Re:” Let’s celebrate that Canada is likely a net zero polluter” Opinion, by Danielle Smith, Jan. 11.
Canada isn’t a net zero polluter, as Danielle Smith wants us to believe.
The 2018 B.C. forest fires alone added an estimated 190 million tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. And due to climate change, forest fires will likely become the new norm, not the exception. Recent satellite images of the Amazon show it breathing in huge amounts of CO2 during the day and releasing virtually all of it back out at night; I imagine Canadian forests work in a similar manner.
Unfortunately, forest fires aren’t the only way Canada is contributing naturally to greenhouse gases. Scientist estimate there are 300-400 billion tons of greenhouse gases trapped under the permafrost of the Canadian North. As the permafrost thaws, these gases will be released into our atmosphere, making Canada one of the largest greenhouse gas emitters on the planet, something the net zero proponents always seem to ignore. Robert Clark, Calgary
A peer review for sale is worthless. Thanks for coming out but please provide credible data and reviewers.
shooter: If you read my post I specifically did NOT say this warm winter was necessarily due to climate change. It depends if it is part of a long term trend. It is your habit of citing one weather event as evidence for your argument and then you try to involve me in your baseless "reasoning". Go back to your Grade 7 remedial science class!
BTW the ratio of record high temperatures to record low temperatures over the past 8 years in the US is almost 5:1. In the farthest north community, Barrow, Alaska, over 96 years it is 66:1! The Arctic is the area on Earth that is the most affected by climate change.
I don't believe Canada's forests are emitting CO2, but let's talk BC forest fires. BC has been killing off massive areas with aspen trees every year by spraying roundup for the last 20 years as these trees have little value to the lumber industry. Asphen trees are a natural fire blocker which are used by firefighters. So BC has been creating their own problems but are blaming it on global warming.
view point: I'm pretty sure Jack lives in a basement suite, that's why he doesn't get much sun light. Can you imagine how happy Jack's wife is when he goes off to sail his imaginary boat around the world, I think that's why he has such a happy marriage, he's away for much of it.
This is a must read for you Jack. It’s from your friends at NASA.
shooter: A simple question about your NASA reference. Why not post the multitude of other NASA articles that support the idea of AGW? You cherry pick the one article that you think supports your point of view but says nothing about AGW. You ignore all the other peer reviewed articles that fortify the argument for AGW. Why? Your posting of the reference shows that you have no coherent alternative explanation to what we are observing in our biosphere due to human activity.
First of all there is this caveat in the article: The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
The other point is that the content of CO2 in the atmosphere continues to rise even as more plant growth, according to this article, absorbs more CO2 during the increased plant growth. So the true emission of CO2 may be even more than we thought. This is supported by data on the acidification and warming of the oceans.
Your support of this article contradicts all the certifiable falsehoods that you have endlessly posted in the past about conspiratorial scientists making up all their data supporting the need for reducing our use of fossil fuels. You are simply a peripheral nitpicker that denies the reality of good data. You have no interest in truth and evidence. You and your friends, historically, have always been around, impeding society's evidence based progress to a better world.
What are you talking about? Information comes from many sources, as does Jack and you do you pick those submissions which reflect the point your trying to make. There is no bad information only bad people using the information.
js92244 has a very valid point about our forest fires and equating them to volcanoes. The man made fires are the only thing we can control so fine those folks who started them and be done with it. The wild fires are all part of nature. By the way wild fires are about 80% lower today than they were at the turn of the last century, go figure, before CO2 and the pine beetle fires were way worse than now. This is exactly how the sky is falling camp deal with these things. Hide statistics from previous high temperatures, high tornado and hurricanes and focus instead on every little part of the ones which do come along and claim; The worst storm season ever, the lowest ice levels ever seen, the hottest years ever recorded when in fact all one need do is look back at the data and it proves them to be liars.
The greatest cause of forest fires is lightning. Humans contribute to forest fires, not from “climate change” but from carelessness with campfires, smoking, sparks from vehicles or downright arson. Fir trees rely on the heat from fires for “regrowth”. Proper forest management and ensuring proper firebreaks minimize the impact forest fires have on humans. But they are part of nature.
Interesting comment about the amount of CO2 released by the forest fires in BC. BC people blame global warming for the fires and blame Alberta for causing global warming. But why does BC have more forest fires than other provinces in the last few years? In the 1990's. BC decided to end its forest management program and let the trees die naturally.. The professors in the UBC forestry dept told their students that the BC forests would be an inferno in 15 to 20 years.So BC is really to blame for the fires and CO2 release.
