The Climate Change Discussion Thread

[OldDartmouthMark]

The key point I keep picking up in this thread and other climate change debates on the internet is that people seem quick to either confirm or deny that any particular weather/environment event or trend is related to 'climate change' based on opinion rather than fact.

So, while it is difficult to find absolute proof that any particular phenomenon is a symptom of climate change, it's hard to deny that there seems to be a lot of unusual things going on with such things as the weather, ice melting patterns, forest fires, global average temperatures, species of animals going extinct, etc.

From a layman's perspective, it appears that there has been 'more stuff' going on related to weather and environment in the last decade or so. While we could possibly attribute some of it to increased awareness, or 'media frenzy', it seems that most of us can pick out some things from our everyday experiences that seem to have changed in recent times.

It seems to me that every time some weather/environment phenomena is reported or discussed online, there is some speculation that it is related to climate change, which is typically followed up by some explanation on why this particular phenomena has suddenly changed, or some general statement that nothing has changed because somewhere in history it has happened before. Then of course it is often accompanied by attempt to denigrate the poster who suggested that climate change has come into play.

From where I stand, I haven't seen any clear evidence-based proof that climate change isn't happening, just numerous convenient explanations for particular phenomena. IMHO, some of those reasons given could absolutely be factors in each occurrence, but don't appear to be proof that they are actually the only cause.

Lately I have become overwhelmed by the sheer number of different occurrences that seem to have ballooned in recent times and have to ask myself how we can conclude that these occurrences are not due to some overall change that is occurring on our planet? Or, how can having a population of over 7.5 billion people on the planet, each of us having access to some form of technology that adds something to the atmosphere, not have some effect on the environment?

I don't have any easy answers to these questions, and from what I've read it doesn't seem like anybody else does either...

[Chadillaccc]

What he said.

[TownGuy]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That's wild. I'm from there and never had any idea that Ontario had native cacti. Alberta does as well, but they're just everywhere in the southern 1/3 so it's hard to miss them.

Yep. These are native to Ontario, and as I said, their range is limited not by climate but rather habitat loss. Otherwise they would ring the shores of the Lower Great Lakes, specifically Lake Erie, where they are still found.

[240glt]

Something is changing, no doubt. As I kid I barely remember major fires in BC. There have always been forest fires but the size and intensity of those fires seem to be growing. Now it's almost a foregone conclusion that every summer there will be a major wildfire issue somewhere in the province.

I also remember growing up in the Okanagan, having fairly cold and snow winters. Now for at least the last 10-15 years, winters seem to have gotten a lot milder with a lot less snow.

Things are definitely changing and I think it's important to keep thinking about. As posted above, it's hard to determine exactly what is causing this but I think we need to be aware that things are changing, denial is not an option.

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

Yep. These are native to Ontario, and as I said, their range is limited not by climate but rather habitat loss. Otherwise they would ring the shores of the Lower Great Lakes, specifically Lake Erie, where they are still found.

Very cool, they look similar to the prickly pear cactus we have endemic here.


https://www.bigdoer.com/33837/explor...en-door-ranch/

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Eau Claire

So everyone knows that the forest fires have nothing to do with climate change, right? Good. Once again, we’re warming at a rate of between 0.02 and 0.03 C per year. The IPCC didn’t pick the end of the century, 80 years from now, as it’s deadline because we’re at some kind of crisis point today. 50 to 80 years x 0.03C may well add up to a problem towards the end of the century, but not today.

I'm sure you know that a ton of carbon emitted today doesn't result in 100% of it's greenhouse effect tomorrow right? Heat builds over time, and will continue to build even if no more carbon is emitted.

The carbon emissions that humans have caused will take centuries to be removed from the atmosphere through natural processes.

Carbon sequestration and storage, even if possible on a gigaton scale, could also have unforeseen impacts on the environment.

What if carbon capture becomes cheap and profitable? Some asshole companies will suck every last drop out of the air and kill all the plants.

