The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57751918

Those silly alarmist scientist calling some warm weather a once in a thousand year heat wave. Don't they know it's all just weather.

Those silly scientists who are so quick to scream fire that they don't even bother with even the most basic peer-review before publishing.

Here's a review of the article by Clifford Mass, a professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington and intimately familiar with the climate, weather and terrain of the Pacific Northwest.

A Technical Examination of The Heatwave Attribution Analysis

In the following sections, I will note a few of the major problems with this attribution study.

I should note that this research area is one in which I have an extensive background, having published several papers in peer-reviewed journals on Northwest heatwaves. Some of my papers are referenced in the report and one of the authors contacted me for advice and assistance.

As I shall demonstrate, the study is deeply flawed, does not support the claims in the headline bullets, and has serious scientific and other errors. If submitted to a journal for peer review, it would be rejected.

And there is more. They determined the probability of getting a similar extreme temperature event ANYWHERE on Earth (similar sized area, similar or greater magnitude). Importantly, they found that the probability of observing the event anywhere on Earth was MUCH higher (about 60 more chances each year because the June heatwave encompassed about 1.5% of the Earth). The return time of a similar extreme event somewhere on the planet was between once every 1.5 to 15 years. Thus, such black swan events occur somewhere quite frequently-- just not necessarily in the Pacific Northwest.

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2021/...-to-false.html

Like a lottery, you winning it specifically is unlikely, but anybody winning is not.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by lio45

Sure, but obviously, all else being equal, it's easier for a human to start a wildfire (accidentally or not) if the environment is bone dry and hotter than ever. It's also harder to stop these fires and/or keep them under control. That's where you see the effect of climate change.

Can one tease out the impact of climate change on the last 40 fire seasons in Canada, compared to weather, natural variation, other human influences and just plain luck?



What were the conditions that caused the 7+ million hectare burn seasons of the past?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Those silly scientists who are so quick to scream fire that they don't even bother with even the most basic peer-review before publishing.

Surely after complaining about a study that was not publish in a peer reviewed journal, you'd have sources that were from peer reviewed journals. Can you tell me which peer reviewed journal "blogspot" is a part of?

Also, a quick Google of Clifford Mass shows history as a guy who has quite the track record of being a concern troll. I suppose that is a step up from the usual denialism you push.

https://www.thestranger.com/slog/201...-weatherperson

[Truenorth00]

There's a great study out by Oxford, arguing that prioritizing active transport over electrification of cars is the best way to cut emissions. Should be obvious I suppose. But somebody had to study it I guess...

Globally, only one in 50 new cars were fully electric in 2020, and one in 14 in the UK. Sounds impressive, but even if all new cars sold were electric, it would still take 15-20 years to replace the world’s fossil fuel car fleet.

The emission savings from replacing all those internal combustion engines with zero-carbon alternatives will not feed in fast enough to make the necessary difference in the time we can spare: the next five years.

...In one study, we observed around 4,000 people living in the cities of London, Antwerp, Barcelona, Vienna, Orebro, Rome and Zurich. Over a two-year period, our participants completed 10,000 travel diary entries, which served as records of all the trips they made each day, whether going to work by train, taking the kids to school by car or riding the bus into town. For each trip, we calculated the carbon footprint.

Strikingly, the carbon footprint for daily travel is up to 84% smaller for people who walk or cycle than for people who use other modes of transport.

We also found the average person who shifted from car to bike for just one day a week cut their carbon footprint by 3.2kg of CO₂ – equivalent to the emissions from driving a car for 10km, eating a serving of lamb or chocolate, or sending 800 emails.

We found emissions from cycling can be more than 30 times lower for each trip than driving a fossil fuel car, and about ten times lower than driving an electric one.

...Nearly half the reductions in daily carbon emissions during global lockdowns in 2020 came from reductions in transport emissions. In the UK, walking and cycling have been the big winners, with a 20% rise in people walking regularly, and cycling has increased by 9% on weekdays and 58% on weekends compared to pre-pandemic levels. This is despite cycle commuters being very likely to work from home.

...Cities urgently need to create (more) safe cycling networks or free up some streets altogether for cycling and walking only. A recent German study using bicycle counters in 106 European cities showed that the 20 cities that had considerably increased their cycling network (on average by 11.5 km) during the COVID-19 pandemic and this saw an increase in cycling of 11%-40%, compared to those that did not.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-14...avel-essential

I've long argued that we should stop subsidizing EVs. I think any federal spending (beyond air and maritime) should be almost exclusively on transit and active transport infrastructure. Let the provinces stump for roads that create neverending fiscal liabilities.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

The first summer I remember being ruined by smoke was around ‘04/‘05 from the Castlegar fire. There have been many others since.

I'm not convinced your 20+ years of anecdotal experience trumps 150 years of recorded history which would suggest our Western Canadian climate hasn't so much changed from human influence as it has from moving into and out of its normal drought and fire cycle.

Here are some approximate 10-year averages for the whole country as of 1989.
Number of fires per year - 9500
Proportion caused by lightning - 35%
Area burned per year - 2 000 000 ha'
Proportion by lightning fire - 85%
Area burned annually as proportion of whole forest - 0.5%
These simple averages hide an immense amount of variation. For instance, the national burned area has ranged from 290 000 to 6 650 000 ha within the last 13 years, a ratio of 23 to 1.

That is, much of the Canadian forest is, in its natural state, dependent on periodic fire for its cyclic renewal and long-term stable existence.....The Canadian forest we know may be less than 10 000 years old, but it has clearly developed to its present species composition and arrangement under the continuous influence of random periodic fire.

https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.5558/tfc66133-2


Palliser's Triangle, or the Palliser Triangle, is a semi-arid steppe occupying a substantial portion of the Western Canadian Prairie Provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, within the Great Plains region. While initially determined to be unsuitable for crops outside of the fertile belt due to arid conditions and dry climate, expansionists questioned this assessment, leading to homesteading in the Triangle. Agriculture in the region has since suffered from frequent droughts and other such hindrances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by accord1999

I don't really care, the impact of possible changes in temperature whether from human causes or natural variation has been muted by technological and engineering advances and access to vast amounts of energy. It'll be far better to live in 2100 with lots energy and 3C warming then it is to live in 1900 with little energyh.


I support that people should be allowed to use energy based on their conscience and budget to enjoy life as they see fit.

And you don't really care that global warming is wreaking havoc on our ecosystems, will require hundreds of millions of people to relocate, and will ultimately be disastrous to economic growth?

I can't stand this insensitivity and undying selfishness.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

And you don't really care that global warming is wreaking havoc on our ecosystems, will require hundreds of millions of people to relocate, and will ultimately be disastrous to economic growth?

I can't stand this insensitivity and undying selfishness.

If you don't believe anthropogenic climate change is real, or at least can convince yourself it's all overblown, it's easy to think the consequences will be negligible or are overstated.

And there's a lot of folks whose assets or livelihood depend on then convincing themselves and others that is all hoopla.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

And you don't really care that global warming is wreaking havoc on our ecosystems, will require hundreds of millions of people to relocate, and will ultimately be disastrous to economic growth?

I can't stand this insensitivity and undying selfishness.

See this post:

Except we won't, so long as we have lots of cheap energy for keeping temperatures comfortable (whether its heating or cooling), mechanized agriculture, motorized transportation and shipping.

On the other hand, making energy expensive does kill people today.

We'll be fine because we have air conditioning. Never mind developing countries or wildlife, or the entire fucking ocean ecosystem. Also, people die in winter because energy is too expensive, but please ignore the prohibitive cost of AC or the fact that the recent heatwave that hit BC killed more people in a week than Covid and overdoses combined.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...aths-1.6088793

He is clearly a psychopath. Anyone who is that callous is missing a part of their functioning brain.

[Truenorth00]

This is why I was asking if they legitimately believe this shit. Or it's an act. We have our answer I guess....

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by jawagord

I'm not convinced your 20+ years of anecdotal experience trumps 150 years of recorded history which would suggest our Western Canadian climate hasn't so much changed from human influence as it has from moving into and out of its normal drought and fire cycle.

Here are some approximate 10-year averages for the whole country as of 1989.
Number of fires per year - 9500
Proportion caused by lightning - 35%
Area burned per year - 2 000 000 ha'
Proportion by lightning fire - 85%
Area burned annually as proportion of whole forest - 0.5%
These simple averages hide an immense amount of variation. For instance, the national burned area has ranged from 290 000 to 6 650 000 ha within the last 13 years, a ratio of 23 to 1.

That is, much of the Canadian forest is, in its natural state, dependent on periodic fire for its cyclic renewal and long-term stable existence.....The Canadian forest we know may be less than 10 000 years old, but it has clearly developed to its present species composition and arrangement under the continuous influence of random periodic fire.

https://pubs.cif-ifc.org/doi/pdf/10.5558/tfc66133-2


Palliser's Triangle, or the Palliser Triangle, is a semi-arid steppe occupying a substantial portion of the Western Canadian Prairie Provinces, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, within the Great Plains region. While initially determined to be unsuitable for crops outside of the fertile belt due to arid conditions and dry climate, expansionists questioned this assessment, leading to homesteading in the Triangle. Agriculture in the region has since suffered from frequent droughts and other such hindrances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison

I don't see the hard data that you claim to be sharing about the past 150 years. What does an arid region of the prairie have to do with more frequent wildfires in the mountains? You can dismiss my anecdotal evidence if you like, but having lived in Alberta my entire life I have witnessed a marked increase in seasonal forest fire smoke, 2 "once a century" floods in the span of 8 years, more frequent and severe thunderstorms with larger hail stones, much warmer winters with less -20 days per year and more extreme weather events than usual (which says a lot living in Calgary). Deny all you want but the billions of dollars in insurance claims over the last decade are hard facts. Calgary and Alberta in general have seen the most expensive natural disasters in the entire country.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is why I was asking if they legitimately believe this shit. Or it's an act. We have our answer I guess....

I see some trolls like MIGS who seem to do things to get a rise out of people, but this guy is off his rocker. He seems to generally not give 2 shits about anything except his wallet (which is shortsighted because Climate Change will be more disruptive to the economy than the pandemic was).

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Stage 1: Deny the Problem Exists
Stage 2: Deny We're the Cause
Stage 2b: Consensus Denial
Stage 3: Deny It's a Problem
Stage 4: Deny We can Solve It
Stage 5: It's too Late

And Stage 6: any or all of the above, to suit your utterly callous, selfish purpose.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I don't see the hard data that you claim to be sharing about the past 150 years. What does an arid region of the prairie have to do with more frequent wildfires in the mountains? You can dismiss my anecdotal evidence if you like, but having lived in Alberta my entire life I have witnessed a marked increase in seasonal forest fire smoke, 2 "once a century" floods in the span of 8 years, more frequent and severe thunderstorms with larger hail stones, much warmer winters with less -20 days per year and more extreme weather events than usual (which says a lot living in Calgary).

You're doing it wrong. You're supposed to look at each weather event in isolation. Remember weather is not climate. Even when it starts happening more frequently....

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Deny all you want but the billions of dollars in insurance claims over the last decade are hard facts. Calgary and Alberta in general have seen the most expensive natural disasters in the entire country.

I'm a big proponent of vastly limiting federal disaster assistance for this reason. Bailing out folks who don't take climate change seriously is simply throwing good money after bad. And I say this as somebody living in Doug Ford's Ontario.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I see some trolls like MIGS who seem to do things to get a rise out of people, but this guy is off his rocker. He seems to generally not give 2 shits about anything except his wallet (which is shortsighted because Climate Change will be more disruptive to the economy than the pandemic was).

Yeah. It's hard to imagine people legitimately being that psychopathic. These are good reminders they exist.

I'm curious to see how opinions change as insurance starts going up in the Prairies.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm a big proponent of vastly limiting federal disaster assistance for this reason. Bailing out folks who don't take climate change seriously is simply throwing good money after bad. And I say this as somebody living in Doug Ford's Ontario.

I can appreciate the perceived irony of oil producing regions such as Alberta and Texas being the victims of climate change related weather events, but this is also callous and short sighted. To move beyond oil and gas you're going to need places like Alberta to start massively producing hydrogen with our existing infrastructure. This is already beginning to happen. Both Alberta and Texas are also home to some of the largest renewable energy projects in North America. There are massive solar farms and wind farms being built.

Lastly, these conservative strongholds are beginning to shift demographically. Texas is turning purple and Alberta is likely to replace the historically unpopular UCP with the NDP next election. The fight to save the Eastern Slopes from coal mines challenges presumptions about BC being an environmental leader and AB being a laggard as the other side of the border is a disaster while rural Albertans are fighting to protect water and preserve habitat. Seeing the uprising has been incredible and has given me a renewed sense of hope. Jason Kenney made backdoor deals with Australian companies and is being forced to stall and retreat. I have never seen anything like it.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yeah. It's hard to imagine people legitimately being that psychopathic. These are good reminders they exist.

I'm curious to see how opinions change as insurance starts going up in the Prairies.

Auto insurance has gone up significantly this year thanks to Premier McCheesburger lifting insurance caps. He is also contemplating no fault insurance. He is the most corrupt politician that I have seen besides Donald Trump.

[rofina]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But that is generally the problem with climate change. It's an accelerant and multiplier.

Qualifier; I believe in climate change, I think its insanely common sense, and I think the last few thousand years have been a climate stability aberration that will cease, or probably already has ceased to exist.

That aside.

Climate change has been worn out by well meaning but misguided people.

Folks are tuning out when the only attributable cause to everything is always climate change.

Why is there an increase in fires;

1. Human development encroaching on more and more fire prone areas.
2. Increased human activity in the woods. Population growth.
3. Poor forest management, lack of small fires for decades, and poor clean up have left too much material to burn, and allow it to burn too hot
4. Climate change is causing drier and drier conditions that promote hotter and faster spreading fires

So is climate change contributing? Zero doubt in my mind.

But there is also a lot we can do long before we start talking about climate change when it comes to this particular instance.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

I can appreciate the perceived irony of oil producing regions such as Alberta and Texas being the victims of climate change related weather events, but this is also callous and short sighted.

It's not the fact that these places have extraction economies. Nobody does or should begrudge them developing what they have. Trudeau himself said that no country would sit on that much oil.

What is very much problematic is them basically exporting denialism. Complete with a taxpayer funded war room. I'm pissed that I don't have a conservative option to vote for because the CPC has become the CAPP's bitch, thanks to a member and donor base that is heavily concentrated in the Prairies.

And then you get the really stupid stuff locally where they won't update flood or fire maps because they don't want to admit that climate change is really. If that's the case, we really should ask whether federal dollars should bail them out. At least Alberta's municipalities aren't bad on this front.

I'm a firm believer that we should help out oil producing regions transition economically. But that has to be met with a willingness to accept reality.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by rofina

But there is also a lot we can do long before we start talking about climate change when it comes to this particular instance.

Climate change isn't just about forest fires though. Like I said, it's an accelerant and multiplier. So if you get fires, they start getting more frequent and severe. Ditto if you're a region that gets floods. Etc. And that is why we talk about climate change. Because the effects are global. None of that should mean you ignore your local problem, like forest management in BC.

[MolsonExport]

But there is also a lot we can do long before we start talking about climate change when it comes to this particular instance.

in other words, we should keep kicking the can farther down the road so we can avoid doing anything about it until it is too late.