Climate Change and Canada

[Migs]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

It's not like we have a choice. Nobody can live through Canada's winters without burning something to keep warm. Most of these assholes at these international conferences wagging their fingers at Canada live in much milder climates and have no idea what -20 C even feels like.

Have you ever noticed that they rarely if ever have climate conferences in colder regions?

[Migs]

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

More than temperatures, I think the biggest thing that will force people out of the Southern United States will be water supply issues. The southwest has always been lacking in water. This will only get worse down the road. As well, the southeast seems to be at risk of drying out in the summer according to most models.

What will be interesting will be Florida. Much of the state could end up underwater. That would make for a lot of displaced people.

As far as the northern climates continuing to have more drawbacks, I think it depends on what you define as drawbacks. In terms of average temperatures, the south will have the better climate, but it's when you consider extremes, the north might start to become more attractive. While everyone has different tastes, I'm sure a lot of people would be willing to put up with relatively cold winters to avoid having to endure brutal heatwaves each summer. Just as some people now would prefer putting up with Boston winters to avoid Atlanta summers.

I can see the climate of places like the Maritimes and New England becoming much more attractive once winters become more mild. The BC coast and interior valleys could also become much more attractive. They could become the new California.

lol what the hell are all those Americans doing building all those multi-million dollar condos on the shores of south Florida? Bunch of idiots I tell ya.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Migs

lol what the hell are all those Americans doing building all those multi-million dollar condos on the shores of south Florida? Bunch of idiots I tell ya.

Uhhh it is a really bad idea. Climate change notwithstanding building highrises (or anything really) on barrier islands is a TERRIBLE idea. I

[ssiguy]

Climate change is a reality but enviornmentalists have done themselves a great disservice over the last 30 years by claiming that every change in the weather is due to GHG emissions.

Earth is warming and GHG and pollution are certainly a contributing factor but not the sole or even primary reason. The fact is that ALL the planets in the solar system have been warming over the last 30 years. The reasons is that we all have one thing in common............the sun.

The sun has had a very strong level of solar flares in the last 50 years and it is warming our solar system and everything in it and there is a not a damn thing we can do about it except plan for the inevitable changes.

Earth is warming like all the other planets but the difference on Earth is us. The difference in what the planet would warm due to the Sun and what we are actually warming is due to human activity but not at all exclusively due to it. Many environmental groups ignore this fact and it undermines their credibility.

In order to deal with what we can change, there must be a concerted effort by all nations to reduce our GHG emissions and slow the trend as best we can. Regardless of a nation's total output, we are all in this together. Our Earth's health is the one sphere where being Bolivian, Indian, Finn, or Canadian doesn't make any difference........ were Earthlings and we have to think that way.

One thing that Canada can do, as Ontario has already done, is get rid of all coal-fired electricity generation. This has brought Ontario emissions below what they were in 1990.

Where Alberta and Sask justly earn the ire of the rest of the country is that they not only produce more GHG per person than anywhere else in the country but refuse to even try to reduce their emissions. Those 2 provinces {with NS} have the largest percentage of their electricity produced by coal yet are the 2 provinces in the last decade that had the fiscal ability to get rid of their coal produced electrical system and turn it over to hydro, natural gas, biomass, wind, solar etc.

Ontario was broke but still went ahead while Alberta and SK were rolling in the money and did absolutely nothing. Those 2 provinces have a black eye environmentally and it's one that they justly deserve. If any new climate deal disproportionately hurts them then it's because of their lack of action in the last 20 years.

[Nashe]

Cut out the sarcastic trolling, guys. If someone wanders in here they're gonna think we're 10 year olds.

[Drybrain]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Climate change is a reality but enviornmentalists have done themselves a great disservice over the last 30 years by claiming that every change in the weather is due to GHG emissions.

Earth is warming and GHG and pollution are certainly a contributing factor but not the sole or even primary reason. The fact is that ALL the planets in the solar system have been warming over the last 30 years. The reasons is that we all have one thing in common............the sun.