Focusing on the conversion to renewable, non-carbon emitting energy sources should be the #1 priority.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What if carbon capture becomes cheap and profitable? Some asshole companies will suck every last drop out of the air and kill all the plants.

Carbon capture will only be profitable with carbon pricing, so if we ever ended up in that situation we could just reduce the payment. We can worry about that problem later, but it's more likely we'll have incinerated the planet before we find out what the solution is to it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Carbon capture will only be profitable with carbon pricing, so if we ever ended up in that situation we could just reduce the payment. We can worry about that problem later, but it's more likely we'll have incinerated the planet before we find out what the solution is to it.

Not if it produces a product. Syngas and some type of concrete block have both been suggested. The inputs for these products would be free carbon floating around in the air.

I know I'm being extreme, but the point is that sometimes a technological solution can have unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem being solved.

[milomilo]

It seems unrealistic that expending energy to make gas when we could just take it out the ground could ever be profitable, unless we invent nuclear fusion or much cheaper renewable energy. But even so, that's a massively simpler problem to solve than stopping emissions (just burn coal), if we end up with that being the biggest problem we have then things will have gone far better than imaginable. I take your point about unintended consequences, but if we worry about that unknown unknowns too much then we could never do anything.

[Glacier]

Originally Posted by 240glt

Something is changing, no doubt. As I kid I barely remember major fires in BC. There have always been forest fires but the size and intensity of those fires seem to be growing. Now it's almost a foregone conclusion that every summer there will be a major wildfire issue somewhere in the province.

I also remember growing up in the Okanagan, having fairly cold and snow winters. Now for at least the last 10-15 years, winters seem to have gotten a lot milder with a lot less snow.

Things are definitely changing and I think it's important to keep thinking about. As posted above, it's hard to determine exactly what is causing this but I think we need to be aware that things are changing, denial is not an option.

The most annoying cliché in use today is "denial is not an option." Don't use it again.

Something is changing no doubt. Yes, and 30 years ago when you'd talk to old native elders they would tell stories about hunting in the Okanagan region in the 1920s and coming across an animal we call the moose, and no one knew what it was. This is because there was no moose in southwestern BC or Washington State before 1920. So, yes, things always change. No one denies that.

When people say "denial is not an option" they really mean that they put forward a bunch of anecdotes, and then demand that no one questions them. That is really annoying, especially for those who are intellectually curious.

You talk about growing up in the Okanagan and not seeing much in the way of fires. Well, that's because you probably grew up in the 1970s, 80s, or 90s... the three decades with the least amount of fire activity on record. Prior to 1943 the forest used to burn once every 15 years. At the rate we've seen over the past two years, we could be on pace to see this again going forward.

There's no question that 2017 and 2018 were off the charts crazy in terms of fire, but you cannot pick a couple of years and call it the new normal. The flood of 1894 was off the charts crazy. The cold of 1949 and 1950 was off the charts crazy. The heat of 1941 was off the charts crazy. The extreme cold snaps in the fall of 1985 was off the charts crazy. The extreme snowpack of 1971, 72, 74, and 75 were off the charts crazy. The extreme snowpack of 1999 was also off the charts crazy. The flooding of 2018 was off the charts crazy.

You get crazy extremes all the time every year. In fact, if you take, let's say precipitation, temperature (max and min), flooding, and drought, with 2000 stations in Canada measuring precipitation and temperature, and 1000 places measuring flooding and drought, with the average station being in existence 50 years, you will on average have 160 new daily records every single day!

[SaskScraper]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Very cool, they look similar to the prickly pear cactus we have endemic here.


https://www.bigdoer.com/33837/explor...en-door-ranch/

There are a few Cacti species native to Canada and are ubiquitous on The Prairies. Agricultural cultivation has restricted it's habitat extensively, but in conservation areas or provincial parks they can be found, Dakota Dunes golf course by Saskatoon city limits has them flourishing in the rough off of fairways for example.
Cacti are found as far north as Peace River region in northern Alberta not far from NWT.

