Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread

[ArmyRick]

Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?

It seems almost EVERYWHERE I speak to people in Canadian Society, most people have little doubts that there is a serious malfunction between man's living and the environment (Keeping in mind, I don't talk much to soldier troops these days, army is no longer my full time occupation).

To some of you it would not matter HOW much we showed you, you choose to not believe it. We could have the best scientist argue well laid out facts and you guys simply dismiss them. Enough is enough, you can believe what you choose to BUT I am a betting man and the future Canadian generations will do something about it.

-If you think emitting tons of atmospheric carbon into the air through fuel emissions is no problem, then why do we have smog warnings?
-If you think growing field upon field of corn (most of it NOT needed) and also causing carbon loss through soil depletion and the fuels used to grow and harvest it is not a problem, I got news for you. it is
-Desertification is a nasty problem (it contributes huge to atmospheric carbon)

Most of these problems are man made and the results of poor decision making on society's part. Once people are informed about something, then the ability to make a better choice is entirely up to them.

Yes, we can go on and on denying that our practices have little to no impact on the environment (I look at all negative practices as being part of a whole problem at large) and continue to gamble our grand children's future.

Yes, climate change does happen naturally but not at the epic scale and pace it is happening currently.

Simply put, I find the crowd here tend to be too far "right wing" and will choose to believe what they want to.

I will stand against the typical army.ca opinion here. Roast away but guess what? Most of Canadian society doesn't deny Global Climate disruption.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?

It seems almost EVERYWHERE I speak to people in Canadian Society, most people have little doubts that there is a serious malfunction between man's living and the environment (Keeping in mind, I don't talk much to soldier troops these days, army is no longer my full time occupation).

To some of you it would not matter HOW much we showed you, you choose to not believe it. We could have the best scientist argue well laid out facts and you guys simply dismiss them. Enough is enough, you can believe what you choose to BUT I am a betting man and the future Canadian generations will do something about it.

-If you think emitting tons of atmospheric carbon into the air through fuel emissions is no problem, then why do we have smog warnings?
-If you think growing field upon field of corn (most of it NOT needed) and also causing carbon loss through soil depletion and the fuels used to grow and harvest it is not a problem, I got news for you. it is
-Desertification is a nasty problem (it contributes huge to atmospheric carbon)

Most of these problems are man made and the results of poor decision making on society's part. Once people are informed about something, then the ability to make a better choice is entirely up to them.

Yes, we can go on and on denying that our practices have little to no impact on the environment (I look at all negative practices as being part of a whole problem at large) and continue to gamble our grand children's future.

Yes, climate change does happen naturally but not at the epic scale and pace it is happening currently.

Simply put, I find the crowd here tend to be too far "right wing" and will choose to believe what they want to.

I will stand against the typical army.ca opinion here. Roast away but guess what? Most of Canadian society doesn't deny Global Climate disruption.

Thanks for your OPINION.

Please respect the fact that others may not share it.

Being emotional, using ad hominem attacks and attempting to make others, who do not share your OPINION, feel guilty serves no purpose.

 

[Infanteer]

Why is it, so many people here on this web site think global climate disruption is an "imaginary boogyman"?

This is why.

The issue is not whether or not the climate is changing- climates changes all of the time, for all kinds of reasons.

The real issue is: is climate being negatively effected by human activity or is the climate system being driven by solar or other factors? A follow on issue: is the cure (cease use of all carbon based fuels) worse than the so-called disease? For example- just how habitable is Canada in the winter, without carbon fuels? Really.

So far, in this topic area, all that I have seen from AGW proponents are a number of really spectacular claims that have some pretty dubious science or statistical analysis or modelling behind them (once you actually scratch the surface of the hype).

I am of the opinion that carbon fuels will eventually run their course.  Once something better and cheaper arrive.  Until then- well, adapt.

Call me crazy, but if the Earth can go through Ice Ages every so often and that generally, the Earth has been ice free at the highest latitudes, then the 1-2 degree swings that I always hear about seem like a drop in the bucket for the Earth's ecosystem.

I have no doubt that man is having an impact on the climate, but I refuse to listen to the chicken little's out there, especially the ones cashing in on the whole thing.  As my friend Tacco alludes to, you the cure some recommend is worse than the symptoms we see.

