The attached graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Luthi, D., et al.. 2008; Etheridge, D.M., et al. 2010; Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.) Find out more about ice cores (external site).
Nov 2 2019 – Kevin Yaworski – Concerned Canadian, UK Citizen and Human being.
I admit I am not without bias although I try to sift through all the false and misleading information to find the facts and least biased information to rely on.
When we share info to help inform others it is important to not mislead. I agree there is some good being done in the Alberta Tarsands. I have heard lots about it from my brother who worked as a welder there for several years. Unfortunately most of it was not good.
It has all supported a lot of jobs plus economic growth. It is important to look at the bad as well so corrections can be made and meaningful consequences for wrong doing.
If extraction can be done with reasonable environment impact and cleanup while still being competative we should do this while we finish the transition to more sustainable fuel sources. Refining the oil in Canada would create more jobs but these facilities are very costly to build and maintain. Is it too late to do this with the time left and with lots of divesting in this industry? If it feasable it better than importing refined oil from countries with major human rights issues etc…
Many examples of the industry run regulator allowing nearly spent wells to be sold by large corps for very low cost but hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup liabilities to small corps that then file for bankrupcy which is approved in most cases by the judges presiding. The fund setup for this was far too inadequate and was easily exhausted yet the corps combined have had tens or hundreds of billions in profits.
So now current and future taxpayers stuck with more government debt plus interest to do the cleanup which just gets defered.
There is far more area destroyed than reclaimed and the toxic tailing ponds go farther than the eye can see in many places. Much more toxins have been getting into rivers and lakes than was occuring naturally which has increased rates of rare diseases in humans and wild life.
For some idea to compare the info available of reclaimed land I suggest watching
Petropolis: Aerial Perspectives on the Alberta Tar Sands
video only short documentary
Info and trailer https://g.co/kgs/zspJwy
43 min video avail to rent for $2.99
More info on this and related.
Concerns and impacts of a rapid rate of climate change
Scientists and peer reviewed research that is respected is relying on geological evidence going back 800,000 years or more. Modeling is used more to try and determine the effects and impacts of a rapid rise in global average temperatures in the atmosphere and oceans. These rely on so many variables they require super computers and are less trusted. This will improve as more data collected and these computers get faster.
Nearly everyone agrees the climate on our planet earth has changed in a varying cycle of hot and cold periods over millions of years. The biggest concern is in the rate it has been changing and accelerating since the industrial revolution compared to the rates in the past determined from geological evidence spanning much farther than human history.
The vast majority of peer reviewed research by those experienced in climate studies agree it is changing at a much faster rate than it has in the trends they see in the past. They basing this on ice core samples from the Arctic and Antarctic that trap CO2 and other gases plus glacial records that can be used to estimate global average temperatures and the thickness width, height, pace of retreat or expansion of glaciers and other geological evidence going back over 800,000 years or more. They planning on drilling new cores that can gather data going back even farther.
Peer reviewed research links rising average ocean surface temperatures with more frequency of intense tropical storms and the rate they can increase in severity.
Many storms and the heavy winds, rains, storm surge and flooding that come with them fueled by the warmer waters and this leads to more destruction and impacts to the people, places and infrastructure in their paths.
Since the 1950s, the world’s oceans have absorbed almost 20 times as much energy as the atmosphere. The result has been the warming of ocean waters, not just within the upper sunlit 100 ft (30 m) of the surface but at depths of up to 1,500 ft (460 m).
There have been individual studies that have been found to have used some flawed methods or focused on limited areas versus global averages and not considering trends but many more peer reviewed studies that have similar findings that raise concern.
Either there is a rapid and accelerating rate of climate change or there isn’t. If there is, is the increase in extreme weather we seeing unrelated or that they are forcasting worse then it will be?
If it real will they be reduced by meaningful and effective action? Actions like the transitioning away from and banning ozone eating CFC’s, pesticides killing off many bald eagles and other wildlife, etc…
If the risks are real one possibility for denialism is the fact humans naturally tune out too much negative information as a form of helping maintaining mental health. Also change is also often difficult. Doing the right thing is often not the easist thing to do.
Also repeat exposure to false and misleading information can lead to eventually believing it. Career Politicians of all strips and or the experienced bureaucrats they hire, Corporate execs and the lawyers they hire all know this. Similar with biased or influenced media who are paid to spread propaganda for whovever is paying at the time.
…, the link you provided to discussion on climate change starts by saying "This site is dedicated to providing moderate-right opinions". At least they up front about that. Should our goal be to find the facts and information from unbiased or least biased sources?
I suggest reading the about and funding pages for any news source and search for the source on the following site. They have three types of staff set ratings and a public rating of news sources. If a source not listed you can submit it for review. Once enough requests or when time they review.
More comments here: