danielle Smith, never change.

 

It’s one of the oldest political maxims in the book: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Rarely has that spirit of political opportunism been more obvious than in the UCP government’s handling of last weekend’s near-crisis in the Alberta electricity market, when the province flirted with rolling blackouts in the face of record-cold temperatures. For a government desperate to shovel as much dirt as possible onto wind and solar energy, it created an irresistible invitation to prove its point.

On Friday evening, Danielle Smith tweeted that “the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO) has issued a grid alert for Alberta. Right now, the wind is generating almost no power. When renewables are unreliable, as they are now, natural gas plants must increase capacity to keep Albertans warm and safe.” This was actually an improvement on the initial version of this message, which suggested that renewables were only producing enough electricity to power 10 homes when the underlying math suggested it was actually 10,000. Either way, her desire to politicize a potentially lethal emergency was abundantly clear.

Never mind, for the moment, that this had nothing to do with wind and solar. It was a 300-megawatt natural gas plant going offline and another that was down for maintenance that had more to do with the shortfall than wind and solar, which aren’t (and shouldn’t be) treated as baseload sources of energy. As the AESO noted, it was actually wind and solar that bailed the grid out on Monday.

The real culprit here is Alberta’s deregulated electricity market, and the failure to replace it with one that rewards things like capacity. The NDP started to do that (with the backing of the province’s independent AESO) but the UCP cancelled it almost immediately after forming government in 2019. Then-energy minister Sonya Savage suggested the NDP was “fear-mongering about blackouts and price spikes” in criticizing that decision, but they have since been proven completely right. Last year, Albertans paid by far the highest electricity prices in Canada, and last weekend was just the latest near-blackout scare.

This sort of chaos is not normal. Over in British Columbia, record-cold temperatures also resulted in record-high demand for electricity. And yet, there was no warning about potential brownouts, no calls from the government for people to reduce their consumption and no emergency alert texts blasting on phones across the province. As BC Hydro noted, they were even able to send some electricity across the border to help out their Alberta neighbours. Unlike Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, who used the opportunity to virtue signal on behalf of his province’s fleet of fossil-fuelled generators, B.C.’s David Eby didn’t even take a victory lap for it.

Alas, his maturity was in stark contrast to some of the reactions in Alberta, where all the province’s noisiest idiots were out in force declaring the blackouts the work of “dangerous Marxists” or “the green agenda” and that “Scott Moe’s coal plants saved the lives of thousands of vulnerable Albertans.”

None of that is even remotely true, of course, as experts like the University of Calgary’s Blake Shaffer and the University of Alberta’s Andrew Leach valiantly kept trying to point out. As Shaffer said, “The constant slagging of ‘wind isn’t blowing/sun isn’t shining’ gets tiring. They’re not dispatchable capacity resources. This is not news. We need flexible options coupled with the cheap raw energy renewables provide for an efficient, reliable system.

This signal will almost certainly be lost in all the noise created by the UCP and its proxies. Smith will double down on her own anti-renewables argument that allows her to cast the blame in both Rachel Notley and Justin Trudeau’s direction. Her government will renew its campaign against the federal government’s Clean Electricity Regulations. And the broader culture war being waged against climate solutions like electric vehicles will continue apace.

What we need is a nuanced and expert-driven conversation about how best to maximize the economic value of Alberta’s renewable resources and the stability of its electricity grid. It should push for the construction of a bigger intertie between B.C. and Alberta’s grid, something the federal government can and should encourage. It should embrace demand-side technologies like smart meters and other measures that proactively reward consumer flexibility. And yes, it should welcome more wind and solar power in places where it’s economically viable.

What we’re probably going to get is a populist-driven campaign against technologies the rest of the world is continuing to adopt and deploy at record pace. The UCP will continue to wage war against Ottawa’s climate policies, effectively cutting off Alberta’s nose to spite Justin Trudeau’s face. Given their dire standings in the polls, the increasingly desperate federal Liberals will almost certainly welcome the fight.

None of this is good for Alberta’s future. None of it augurs well for an informed debate about its electricity system or the sources of energy that will power it. But then, politics in Alberta has never really been about what’s best for the future.

[StrayDog]

3 hours ago, Warhippy said:

you would have to be kidding.  Those people aren't fair balanced and centrist when compared to the likes of

 

Joe rogan, Jordan Peterson, Anti Vaxxing Robert Malone (lol), Anti Vaxxing RFK jr(lol), Conspiracy heavy Stop WEF (LOL), Screw them leftists The Pleb (LOOOOOL), Gender issues are wrong and criminal Billboard Chris (omg haha), Tucker Carlson( k ), former ppc member Viva Frei, Theo "Lost his mind" Fleury, Anti Vaxxing stop the steal Patrick Bet-David, Bootlicking Trump toady Ron Paul, right Wing Project Veritas co founder and fraudster James O'Keefe, Anti Vaxxing Rob Schneider, "right wing refugee" Rita Panahai, Yelly Screamy Simon Ateba and of course "the big man himself"

 

These are all paragons of unbiased centrist views don't ya know.  The people you listed all have severe left wing bias

 

I figured since they were tops of the X list (thereby securing a level of legitimacy about who to listen to, since everyone knows that it's X followers that make you a voice of reason), that they would be the most fair and centrist. I'll be more careful next time and try to avoid the Pinkos and Commies.

Thanks for the warning!

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

Wasn't sure if this fit better in the "Science" thread or here, but since inherently the article is about the environment that we live in, I chose here.

 

I know many people view The Tyee as some left-wing hippie-dippie rag, but at least the article does raise some interesting and thought-provoking points.

 

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/01/16/We-Built-Technosphere-Now-We-Must-Resist/

 

An excerpt:

Quote

As Haff notes, glimmers of the old world can still be found in a few scrubby hinterlands, but no refugia really exist. “In subduing the last vestiges of mass resistance to assimilation, the technosphere seems to be approaching, as if towards a mathematical limit, domination of 100 per cent of the world’s people,” he writes.

 

The biosphere pays a brutal price for technological progress by being cannibalized, fragmented, mined, deforested and polluted. And so do we.

 

The technosphere spews waste including pesticides, rock tailings, nitrogen, plastic, electronic gadgets, forever chemicals and volcanoes of carbon dioxide. It consumes and purges like wealthy Roman aristocrats at dinner.

 

Haff notes that the technosphere is a “poor recycler” of all the resources it appropriates. That is a vast understatement.

 

In 1900 the mass of human civilization equalled about three per cent of global biomass. Today the weight of the technosphere’s manufactured abundance exceeds that of all living things on the planet.

 

In 2020 a group of Israeli researchers calculated the mass of all living things in the biosphere to be 1.12 trillion tonnes. But in that same year the weight of the concrete, asphalt, glass, vehicles and plastic that make up the technosphere surpassed the living world. It clocked in at 1.15 trillion tonnes.

 

The planet’s animals collectively weigh approximately four gigatonnes, but plastics now total eight gigatonnes. Buildings and infrastructure including roads represent a larger mass than all of the world’s trees and shrubs. If megacities continue to expand and human societies consume more and more finite stuff, the mass of the technosphere, including its leviathan waste stream, will exceed three teratonnes by 2040. That is almost triple the dry biomass on Earth.

 

“There’s now enough concrete on the planet to produce a 2mm thick, full-scale replica of Earth, and enough plastic to completely wrap that replica in cling film,” wrote natural scientists Gabrielle Hecht and Pamila Gupta six years ago.

 

[Bob Long]

8 minutes ago, 6of1_halfdozenofother said:

Wasn't sure if this fit better in the "Science" thread or here, but since inherently the article is about the environment that we live in, I chose here.

 

I know many people view The Tyee as some left-wing hippie-dippie rag, but at least the article does raise some interesting and thought-provoking points.

 

https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/01/16/We-Built-Technosphere-Now-We-Must-Resist/

 

An excerpt:

 

 

So... if we're not going to use all the tech we can come up with to solve our problems, what are we going to use? patchouli?