GHGs are the primary reason though: the sun's natural flictuations have only tiny effects on Earth's surface temperature (more on ocean temperature, but highly localized.) And the current sunspot cycle is the weakest in a century, anyway.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by optimusREIM

I'm sorry but how is the science for anthropogenic climate change not up for debate when literally all other scientific fields are? How can anyone have a civil debate when one side automatically gets dismissed by the other and belittled simply for questioning? Think critically guys. Especially of your own beliefs. Wait don't listen to me I'm just one of those tin foil hat wearers.

feel free to discuss the flat earth hypothesis, phrenology and phlogiston, as well as the massive scientific frauds of plate tectonics and evolution.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Climate Change skeptics:

Every time you trot out an argument questioning anthropogenic climate change I want you to imagine this man laughing.

Clearly a ham-fisted sculptor molded this out of clay. This turd has no soul.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Canada can't do anything about it.

The amount of pollution we contribute globally amounts to a rounding error.

Any company can't do anything about it. Rounding error.
Any one person can't do anything about it. Rounding error.

What a fucking lousy reason to cop out.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Migs

Have you ever noticed that they rarely if ever have climate conferences in colder regions?

UN Paris Climate Change Conference - November 2015

the 2013 edition was in Warsaw

The biggest of all (15th UNFCCC Conference) was in Copenhagen (2009).


Keep talking out of your rectum.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Migs

Science is skepticism & skepticism is science.

pardon my French, but you don't know jack shit about science.

With your extreme obstinacy, you are not being a skeptic. Rather, you are clinging to an a priori conviction, which is the complete opposite of what constitutes scientific skepticism.


Allow me to repeat an earlier post. I know a thing or two about the scientific method.

The entire enterprise of scientific inquiry is underpinned by skepticism. The bar for rejecting the null hypotheses (status quo, that is, no relationship, no trend, or what have you) in favor of concluding the alternative hypothesis (that there is a difference, a trend, etc.) is very rigorous, and reported in terms of confidence intervals arranged around a probability, balancing the tradeoff between committing a type-1 error (false positive; falsely concluding Ha when Ho is true; e.g., a pregnancy test that indicates you are pregnant when you are not) and a type-II error (false negative: falsely concluding Ho when Ha is true; e.g., a pregnancy test indicates you are not pregnant when in fact you are). Which is the more serious error?

For example, in say, psychology, the convention is that a valid result would be considered accurate 19 times out of 20, within a certain +/- deviation about the result (that is, type 1 error). This means that, factoring in chance variation, the same conclusion should be reached 95% of the time, under the same/similar circumstances. One can easily set the bar higher (e.g., with a larger sample size, or with more data observations), say to 99%, 99.9%, 99.9997% (i.e., six sigma level of confidence, which means incorrectly concluding the alternative hypothesis 3.4 times out of a million). Medical trials will often set a 99.9% probability of a type-1 error.

A critical aspect of theory testing is test-retest, under similar and different circumstances (boundary conditions, assumptions), often testing against competing theories (alternative explanations for phenomena). No single study could ever have the final word, neither could any ten or any hundred.

The corpus of research on climate change consists of many tens of thousands of studies on similar and widely different phenomena; the resulting body of evidence being very, very strongly in support of anthropogenic global warming.

This is not negotiable.

[koops65]

[QUOTE=Migs;7233690]Don't be so hard on yourself, I know it's tough believing in a religion where everything they tell you turns out to be wrong.

How's the ice in Antarctica these days? Are the polar bears extinct yet?QUOTE]

Wow... you do realize there are NO polar bears in Antarctica? Right?? What are you going to comment on next? About how all the supposed penguins in the Arctic are dying off?

It's impossible to take you seriously... after the sheer number of times you've cried wolf, I couldn't care less if you tell the truth for once...

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

the 2013 edition was in Warsaw

The biggest of all (15th UNFCCC Conference) was in Copenhagen (2009).