There are two types of cacti that have been identified in Ontario. Little Prickly Pear ranging from BC eastward to Whitshell Provincial Park, Manitoba, & do have a few sites in northwestern Ontario and one site in eastern Ontario (Mellon Creek, 150 km southwest of Ottawa).

Eastern Prickly Pear is restricted to a few isolated spots in extreme southern Ontario. The main threat to Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus is habitat loss due to shoreline erosion and shading by trees and shrubs. Ontario cacti rarely produce fruit and, instead, reproduce chiefly through pads breaking off parent plants and taking root nearby. Although very rare in Canada, the Eastern Prickly Pear Cactus is very common in the eastern United States where it is considered widespread, abundant and even weedy.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/eastern-prickly-pear-cactus

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Glacier

The most annoying cliché in use today is "denial is not an option." Don't use it again.

I don't recall hearing that term used all that often, but okay there smart guy

When people say "denial is not an option" they really mean that they put forward a bunch of anecdotes, and then demand that no one questions them. That is really annoying, especially for those who are intellectually curious.

No, it means that I don't think we can continue to deny that climate change exists, and need to spend some more time looking into causes and effects, rising CO2 levels, and they myriad of other phenomena that are well documented that are very possibly the result of our climate changing. If you can't read into that then I don't think you're intellectually curious, more like intellectually stunted. You've gone to extreme lengths to try & explain away why there is no phenomena and I don't believe that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Andy6

Well, it is some evidence of it, but not very much. It’s certainly proof, if any were needed, that a warmer climate is consistent with prolonged periods of cooler weather than was normal even before the warming. Being now able to think back over more than 50 years, the weather we get now seems to be the same as it always was. Maybe that’s not quite true statistically, but if so the difference is beneath the level of ordinary human perception, at least for me.

It isn’t proof of anything. If I take 50 shots from the three point line and one goes in, it isn’t proof of my balling abilities, it is a statistical aberration.

[Glacier]

Originally Posted by 240glt

I don't recall hearing that term used all that often, but okay there smart guy



No, it means that I don't think we can continue to deny that climate change exists, and need to spend some more time looking into causes and effects, rising CO2 levels, and they myriad of other phenomena that are well documented that are very possibly the result of our climate changing. If you can't read into that then I don't think you're intellectually curious, more like intellectually stunted. You've gone to extreme lengths to try & explain away why there is no phenomena and I don't believe that.

No one denies climate change exists. Next up we also need to stop denying that the sky is blue. the intellectually stunted folks like to use to phrase "the time for denial is over" right after listing a bunch of things totally unrelated to climate change as a way of trying to get others who see the scientific flaws in the statement to just shut up.

[240glt]

Originally Posted by Glacier

No one denies climate change exists. Next up we also need to stop denying that the sky is blue. the intellectually stunted folks like to use to phrase "the time for denial is over" right after listing a bunch of things totally unrelated to climate change as a way of trying to get others who see the scientific flaws in the statement to just shut up.

I really don’t even know how to respond to that

I don’t know where you’ve been but lots of people deny that climate change exists.

What’s your point ?

[Eau Claire]

Facts and logic are key to separating the truth from the fearmongering with this issue, and that starts with looking deeper than just surface level plausibility. For example, in the US the Birther movement claimed that Obama was born in Nigeria. Obama’s father was born in Nigeria so on the surface it seems plausible that Obama may have been as well, but when you look deeper you find that he was not. There are records and witnesses that prove he was born in Hawaii. A similar tactic is being used by the fearmongering element in this case. A frequent claim is that “we are experiencing significantly hotter and dryer weather” and that this is causing fires. So let’s look closer, and let’s look at the recent Alberta fires in High Level, Ft. McMurray, and Slave Lake as an example. Here again is the hard evidence:
https://abrecords.cfapps.io

While it is true that northern Alberta and indeed all of Alberta has gotten warmer overall since 1950, most of that change has come in the winter, and the summers have been mostly very similar. It’s also important to note that northern Alberta is quite cool to begin with. The High Level area has an average annual temperature about 5C cooler than Calgary’s. More importantly the precipitation in Northern Alberta is overall about the same, and in some places including High Level it’s actually a bit higher, and most of that difference is coming in the spring and summer. In fact almost all of Alberta is wetter now in the spring.