 

[Journeyman]

Enough is enough, you can believe what you choose

How very gracious of you.

Simply put, I find the crowd here tend to be too far "right wing" and will choose to believe what they want to.

Equally simply (and rationally) put, it must be nice in "left wing" wonderland, where everything is true and 'correct.'

Roast away

  :boring:

Most of Canadian society doesn't deny Global Climate disruption.

From my reading, here and elsewhere, (although as an interesting aside, this thread seems to have drawn more than its share of posters from my ignore list  )....anyway, most aren't denying Global Climate disruption -- we're simply doubting the degree of causality, especially since some of the precious graphs are starting to slip.

Because of that, many people are apparently not responding with a degree of  anic:  that you obviously feel is warranted.


.....and I'm OK with you believing whatever you want as well, along with people wherever you believe them to be on the left-right political spectrum.



And as an avid motorcyclist, I haven't seen nearly as much of your vaunted global warming as I would have liked this summer; but then, I'm not into Suzuki's -- David or otherwise.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Rick,

I guess my sceptism on this subject stems from years of claims of doom from activists (with agendas) that are unsupported by good science (once you look into the background of their claims - and I have) or modelling that seems incapable of actually predicting anything.

I am tired of "big green"- and industry all of its own that has a really unhealthy authoritarian streak and which is completely intolerant of disenting opinion or of questioning their orthodoxy. It has all the trappings of an unreformed religion.

desertification, smog, the corn industry (you can blame that one on some enterprising farmers and US Congressmen who saw an opportunity in the Global Warming meme and forced through what has turned out to be one of the more disastrous environmental and economic policies of the past decade- negatively affecting both food and fuel prices on a global scale without actually doing anything positive about pollution or " global warming") are problems, but the have little or nothing to do with "global warming". The solution (carbon dioxidephobia) amounts, IMHO, to consigning 2-3 billion humans to either abject misery or death.  There is no way- absolutely none- that the current world population can be kept fed, clothed and housed without the use of carbon based fuel.  The thermodynamics of current renewables ( solar and wind) just do not work. They do not have anywhere close to the energy density of carbon based fuels.  We are still awaiting a new paradigm in energy density that will make the switch off of petroleum for transportation logical.

I like your work on farming methods- I really do.  I think you are doing good work raising food and keeping land and soil healthy, which are virtues all by themselves.  I just don't think that you should buy into global warming scare tactics. And give the sceptics some credit.  We are not idiots.

 

[ArmyRick]

To respond to a few things.

I am not a left wing person by any stretch of the imagination. My friends and family would laugh if they ever heard someone refer to me as left wing. I simply said "Too far right".  I am not a believer in absolutes.

I agree, we can NOT predict with certainty but I would say more of a generalization. I agree there are those out there using scare tactics for their own gain or want to be "radical about something".

That is not where I am coming from. I believe that we will not see the full negative consequences of our actions because we will simply not live long enough. I have doubts my sons will truly see the effects. However down the road, I do believe someone's generation will suffer if we do not START taking action now and gradually change our ways over the next several generations.

I am a believer of gradual change done over a period of time rather than a "shock" overnight and drastic change to our way of living (that sudden shock change can have its own negative effects).

I do believe very strongly there is environmental problems (many of them) and that are/will hamper our health and as such, our quality of life. Ignoring a problem will not make it go away, first step is to acknowledge it. Then we can put it into place a sound plan or series of plans.

 

[OldTanker]

