HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 12:07 AM
misher misher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 551
How worried should we as Canadians be about climate change?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world...wxc/index.html

According to this article we have until 2030 to take drastic action against climate change.

It says countries in the Southern Hemisphere will suffer the most from increases in temperatures. A lot of the algae+coral in the sea would die off (lowering our ability to reduce CO2).

It really makes me wonder, how badly off would Canada be if things heated up? Would we spend 50 years in warmer temperatures until it all caught up and the climate became unlivable? Or would the rest of the world suffer while the rest of Canada became a much warmer place & attractive place?

From the map it looks like if sea levels rise 100m which is supposed to be the max Canada would not be badly off but South America, America, Australia, Europe, Russia, and China would suffer.


I really wonder at what point does climate change become so bad that we can't go back. As Canadians can we sit back and watch the rest of the world suffer as our own climate improves? Will we suddenly gain some nice beaches and will our weather become much better? Or will a warmer climate hurt us too?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 12:18 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,884
100m is way more than anyone is predicting. The high estimates for 2100 are in the 2m range.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 12:20 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,868
As the middle east becomes uninhabitable, look for the 400+ million who live there to flee to more hospitable parts of the world. Canada, being one of the few countries that will remain hospitable, could easily see its population increase several times over due to climate refugees, barring a global societal collapse that leads to a depopulation of earth in general.

Imagine the talking points this would give Maxime Bernier if he actually believed in reducing the affects of climate change!

Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
100m is way more than anyone is predicting. The high estimates for 2100 are in the 2m range.
Who gives a fuck about sea level? Regular climates changing, such as temperatures getting too hot to survive or precipitation stopping, are going to have a negative impact on humanity long before New York is underwater.
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 1:18 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
As the middle east becomes uninhabitable, look for the 400+ million who live there to flee to more hospitable parts of the world. Canada, being one of the few countries that will remain hospitable, could easily see its population increase several times over due to climate refugees, barring a global societal collapse that leads to a depopulation of earth in general.

Imagine the talking points this would give Maxime Bernier if he actually believed in reducing the affects of climate change!



Who gives a fuck about sea level? Regular climates changing, such as temperatures getting too hot to survive or precipitation stopping, are going to have a negative impact on humanity long before New York is underwater.
Not really. The world is not going to be too hot for humans to survive. We’re a tropical species. Precipitation is not going to stop in most places. The Middle East is not going to become uninhabitable. Arid and semi-arid regions are going to have problems sustaining consistent agriculturе, low-lying areas and small islands will have problems over the longer term. More extreme weather will cause more localized disasters. Humanity in most places will be fine, particularly in areas where they can afford mitigation measures.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:07 AM
Franco401's Avatar
Franco401 Franco401 is offline
Kneel before Irving
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Southside Fredericton, NB
Posts: 776
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Humanity in most places will be fine, particularly in areas where they can afford mitigation measures.
These two don't line up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:10 AM
isaidso isaidso is offline
The New Republic
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: United Provinces of America
Posts: 8,739
Personally I don't worry about climate change like I would if I lived in a poor country or low lying island. I used to concern myself with global issues but have become a person who focuses on the things I can control. It's not that I don't care but view my approach as constructive, logical, and better for my long term health.

Canada is one of the few countries that scientists say will see a net benefit from climate change. We're also one of the nations best equipped to meet the challenges that will come. Worry? I don't worry.
__________________
World's First Documented Baseball Game: Beachville, Ontario, June 4th, 1838.
World's First Documented Gridiron Game: University College, Toronto, November 9th, 1861.
Hamilton Tiger-Cats since 1869 & Toronto Argonauts since 1873: North America's 2 oldest pro football teams
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:28 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,868
This thing that will kill hundreds of millions is going to benefit us, so bring it on!
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:42 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
It is probably the greatest threat to ever face humanity - and that isn't hyperbole.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 2:54 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
It is probably the greatest threat to ever face humanity - and that isn't hyperbole.
Well, the Toba Erruption reduced the human population to between 3k and 10k people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

The Black Death killed about 1/3 of the population of Europe. Eurasian diseases killed about 90% of the population of precolumbian Americas. A nuclear war would probably kill 100% of the population. The Mongols killed 5% of the world’s population.

