HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2017, 9:39 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanSpice View Post
With climate change comes higher sea levels, so the salt wedge would gradually extend further and further up the Fraser, which means that this irrigation intake becomes less useful for irrigation water, so farms would have to get fresh water from some other source.
Not something we'll have to worry about for at least another 100 years.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2017, 9:56 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Not something we'll have to worry about for at least another 100 years.
You seem to consistently make predictions that things will take longer (status quo). With the West Antartic Sheet in its current state most models will need to be changed significantly iirc.

In general this isn't a good policy, it's the difference between being proactive and reactive, you don't want to just start doing something once it becomes a serious problem, you want to have plans at the very least so you can move more quickly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2017, 10:06 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
You seem to consistently make predictions that things will take longer (status quo). With the West Antartic Sheet in its current state most models will need to be changed significantly iirc.

In general this isn't a good policy, it's the difference between being proactive and reactive, you don't want to just start doing something once it becomes a serious problem, you want to have plans at the very least so you can move more quickly.
From the OP linked article:
Quote:
Reduced flows on the Fraser combined with rising ocean levels will allow salt to expand its reach upriver to Pattullo Bridge by 2050, he added.
So worst case, to Langley/Lower Pitt?

There was a proposal some time ago that Fraser Valley Farmers wanted access to Stave Lake for Irrigation water...


Also:
Quote:
Quote:
Ted van der Gulik, a former senior engineer in the Ministry of Agriculture who is president of Partnership for Water Sustainability in B.C., notes that the longer growing season and hotter weather will increase the need for irrigation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2017, 10:39 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
You seem to consistently make predictions that things will take longer (status quo).
No, my predictions are that climate charge alarmists are full of bullshit and the science isn't settle on how much human activity contributes to climate change. Is it 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%? And how much would even the most aggressive actions mitigate climate change? Again, by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 1, 2017, 10:54 PM
CanSpice's Avatar
CanSpice CanSpice is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New Westminster, BC
Posts: 1,005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
Not something we'll have to worry about for at least another 100 years.
Well, there's another factor at play as well. When the Massey Tunnel is removed, that opens up the Fraser to being dredged, and there was a study done that showed that if the Fraser is dredged the salt wedge would move upstream further. I think the "as far as the Pattullo Bridge" statement that was quoted above does not take this into account, so it could move even further upstream. And the Massey Tunnel will be removed a lot sooner than 100 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 2:09 PM
fredinno fredinno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
No, my predictions are that climate charge alarmists are full of bullshit and the science isn't settle on how much human activity contributes to climate change. Is it 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%? And how much would even the most aggressive actions mitigate climate change? Again, by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-w...al-or-manmade/
Quote:
You would think that we’d know the Earth’s ‘climate sensitivity’ by now, but it has been surprisingly difficult to determine. How atmospheric processes like clouds and precipitation systems respond to warming is critical, as they are either amplifying the warming, or reducing it. This website currently concentrates on the response of clouds to warming, an issue which I am now convinced the scientific community has totally misinterpreted when they have measured natural, year-to-year fluctuations in the climate system. As a result of that confusion, they have the mistaken belief that climate sensitivity is high, when in fact the satellite evidence suggests climate sensitivity is low.
We don't know. Short term climate is heavily influenced by short term weather and climatic patterns. We know the general direction is up, and why it is (for the most part).

We can't predict exact dates, or temperatures- because doing so requires a level of sensitivity and accuracy current instruments can't do.

It's like how people predicted the '08 economic crisis, but no one knew exact when it was going to happen, and where. Turns out it blew up when Lehman Bros and Northern Rock collapsed in September. But no one could predict that exact day. It could have been any other major Wall St or British bank.


Look at it this way. Say you got fat. Back in the day, you didn't realize it because your weight fluctuated over the years, but the general direction is up. And so one day, you wake up, and you're fat. You get the idea?


Looking at Climate Change in the scale of a few decades fuels climate skepticism for this reason. Short Term patterns are difficult to extrapolate to long terms, and Long Term patterns are difficult to interpolate to short terms.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 3:20 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
I'm not asking to predict an exact day, I know that's impossible which is why I never take the "in 25 years x will happen" alarmist BS spun by the climate change lobby.

All I'm asking is if human activity is the cause of climate change, how much of it does it cause? 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

What would the weather be like if humans didn't exist? We know that climate changes in cycles, but how much would it have changed without humans?

If we actually implement the most aggressive actions to mitigate climate change, how much will it achieve? Will it reduce effects by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

No climate change proponent can answer any of those questions.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 4:32 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 629
Obv the climate is always changing no scientist would deny that but, given that the current rate of change (i.e since we decided to start burning fossil fuels en mass ~ industrial revolution) is an order of magnitude greater than anything that has been seen in the past it shouldn't take a scientist to approximate that we are having a significant impact. Obviously Climate Change is not something we can easily predict, but just cursing and blaming the "climate change lobby" seems like you are just trying to invalidate that we are the primary culprit.

Just because you can't draw a line and give an exact measurement doesn't mean we shouldn't act, our ability to mitigate climate change like much of what we do as humans falls on a gradient. If I build a new bridge I can't say for certain how the traffic will look or the effects it will have, however I know the direction it will push things and that is sufficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 4:38 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
I'm not asking to predict an exact day, I know that's impossible which is why I never take the "in 25 years x will happen" alarmist BS spun by the climate change lobby.

All I'm asking is if human activity is the cause of climate change, how much of it does it cause? 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

What would the weather be like if humans didn't exist? We know that climate changes in cycles, but how much would it have changed without humans?

If we actually implement the most aggressive actions to mitigate climate change, how much will it achieve? Will it reduce effects by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

No climate change proponent can answer any of those questions.
I'm curious...is the primary motivation of the anti-climate change advocates one that is based on short-term economic losses/liabilities?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 4:39 PM
Alex Mackinnon's Avatar
Alex Mackinnon Alex Mackinnon is offline
Can I has a tunnel?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Strathcona
Posts: 1,521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
I'm not asking to predict an exact day, I know that's impossible which is why I never take the "in 25 years x will happen" alarmist BS spun by the climate change lobby.

All I'm asking is if human activity is the cause of climate change, how much of it does it cause? 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

What would the weather be like if humans didn't exist? We know that climate changes in cycles, but how much would it have changed without humans?

If we actually implement the most aggressive actions to mitigate climate change, how much will it achieve? Will it reduce effects by 100%, 70%, 50%, 5%?

No climate change proponent can answer any of those questions.
Probably all of it. Almost everything I've read suggested that without anthropogenic CO2 we'd probably be nearing a new ice age.

The thing about natural sources of greenhouse gases is that they're generally prone to stabilise and be sequester at roughly the same rate as they're released. CO2 released by geology also tends to be balanced out by the sequestered CO2 for instance.
__________________
"It's ok, I'm an engineer!" -Famous last words
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 4:53 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 629
In general all these questions can be answered. I think this whole ideology of "without absolute certainty we cannot make a decision" is very dangerous. When all the data points to humans having a major impact on creating the problem of climate change there isnt much debate to be had (though dont tell US Republicans this). And since we created this problem it naturally follows that we can fix it.

Even if the overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus isnt adequately convincing, what skim of your back is it to at least make small adjustments and include minor measures to care for such eventualities?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 4:55 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
I'm curious...is the primary motivation of the anti-climate change advocates one that is based on short-term economic losses/liabilities?
Lots of countries and corporations who are introducing significant policies to fight climate change are incredibly financially successful, just look at Apple, Walmart, STATOIL and Germany. Obviously climate change mitigation policy and financial success are no longer mutually exclusive.

I think it's often just a line of thought where people want to believe that we as humans can't impact the planet and that we are not so powerful. I think alot of major projects humanity has developed would disagree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 5:15 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Lots of countries and corporations who are introducing significant policies to fight climate change are incredibly financially successful, just look at Apple, Walmart, STATOIL and Germany. Obviously climate change mitigation policy and financial success are no longer mutually exclusive.

I think it's often just a line of thought where people want to believe that we as humans can't impact the planet and that we are not so powerful. I think alot of major projects humanity has developed would disagree.
Yes, in recent years the critical mass of "green" technologies has made the climate change (business) paradigm profitable. But many holding on to the old carbon based technologies (e.g. coal and oil companies/conventional hydrocarbon combustion cars etc.) still may see climate change as a threat (to their survival).

Last edited by Caliplanner1; Mar 2, 2017 at 5:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 5:50 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,622
My favorite view on this debate:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 5:53 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon View Post
Probably all of it. Almost everything I've read suggested that without anthropogenic CO2 we'd probably be nearing a new ice age.
I find that very hard to believe. So in the 150 years of intense human industrial activity we've managed to stop an ice age from beginning?

Other scientists say that the climate would be more like it was around 1700, not having changed much since then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
I'm curious...is the primary motivation of the anti-climate change advocates one that is based on short-term economic losses/liabilities?
I don't deny that the climate is changing. I just don't buy into the alarmist and exaggerated claims coming from the climate change lobby. And I still haven't gotten a straight answer with scientific backing on how much of climate change is man-made. Nor have I gotten a straight answer with any scientific backing on how much any of what the climate change lobby wants to impose on us through taxation and more government control will actually achieve.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 5:54 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
My favorite view on this debate:

That's such a silly and dumb view of the debate.

No one on either side is opposed to clean water and air, or sustainability, or preserving the environment.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 5:56 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reecemartin View Post
Lots of countries and corporations who are introducing significant policies to fight climate change are incredibly financially successful, just look at Apple, Walmart, STATOIL and Germany.
Funny that you add Germany to that list. Germany's green energy drive has been a huge failure, especially for German consumers. Germany now imports huge amount of electricity most days, and on windy sunny days reeks havoc on neighboring electrical grids such as Poland and Czechia. Their nuclear phaseout plans also mean they're burning more coal now.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 10:12 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
I find that very hard to believe. So in the 150 years of intense human industrial activity we've managed to stop an ice age from beginning?

Other scientists say that the climate would be more like it was around 1700, not having changed much since then.


I don't deny that the climate is changing. I just don't buy into the alarmist and exaggerated claims coming from the climate change lobby. And I still haven't gotten a straight answer with scientific backing on how much of climate change is man-made. Nor have I gotten a straight answer with any scientific backing on how much any of what the climate change lobby wants to impose on us through taxation and more government control will actually achieve.
Just because something may not be intuitive to you doesn't mean it's not true. The whole idea that people are being alarmist makes no sense when climate change will lead to more serious weather events, extinctions, ocean acidification and sea level rise- all things we are seeing and all day alarming.

The idea that we can't have a big impact on our planet is totally false. Consider the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, coupled with reduced carbon storage as forests are cut down and droughts and wildfires become common. The idea that we can seriously impact atmospheric CO2 isn't unreasonable, especially considering how minor a change would be needed to throw everything out of whack.

Germany's problems with renewables stem from a lack of storage something which has just recently reached utility scale for batteries.

In the end the picture that was posted makes the entire point, transitioning to a cleaner economy has no net negatives, so not doing so isnt justifiable even if you are a climate change denier (when we discuss climate change we are really discussing Anthropogenic climate change)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 11:04 PM
Caliplanner1 Caliplanner1 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jebby View Post
I find that very hard to believe. So in the 150 years of intense human industrial activity we've managed to stop an ice age from beginning?
...so in 150 years has mankind been able to destroy the world with the fruits of modern industrialization in the form (for example) of nuclear weapons technology etc.??
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Mar 2, 2017, 11:30 PM
Jebby's Avatar
Jebby Jebby is online now
Make America Great Again!
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 3,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caliplanner1 View Post
...so in 150 years has mankind been able to destroy the world with the fruits of modern industrialization in the form (for example) of nuclear weapons technology etc.??
No, we haven't.
__________________
In the heart of a busy metropolis skyscrapers are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
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 > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:13 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.