This is such an emotional issue I am reluctant to get involved, however perhaps this is the time to add my perspective. For the record, I am a professional emergency manager and have been for about 15 years. One of the major activities I have become involved in over the past seven or eight years is climate change adaptation planning. I am not a scientist, but I work with people who's scientific credentials are unassailable. I accept that there are opposing points-of-view out there, but from the work I have done, and the reading and studies I have been involved with the issue is this: we are going through a period of global warming. Whether this is cyclical or not is largely irrelevant from the work I do. The weather is changing, and for huge swaths of the world, for the worse. Ironically, there are areas of Canada where climate change will improve living, and more importantly, agricultural conditions. But there are more places in Canada where this change will offer significant challenges. For example we still don't have a good handle on the extent of sea-level rise. The original modelling we did was based simply on the expansion of the seas due to temperature increase. We are now starting to appreciate that the melt of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps will also add to the rate of sea level rise. In time this will cause huge problems in areas like Vancouver and other BC ports. I am not as familiar with the effects on the East Coast but imagine they would be similar. We are seeing more, and more severe, summer storms. Yes, there have always been storms in Canada but what we are seeing, and what is scientifically irrefutable, is that as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour. Eventually the atmosphere cannot retain this water and what goes up, must come down. And what we are starting to see, and have for some time, are increased heavy-rainfall events. As the atmosphere continues to warm, this will continue to be a challenge. As we have seen in Calgary, the mitigation strategy is simple to state - don't build on flood plains - but extremely difficult and costly to implement. Is man responsible for this climate change? I have my own ideas but to avoid a slagging match let me just say this - whatever man is doing regarding carbon emissions is not improving what may very well be a naturally-occurring climate swing. In other words, we are making a bad situation worse. Of course the challenge is trying to ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease. Can we reduce the effect of climate change by reducing our use of carbon fuels? Or do we just accept the fact that our climate is changing, largely for the worse, and that we simply can't do anything to mitigate the change and will have to live with the consequences? Humanity will adapt, it always has, but can we reduce the effects through less use of carbon-based fuels? That, I think is the key issue here and the one most people find difficult to address.  To accept the reality of climate change and to rationally try to mitigate and adapt does not make one a left-winger, or tree-huger or any other type of stereotypical generalization.

 

[Haletown]

This is such an emotional issue I am reluctant to get . . . . We are now starting to appreciate that the melt of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps will also add to the rate of sea level rise. In time this will cause huge problems in areas like Vancouver and other BC ports. I am not as familiar with the effects on the East Coast but imagine they would be similar. We are seeing more,

The Antarctic Ice cap is currently expanding in both mass and extent . . . It just set a record today for largest ice  on this date.

The Grrenland Ice Cap has been very slowly receding and has not accelerated in recent times. The Arctic ice cap is doing what it has been doing for centuries and it appears it has started it's normal aggregation cycle.

And as for Vancouver flooding . . .  Complete nonsense to believe it will rise 500mm by 2050 when it has risen maybe 50mm in the last 100 years.

Here is the actual data for the last 100 years  . .


http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php

This is how public policy gets hijacked and serious  public money gets wasted trying to solve fears that do not exist.

 

[jpjohnsn]

The Antarctic Ice cap is currently expanding in both mass and extent . . . It just set a record today for largest ice  on this date.

The Grrenland Ice Cap has been very slowly receding and has not accelerated in recent times. The Arctic ice cap is doing what it has been doing for centuries and it appears it has started it's normal aggregation cycle.

And as for Vancouver flooding . . .  Complete nonsense to believe it will rise 500mm by 2050 when it has risen maybe 50mm in the last 100 years.

Here is the actual data for the last 100 years  . .


http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/175.php

This is how public policy gets hijacked and serious  public money gets wasted trying to solve fears that do not exist.

To be absolutely clear, antarctic sea ice is increasing but the land ice is melting at an increasing rate.  The loss of the mass of land ice is not being offset by the increase in sea ice mass.  The net result is a loss overall.

 

[George Wallace]

To be absolutely clear, antarctic sea ice is increasing but the land ice is melting at an increasing rate.  The loss of the mass of land ice is not being offset by the increase in sea ice mass.  The net result is a loss overall.

Does this imbalance mean that the earth may rotate off its axis?    >

 

[Inquisitor]

to add on to old tankers last post. There are reports that a warming climate tends to lead to increased conflict. Seems to make sense, less access to potable water, less grazing, less food in general tends to lead to zero-sum, your gain is my loss perceptions.  Additionally just being in an uncomfortable environment tends to lead to crankiness. (Turns up A/C)

 

[Nemo888]

As weather patterns become more erratic it is only a matter of time before two of the world's breadbaskets are hit with extreme weather in a single year. Then things will get interesting. The army may have lots of work in the not so distant future.

 

[ModlrMike]

As weather patterns become more erratic it is only a matter of time before two of the world's breadbaskets are hit with extreme weather in a single year. Then things will get interesting. The army may have lots of work in the not so distant future.

