By Les Mader, 26 December 2024
Over the years, Canadian Naval Review (CNR) and its affiliated Broadsides Forum have discussed many issues of vital importance to the Royal Canadian Navy, and by extension to the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada. However, although I wrote a recent article for CNR on this topic, I feel that the most important issue has not been adequately addressed. This is the changing of the Earth’s climate and the resultant effects on Canada and its geo-strategic situation.
Developing a solid understanding of climate change is not easy, due both to its complexity and to the difficulty in modeling what is happening now and what is likely to occur over time. These limitations have led to massive uncertainty and public doubt about how climate change will actually affect Canada and the broader world. Such uncertainty and doubt are made even worse by the difficulty recognizing how the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) ‘conveyor belt’ of ocean currents is evolving due to climate change and what will be its likely future global impacts.
As my article in CNR explains, the AMOC oceanic system involves the movement of warm tropical water northwards along the eastern side of the North Atlantic Ocean while a return flow brings cold northern waters back south along the western (North American) side. Because of this circulation of warm and cold waters northern Europe is warmer than the equivalent latitudes in Canada and the tropical areas around the Caribbean Sea are cooler than they otherwise would have been. The AMOC is illustrated at the following link, while its relationship to the larger ocean current system – the Global Meridional Overturning Circulation – is shown at the second link.
File:North Atlantic currents.svg - Wikimedia Commons
File:Thermohaline Circulation.svg - Wikimedia Commons
Scientific analysis seems to indicate that the AMOC is slowing down or possibly approaching a full collapse (stop) because of the effects of climate change, likely due to the infusion of fresh water from melting glaciers into the Atlantic Ocean. Pages 16 and 17 of CNR 20.2 summarize this situation and some of the possible consequences. These could include:
- the appearance of a new Ice Age in parts of northern Europe as temperatures drop 10 to 300C during a period of some 100 years;
- the abrupt cooling of wide reaches of the broader northern hemisphere;
- increased warming of the tropics and the southern hemisphere;
- changes to tropical rainfall patterns;
- widespread damage to, or destruction of, the agriculture in the affected areas due to these temperature and rainfall changes, with resultant famines and societal turmoil/breakdown; and
- increased severity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes.
The cumulative effect of these changes could make life impossible in large parts of the Earth. Current estimates are that an AMOC collapse or slowing down could occur within the next one to 75 years, with perhaps a 50% possibility that they could occur by 2050.
Dealing with this impending disaster is greatly hampered by the rise of influential leaders who appear to want to undo current climate mitigation efforts and to take North America (at least) back to an earlier industrial era marked by ever-increasing consumption of fossil fuels. Some of these leaders actively denounce such mitigation efforts as switching to green energy, increasing energy conservation, and the employment of policies that punish polluters financially.
Tragically, we will all suffer the disastrous consequences of climate change as the ignorance of such leaders is shown to be powerless against the forces of nature. Therefore, Canada must start thinking seriously now about how to prepare for these consequences. This will require the development of a comprehensive, broadly-accepted national strategy that guides Canada’s actions domestically and internationally throughout the next decades. Some suggestions for possible elements of such a strategy are found at pages 18-20 of CNR 20.2.
It is my hope that the Broadsides Forum will actively and publicly use whatever influence that it has to counter the nay-sayers by:
- getting out the message about the dangers that we will face;
- educating those who have been lulled by false promises that everything is fine or that climate change is actually a good thing; and
- pushing for a serious debate about the national strategy that Canada must develop to get safely through the next 75 years.
Climate change is real and represents Canada’s greatest geo-strategic challenge. It must be addressed starting now. I believe that the members of the Broadsides Forum can play a valuable role in this effort.
11 thoughts on “Climate Change, Defence Policy”
Wikipedia variants are about as unscholarly as you can get. Climate change is about as real as the Easter Bunny.
Good morning David,
I agree that Wikipedia articles are not usable as scholarly references.
Thankfully, my comments are not based at all on them.
I urge you to read the references that I cite on page 20 of CNR 20.2. Should you find them unpersuasive, I request that you provide here the sources of your contention that the Easter Bunny and climate change have similar validity.
Ubique,
Les
[…] Climate Change is very real and its denial is delusional – reality is shown to us by the new attention to the Arctic and the North West Passage, and the Panama canal. The thermodynamics, fluid dynamics and chemistry predict the performance of heat engines also apply to our atmosphere. The first waves are coming into the beach now so to speak, and what is coming will be much worse for much of the world.
Hello Dave. Although I totally agree with you about Wikipedia, you are dead wrong about climate change. If most sensible people in our fragile world felt the same as you, we would all be in a heap of trouble! Thank goodness you are in the very small minority! Look around you and really think. Climate Change Is Very Real and will be the doom of this world and mankind as we know it if things and people don’t change their thinking, perhaps not in the near future, but it will happen sooner rather than later. Oh, and by the way, who says Easter Bunnies are not real? Just ask any sensible child! They know all!!
Not really the place for such discussions in my opinion without getting into politics but I will give it a go. Global warming is indeed happening. One just needs to look at the reduction of Arctic ice that opens up resources and territorial access for Canada and its defence. As well in regards to the land-based testing facility for the CSC at Hartlen point, its construction takes into account sea level rise and coastal erosion. Our future fleet takes into account environmental mitigation strategies in ships’ systems in order to minimise the platforms’ environmental footprint. There are many more but just some examples that I have first-hand knowledge of.
Canada compared to China, USA, Russia, Japan, India and what they put out pales in comparison to what we do. Canada is not doing good financially and I believe we’ll see how bad the books really are when we have a government change. We need to increase our natural resource extraction to reduce our deficit and at the same time invest in PROVEN green technologies that don’t leave a large pollution footprint in production. Taxing the populace into oblivion is not a sound strategy in my opinion that does nothing but increase the cost of living.
Thank you Ted.
All worthy points to consider going forward.
I would simply say that I fear that politicians and most Canadians will favour short-term gain over long-term disaster, leaving our grandchildren to pay big time for the easy choices made now.
Ubique,
Les
While I agree climate change is real and does pose a threat, I do honestly believe some of the most hardened climate activists and do-gooders have put a tinge on it with their wild claims and hypothesis.
In the 1980s we heard how in 10 years the ice sheet will melt, well, fast forward to 2024 and the majority of it is still there, I forget which mathematician calculated that at the current rate it would be another 2,000 odd years before it’s all gone.
Currently we are spending billions on carbon capture machines, well there’s a much simpler and cheaper way to achieve carbon capture, it’s so simple and effective you never know it might work!…….plant more trees! Canada is abundant in vast uninhabited lands that could just be turned into forest. Ok the high north in the tundra isn’t much good for growing trees, but we have plenty of other open space that isn’t used for farming or housing that could be turned over to forest.
So let’s put hysteria to one side and crack on with what this forum is about defense.
Now with the above said, is there a way we can reduce our carbon footprint in the naval side of things? honestly I do think so however some commercial solutions probably are not viable for a warship that may see combat.
If we take the fuels issue, currently our ships will run on HFO / LSFO (NATO F75), even the Low Sulphur / Ultra Low Sulphur remain dirty options. Yes you can fit scrubbers and burners into the exhaust but the fact remains it’s still quite dirty.
If we look to the commercial side, Maersk has implemented a fleet of methanol-powered container ships (not the first) and so far these seem to be doing ok but they are in the early stages.
What’s the biggest drawback to methanol? well CH30H Class 3 PGII Methanol (UN1230) has a flash point of 11*c, it’s incredibly volatile and any fire will cause the fluid to vaporize creating an explosive atmosphere with ignition point so low anything can and will set it off. (1)
Not so good if your hit with shrapnel, missile or just have a engine room fire, It can also be quite dirty to manufacture as it requires a lot of LNG to produce methanol. So are you really any better off?
LNG another one that looks good on paper but when combusted gives off methane and if anyone has done any reading on climate change will know methane is a major climate change accelerant. It also resides longer in the atmosphere than CO2. The good thing about it I suppose is that its CO2 value is about half that of coal or oil when combusted. (2)
We have seen some ships convert to LNG as an alternative fuel source and while this is ok for commercial uses, I am concerned that its LEL is a problem especially if a ship is hit in combat.
Hydrogen Is another one of those looks good on paper and like LNG is also incredibly volatile and again in combat if the ship is hit that is a major concern but, the biggest byproduct of hydrogen combustion is water so no nasty toxins or gasses being emitted. (3)
As hydrogen is part of the formula for water theoretically at least your ship will not run out of it because the fuel is all around it and moreover this could in theory mean you would be able to store much less of it onboard if you’re making it as you go along.