It was kind of hilarious when both those conferences had days where they were snowed out.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Any company can't do anything about it. Rounding error.
Any one person can't do anything about it. Rounding error.

What a fucking lousy reason to cop out.

It's not copping out. It is facing reality.

It would be a disaster if Canada risked introducing economy-crushing carbon taxes or cap-and-trade policies that cause all of its citizens to suffer through economic hardship, just so we can pat ourselves on the back at how noble we are. Meanwhile the environment does not get any cleaner.

[MrOilers]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

You know that air conditioning uses tons of energy too right?

Yeah, but that's less of a problem in Canada than the energy consumption during our dark, cold, long winters.

[koops65]

Well then it's a good thing that winters are likely to become brighter, warmer and shorter!

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

It was kind of hilarious when both those conferences had days where they were snowed out.

Would you be able to explain why that would be funny or relevant? Preferably in a way that doesn't rely on the assumption that the existence of snow/cold weather disproves climate change?

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Climate change is a reality but enviornmentalists have done themselves a great disservice over the last 30 years by claiming that every change in the weather is due to GHG emissions.

Earth is warming and GHG and pollution are certainly a contributing factor but not the sole or even primary reason. The fact is that ALL the planets in the solar system have been warming over the last 30 years. The reasons is that we all have one thing in common............the sun.

The sun has had a very strong level of solar flares in the last 50 years and it is warming our solar system and everything in it and there is a not a damn thing we can do about it except plan for the inevitable changes.

Earth is warming like all the other planets but the difference on Earth is us. The difference in what the planet would warm due to the Sun and what we are actually warming is due to human activity but not at all exclusively due to it. Many environmental groups ignore this fact and it undermines their credibility.

In order to deal with what we can change, there must be a concerted effort by all nations to reduce our GHG emissions and slow the trend as best we can. Regardless of a nation's total output, we are all in this together. Our Earth's health is the one sphere where being Bolivian, Indian, Finn, or Canadian doesn't make any difference........ were Earthlings and we have to think that way.

One thing that Canada can do, as Ontario has already done, is get rid of all coal-fired electricity generation. This has brought Ontario emissions below what they were in 1990.

Where Alberta and Sask justly earn the ire of the rest of the country is that they not only produce more GHG per person than anywhere else in the country but refuse to even try to reduce their emissions. Those 2 provinces {with NS} have the largest percentage of their electricity produced by coal yet are the 2 provinces in the last decade that had the fiscal ability to get rid of their coal produced electrical system and turn it over to hydro, natural gas, biomass, wind, solar etc.

Ontario was broke but still went ahead while Alberta and SK were rolling in the money and did absolutely nothing. Those 2 provinces have a black eye environmentally and it's one that they justly deserve. If any new climate deal disproportionately hurts them then it's because of their lack of action in the last 20 years.

We have a new natural gas power plant that was built in Calgary last year. Also see my previous article link about how Edmonton is the first city on earth to have an industrial scale bio fuel converter that eliminates most of their trash and turns it into energy. Also those fans that literally suck CO2 out of the air were invented in Calgary. Alberta also has a carbon tax. I make no excuses for the terrible mistakes of the previous PC government and the sorry state of the oilsands but we are by no means doing nothing about it.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by MrOilers

Yeah, but that's less of a problem in Canada than the energy consumption during our dark, cold, long winters.

We can stay warm and be able to see without being excessive. I'd imagine the majority of Canadians could cut their energy use/carbon footprint fairly substantially without sacrificing staying warm or keeping necessary lights on in the winter. Myself included.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

We have a new natural gas power plant that was built in Calgary last year. Also see my previous article link about how Edmonton is the first city on earth to have an industrial scale bio fuel converter that eliminates most of their trash and turns it into energy. Also those fans that literally suck CO2 out of the air were invented in Calgary. Alberta also has a carbon tax. I make no excuses for the terrible mistakes of the previous PC government and the sorry state of the oilsands but we are by no means doing nothing about it.

And the Notley government can be expected to do even more.