Interesting you mention that. The single biggest contributor to world hunger today is the conversion of sustenance farmland into bio-fuel farmland. The result is that grain prices have gone up and in many countries bread is no longer available. There is also less grain available for humanitarian aid.

 

[GDawg]

Interesting you mention that. The single biggest contributor to world hunger today is the conversion of sustenance farmland into bio-fuel farmland. The result is that grain prices have gone up and in many countries bread is no longer available. There is also less grain available for humanitarian aid.

Is there a credible source for this assertion? Obviously armed conflict and weather are dominant forces behind famine as well.

 

[Nemo888]

There is some truth to the statement. The US used 40% of it's corn production to produce biofuel last year. That would be 1,537,500,000,000 pounds of corn or feeding 1.4 billion people a pound of corn three times a day. It has driven up corn prices. Then Mexicans bought rice because they ironically couldn't afford corn which is indigenous and their staple food. Converting trillions of pounds of food to fuel SUV's while people starve is as strange as it sounds.

 

[GR66]

Sadly it's the rhetoric that gets in the way of solutions.  I have my doubts that the current cycle of climate change is primarily caused by human activity (although we may be helping the process along), but the fixation with so many on a specific human cause - our excessive burning of fossil fuels - results in time wasted in pointless argument and misguided solutions.

I strongly believe that our general abuse of the environment is going to bite us on our collective asses big time.  We make horrible land use choices, dump toxic substances into the air, land and water, use massive amounts of non-renewable resources, follow unsustainable agricultural practices, reuse/recycle almost none of what we create, turn the sea into a desert, and yes, burn too much fossil fuels. 

The anthropogenic global warming crowd has us fixated on growing more corn to add to our gasoline, putting up expensive windmills that create a fraction of the power we need, and changing our taxation system.  If we could get away from the rhetoric we could instead focus on long term, efficient use of our resources in order to make ourselves both wealthier AND better stewards of our environment. 

Stop subsidies that distort the economic decisions we make and instead see that we're paying the REAL price for the things we use.  If we eventually start to pay the cost upfront for things like the cost of disposing of the items we purchase, or the cost to repair the damages to the environment caused by the processes we've used then we will make more sustainable choices.  Companies will have to become more efficient to compete.  If it costs more to build a subdivision on productive farm land than to build on reclaimed former industrial lands then wiser choices will be made.  When we become fixated on "we're burning too much oil" we lose sight of the bigger picture.

 

[GDawg]

There is some truth to the statement. The US used 40% of it's corn production to produce biofuel last year. That would be 1,537,500,000,000 pounds of corn or feeding 1.4 billion people a pound of corn three times a day. It has driven up corn prices. Then Mexicans bought rice because they ironically couldn't afford corn which is indigenous and their staple food. Converting trillions of pounds of food to fuel SUV's while people starve is as strange as it sounds.

I'm not doubting the original statement outright, I was surprised to read that bio-fuel was the lead cause. Food supply/prices aren't a simple, monolithic thing, and what the American's are doing within their own borders can't necessarily be linked to famine elsewhere because of the global market. Futures speculation and outright profiteering are strong factors in food prices as well.

The idea of food crops being diverted to fuel production (particularly in lean years) and natural habitat being destroyed to grow corn or soy to produce bio-fuel is pretty stupid. As the technology improves, the impact bio-fuel has on the food market will lessen, but I highly doubt that this will mark an end to high food prices or 'biblical scale' famines.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm not doubting the original statement outright, I was surprised to read that bio-fuel was the lead cause. Food supply/prices aren't a simple, monolithic thing, and what the American's are doing within their own borders can't necessarily be linked to famine elsewhere because of the global market. Futures speculation and outright profiteering are strong factors in food prices as well.

The idea of food crops being diverted to fuel production (particularly in lean years) and natural habitat being destroyed to grow corn or soy to produce bio-fuel is pretty stupid. As the technology improves, the impact bio-fuel has on the food market will lessen, but I highly doubt that this will mark an end to high food prices or 'biblical scale' famines.

This is not just an American problem.  Look out West at how many farmers are changing their crops from wheat to other more "profitable" crops.  Farmers, like all other members of our society, have the right to choose how they make a living.  It is not cheap to run a farm, and to stay out of debt, they will of course plant what will be the most profitable crop.  Ethics and morals have been trumped by financial survival.