Overall I do think if we change our fuels then the RCN can certain help reduce the carbon footprint by a big factor, but if recruitment and retention keep going the way it does, we won’t need to as many of our ships will remain alongside (tongue firmly in cheek).
(1) https://www.methanex.com/wp-content/uploads/UL-METHANOL-SG_EN_02.09.2023.pdf
(2) https://www.shell.com.au/about-us/projects-and-locations/prelude-flng-marine-terminal/_jcr_content/root/main/section/text_1283237005.multi.stream/1694429536800/3a7484a63a7da58e799548272885c28ae4099042/lng-sds-au-en.pdf
(3)https://www.flinnsci.com/api/library/Download/ecf8b271cdf84850a6a0343cef1ecc9d?srsltid=AfmBOoo0E8eUjRNTVKksReOoJfzMSILM0j56I183kUffdEhltPOjhHw3
Good morning Blair,
I feel that it is very important (if not vital) to know the name, training, and biais of the mathematician who stated that the Arctic sea ice will be here for another some 2,000 years at the current rate of disappearance. We also need to know when he made this statement so that we can understand the level of data and research that was available to him when he made it.
Please advise where and when his categoric reassurance came to your attention?
Ubique,
Les
Good Day Les
I had to go back through my own notes but the mathematician I was on about is called Kenneth Golden, he is at the University of Utah. He published in 2018/19. I think it was his paper on the subject and there’s been a fair amount of press coverage.
If I recall I remember him saying in an interview (roughly same time) based on the model he uses it would be 2,000 years before the ice would be completely gone.
His model is based on an older model and makes a key difference in that it notes that ice does not melt in a linear fashion like others such as Peter Wadhams believed it would. Hence, the predictions of the 60-70-80-90 era were proved wrong as these scientists mainly focused on trend lines.
Here is his Bio from UOU: https://faculty.utah.edu/u0028785-KENNETH_M_GOLDEN/hm/index.hml
I’ve linked this article for you regarding it: https://eos.org/articles/a-nearly-100-year-old-physics-model-replicates-modern-arctic-ice-melt
From memory he isn’t the only one that has stated as such, there’re a few physicists/mathematicians that have stated similar or same statement.
This whole thing came to me quite like a boomerang whilst researching something else for a paper I was writing about fuels and emissions for the UK MOD, this would have been around 2017-18 time frame.
That paper was to show if it was feasible to calculate the CO2 emissions from warships and auxiliaries which was to allow for the alignment of the upcoming IMO MARPOL 2022 ship carbon intensity and rating system by which we had to log each ship’s carbon footprint. (That paper is not in the public domain yet.)
Good morning Blair,
Thank you for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive reply. New grist to the mill of learning!
I wonder how much Golden’s conclusions would be influenced by the new data found in the past five years. My limited research indicates that climate science, the evolution of the AMOC and GMOC, and other factors are intertwined in such complex fashions that the modeling of what is happening, and will happen, is extremely difficult. As an example, if I have understood one reference correctly, the (near) absence of a Pacific Meridional Overturning Circulation (PMOC) is at least partially due to the existence of the Tibetan Plateau in central Asia. Not an obvious linkage to a lay person!
This level of complexity and modeling difficulty lead me to believe that we must prepare for the worst climate-wise while hoping for better. It is why I suggested in my article in CNR 20.2 that the first stage of our proposed future national strategy must be greatly increased climate research to determine/refine the way ahead.
In this context I fear that in our post-truth world the climate deniers will successfully use Golden’s work to convince everyone to go back to sleep on climate change, while ensuring that future research is avoided or skewed to meet their political and/or commercial aims.
Ubique,
Les
Good morning gentlemen. Although your energy sources all have some merit, there is one source of power (energy) that all of you have either forgotten about (by design?) for vessels that must travel through the Oceans of the world that has been proven time and time again to be clean and safe. Nuclear Power! Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) which Canada has taken a leading role in recently, would be ideal for safe and reliable power for our ships of the future; be that civilian or military. These power sources are at sea now for both civilian ships (i.e containers/ice breakers) or Aircraft Carriers/Submarines or even Cruisers/Destroyers/Frigates. SMRs or Mini-SMRs involve a technology that is here today and ready to be utilized in both civilian and military applications and does not involve more volatile ship fuel sources. Just something to think about as well. Cheers!