Any letter with this many “ifs” in reference to the future should not be printed. This letter is too “iffy”.
I must admit, claiming your natural geographic attributes in these calculations (the means of which already seems bogus to me) is weak at the very least. One should be concerned with man made creation via industry and product use. For example, if one lives beside a volcano spewing out all kinds of gas into the air, then do they have to bear the responsibility for those calculations/numbers? It has become obvious that no country ever seems to manage meeting any of these number goals, whereupon they set new ones to not be met yet again, if they in fact opt in. Obviously we must endeavour to stem the impact of sapiens footprint on the earth, but there has to be a better way / approach to this goal. Maybe discussions on world population would be a good start........but realistically there is very little mankind ever agrees to on a global scale. We have trouble agreeing between the provinces.
js92244: The really funny part of this is while CO2 levels continue to sky rocket earths average temperature has fallen over the last two years to a point where it is pretty much where it began to rise. So, claim success with the Carbon tax and eliminate it in spite of the fact it has had zero effect.
So that roughly equates to Canada’s contribution to CO2 emissions, it doesn’t seem to be a big deal for volcanos, why is Canada’s contribution so terrible? It’s almost exavly the same amount and you said volcanoes are no big deal?????
A piece written by a priest of the Church of AGW and tightly following the doctrine. Their holy books tell them what to believe and what to say. Their mission is to convert everyone to their religion. For your own good resist them with all your might.
The writer is obviously one of the useful idiots of the IPCC, with a chicken little view of world events. Such behaviour is usually the result of being part of a cult like group, like the civil service or a union, where group think is required to survive.
Daniel Smith does need a bit of educating on some aspects of Canada and Alberta's actions on climate change but her contention that Canada's forests help remove CO2 wasn't too far wrong if one ignores the cherry picking years and false politicizing of future fire predictions by NRCAN to suit the leftist rulers in Ottawa. Where I wish Daniel would do a bit more research was in her comments about switching our modern, state of the art coal generating plants to natural gas as if this long term would make a difference in the earth's temperature versus running the coal plants out through their useful, economic life. IT WON'T! Also Daniel the smoke you see coming out of these generating stations is not smoke. (I recall you called it that on the radio) What you see is water vapour, the same as coming out of natural gas plants (have a look at both) or your own furnace or water heater unless they are fuelled by our very clean electricity, over half of which is fuelled by coal. What you don't see, full cycle is not really that different than natural gas and in terms of SO2 is even better in our coal since the start point is less than half the suffer content in our coal as compared to our natural gas. The lies that our government and media (and others) spread about health impacts by our electricity plants and or air quality in surrounding areas are misinformed propaganda used to justify wasting $20 to $30 billion dollars of Albertans hard earned money in taxes and paying their power bills. No other country in the world prematurely shuts these plants dow and indeed where coal represents their best option due to cost and reliability they build new ones on a weekly basis. We on the other hand seem willing to ruin our province and indeed entire country over this nonsense. Hopefully our next provincial and federal leaders will have some common sense and start putting Albertans and Canadians well being at the top of their do list. Like the U.S. does and everywhere else!
Good grief, if plants released all of their carbon at night, they would not grow, they would disappear. They release oxygen.
Jack Dale: This has no peer review and is therefor useless and needs to be ignored.
Jack Dale: and then there are the eco warriors starting them to draw attention to climate change.
By the logic of clowns like this, the world should cut down all the forests in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Total BS to defend a tax grab scam.
He seem to forget about all the carbon dioxide those burned trees absorbed and, through photosynthesis, the oxygen they created in the time they lived and grew.
Jack Dale: In Alberta the tree season, when they aren't frozen solid, has far more daylight hours than dark hours so there is a net benefit.
By your way of thinking, we should be clearcutting Canada to barren soil in an effort to reduce our carbon footprint! But hold on! Your green buddies are advocating for no clearcutting and less forestry in general. You guys gotta get your sh!t in one pile if you want to be seen as credible.
This is a must read for you Jack. It’s from your friends at NASA.
What a load of bull manure. A true follower of public enemy number one, suzuki, and more attempts to vilify Canada. In BC they flood tens of thousand of square kilometres to produce clean energy. People like the author of this letter live in a never never land of unicorns and pink elephants. Only countries like China India and Russia can do no wrong in this fools eyes.