People read too much Mad Max fan fiction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:06 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Well, the Toba Erruption reduced the human population to between 3k and 10k people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

The Black Death killed about 1/3 of the population of Europe. Eurasian diseases killed about 90% of the population of precolumbian Americas. A nuclear war would probably kill 100% of the population. The Mongols killed 5% of the world’s population.

People read too much Mad Max fan fiction.
How are your stocks in Syncor and Exxon Mobil doing?
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:16 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
Well, the Toba Erruption reduced the human population to between 3k and 10k people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

The Black Death killed about 1/3 of the population of Europe. Eurasian diseases killed about 90% of the population of precolumbian Americas. A nuclear war would probably kill 100% of the population. The Mongols killed 5% of the world’s population.

People read too much Mad Max fan fiction.
The difference between those things and climate change is simple - climate change is still happening and we have yet to feel the worst effects. The difference between climate change and a nuclear holocaust is also simple - one is inevitable on our current path. The other is far less certain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:21 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
How are your stocks in Syncor and Exxon Mobil doing?
I have no oil stocks and generally lead a pretty low carbon lifestyle. I find all of the hyperbole pretty annoying.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:26 AM
acottawa acottawa is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmt18325 View Post
The difference between those things and climate change is simple - climate change is still happening and we have yet to feel the worst effects. The difference between climate change and a nuclear holocaust is also simple - one is inevitable on our current path. The other is far less certain.
The effects can be modelled fairly accurately and none of the predicted effects are anywhere near the amateur predictions I’m seeing on this thread. The disaster fetishists are just as annoying as the climate change denial crowd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:27 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
I have no oil stocks and generally lead a pretty low carbon lifestyle. I find all of the hyperbole pretty annoying.
Or you're trying to calm your fear by grasping at any re-assuring message you can find. It's called "self care" and it's OK.
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:30 AM
jmt18325's Avatar
jmt18325 jmt18325 is offline
Heart of the Continent
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
The effects can be modelled fairly accurately and none of the predicted effects are anywhere near the amateur predictions I’m seeing on this thread. The disaster fetishists are just as annoying as the climate change denial crowd.
I don't know - I consider the idea of half a billion climate refugees to be pretty terrifying myself. And people think a carbon tax is too costly....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:42 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 20,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by acottawa View Post
The effects can be modelled fairly accurately and none of the predicted effects are anywhere near the amateur predictions I’m seeing on this thread. The disaster fetishists are just as annoying as the climate change denial crowd.
The thread started with a "+100m sea level" premise. What did you expect?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 3:58 AM
vid's Avatar
vid vid is offline
Identity Condiment
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Thunder Bay
Posts: 38,868
It's amazing that people can take just one out of place hyperbole and use that to delegitimize an entire issue. This discussion would have gone a different way had the original poster not included that hyperbolic map but I'm sure those who want to pretend climate change isn't a pressing issue that requires a solution would just find something else to disqualify it. It happens all the time.
__________________
Thunder Bay Updated 2018!other photos | my geofiction | my cities | random things | skyscraper diagrams
It's not about what you don't have—it's the little you're given, and how far you can run with it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 4:02 AM
Djesus777 Djesus777 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Too many places
Posts: 298
First, the UN says 2015 is the last hope, then it was 2020, then 2025 and now 2030. Although climate change is real and global warming, this article is alarmist. Pretty soon it'll be 2050 as the last stand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 4:06 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Lévis, QC
Posts: 20,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by vid View Post
It's amazing that people can take just one out of place hyperbole and use that to delegitimize an entire issue.
Why is that "amazing"?

A SSP discussion about realistic solutions to the housing affordability crisis can be had, or we can have a discussion thread that starts with the suggestion we could kill all the rich and take their housing, but those two aren't going to be anywhere near the same thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2018, 4:17 AM
Architype's Avatar
Architype Architype is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,005
We have to worry about the effects of climate change more than the climate itself. World food supplies can easily suffer as growing conditions shift, causing crop failures. Water supplies will also be disrupted, especially in areas like Florida, where salt water will contaminate the fresh water supply. The domino effects of political instability alone, due to economic failure, will cause mass migrations of humanity to destinations like Canada. All of this, and more, can occur without even considering the direct effects within Canada itself. That's only the tip of the iceberg, and there may not even be any icebergs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:46 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.