 

[OldTanker]

And the situation only becomes more complicated when you start looking at this from a geopolitical and economic perspective. Consider the desertification that is in progress in North Africa. As this starts to displace people from their traditional lands, where do they go? There are islands, in fact full nations such as the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, that will likely be totally submerged in 50 years. Where does an entire nation go? Are the countries of the world that are arguably adding to, if not causing, global warning responsible to take some of these people in as "climate refugees"? And if so, where do they put them?  There are some parts of Canada, for example the Peace River country of Alberta and BC that are likely to become more inhabitable as the climate gets warmer and growing seasons lengthen. Should Canada be developing special polices concerning climate change refugees and how to rationally settle them? 

As we lose prime agricultural land to climate change (i.e. eventually much of Southern Alberta) how do we compensate? Do we make our priority for the remaining land housing (for refugees?) or agriculture? A microcosm of that problem exists right now in the Fraser Valley. Essentially the only areas left for housing are some of the best agricultural lands in the world. Can we afford to sacrifice agricultural land that is needed to replace dwindling world production for more housing for those displace by climate change? And who makes this decision? And when?

As a practical example of climate change adaptation risk-management planning, and notwithstanding the dispute over the rate of sea level rise in Vancouver harbour noted earlier, if I was responsible for port operations, I would want to know

a. what has been the historical model for sea level rise in my area?
b. what is the RANGE of projected sea level rise looking into the foreseeable future?
c. how much of this increase can my existing infrastructure accommodate?
d. how long will it take me to upgrade, replace or move my existing infrastructure to adapt to sea level rise if the projections exceed my ability to accommodate? and
e. what are the likely decision timelines?

This is not overreaction, or panic, or left-wing tree-hugging. This is simply good business and rational risk-management. Some governments are addressing this in detail, some have their heads in the sand.

We are beyond the stage of doing nothing. Cherry picking data to "prove" that climate change and global warming isn't happening is as useful as the suggestion we return to a society of hunter-gatherers with no reliance on fossil fuels. Neither extreme is useful. The overwhelming evidence is that SOMETHING is happening, and even if we don't know all the causes, nor can we predict with 100% certainly future developments, we are seeing changes to our environment, and by extension our society, that need to be addressed. And probably sooner rather than before it is too late.

It is difficult to get politicians to make decisions that extend beyond their next mandate under normal circumstances, even more difficult to get them to make hard decisions ranging out 50 years, which are often based, admittedly,  on weak data. Unfortunately we are dealing with science that is based on modelling, and somethings these models are not as accurate as we would like. However, our responsibility is to make the best estimates based on the best science we have and provide our policy makers with the best advice we can.

 

[Kirkhill]

It may be difficult to get politicians to make decisions based on what might happen in 50 years if they don't act.

On the other hand it is less difficult to get politicians to make decisions to buy insurance policies and plan for reaction forces.



After the floods in Alberta I heard a lot of informed comment about "how could politicians allow people to build in flood plains....don't those idiots know better".

As a one time resident of the Lower Mainland, and thus inhabitant of BC's largest permanent clearcut for 15 years,  I couldn't help but wonder how politicians permitted development on the tsunami prone and unstable silty flood plains of Richmond and Delta, on the barren clearcut slopes of North Vancouver,  in the Volcanic shadows of Mounts Baker and Washington and on the earthquake prone fault lines of the Pacific Rim.

Seems to me the logical thing to do is evacuate Vancouver and move the inhabitants somewhere else for their own good and for the security of my purse.  (Just don't send them to Alberta... we can't afford them  ;D )

PS WRT Southern Alberta - you may be right about the impact of climate change.  Except that this year is one of the greenest years I have seen and I have been in and out of this region since 1980.  There are sloughs floating ducks and hedged with bullrushes that have never existed previously.  And this is about year 3 for this set of conditions. 

Anecdote:  Three years ago, by highway 24, a farmer bought a new irrigation pivot to irrigate some bottom land that was lovely and flat but bone dry.  The next year the pivot was bogged down, and has remained that way due to the bottom land become a half-section lake that has endured for over two years.

An irrigation pivot.

The Fraser Valley isn't the Prairies.  We have space and we can see whatever is coming at us.

It doesn't take much space to create the high density housing that your Vancouver refugees seem to prefer.