So the claims that these areas are significantly hotter and dryer and thereby causing fires, on closer inspection, turn out to be false. They are just fearmongering. Otoh, we know every well that spring is a high risk time for fires. In spring there is a window after the snow melts and before the forest “greens up”, before the leaves come out and the sap starts flowing, where the risk of fire is very high. There is some new science in this area as well, however:
https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/projects/...ontent-and-its

Risk does not equal fire, however. Every year during this spring window large areas are at high risk of fire, but most don’t burn because there is no point if ignition. And what we know about both the Slave Lake and Ft. McMurray fires is that they were started by man. I don’t think they’ve said what started the High Level fire. This is the elephant in the room that people aren’t talking about, and maybe for good reason. Are there extremists out there who would set these fires to try to drive fear of climate change? This is a big reason why it’s so important that the media debunk the myth and make it very clear that these fires are NOT caused by climate change.

[Eau Claire]

Point 2. If you think you seen a lot of climate change related issues in the last 10 years then you’ve probably been mislead by the almost incessant hysteria during that time. Climate change is a very slow process. Once again, remember that just 4 years ago at the Paris conference a target was set of 2C warming by the end of the century, that’s 2100, 85 years from then and still 80 years from now. Why do you think they picked that date? It’s not because we’re at any kind of crisis point today in 2019. I should qualify that. We are at a crisis point in that we need to be working on this problem now, as we are and as I’ve been showing in this thread, but we’re NOT at a crisis point in terms of the current impacts of climate change, and the repeated attempts to suggest we are are really only making a mockery of the issue. A normal functioning press wouldn’t be allowing this to happen, but our press is in a state of crisis these days, and rather than debunking it they’ve joined in and are feeding on the fear.

[Eau Claire]

So, while it is difficult to find absolute proof that any particular phenomenon is a symptom of climate change, it's hard to deny that there seems to be a lot of unusual things going on with such things as the weather, ice melting patterns, forest fires, global average temperatures, species of animals going extinct, etc.

Actually a lot of proof on a lot of issues is not hard to find, if you look that is. It should be much easier for find, of course, because it should be all over the mainstream media, but it’s not. Melting ice is an issue with respect to the possible melting of the polar ice caps, which would lead to sea rise, but that is decades way. The causes of the forest fire issue, in north American at least, are known and climate change is not a major factor. See the previous discussion and links in this thread. Climate change is also not a major factor in the extinction issue, at least not today. Overfishing, deforestation, human encroachment on wild areas, invasive species brought to new places by man, and plastics and other chemicals being released into the environment are some of the major causes.

It seems to me that every time some weather/environment phenomena is reported or discussed online, there is some speculation that it is related to climate change, which is typically followed up by some explanation on why this particular phenomena has suddenly changed, or some general statement that nothing has changed because somewhere in history it has happened before. Then of course it is often accompanied by attempt to denigrate the poster who suggested that climate change has come into play.

I think you’re being selective with your interpretation here. You will have noticed that everything is being blamed on climate change these days – to the point where it has become a farce, in fact – and one of the issues there is that there generally ISN’T any kind of explanation for why a given incident is related to climate change. Or if there is it’s some kind of generic statement like “hotter and dryer, therefore more fires” which often isn’t even true. Especially on this issue it’s very important to demand facts and logic. And with respect to the attacks, it’s the fear industry that’s doing the most egregious forms of that. I know that David Keith has been attacked mercilessly by “environmental groups” that don’t favour the solutions he’s working on. I read another one of these articles on a fairly prominent website just a few weeks ago.

From where I stand, I haven't seen any clear evidence-based proof that climate change isn't happening, just numerous convenient explanations for particular phenomena. IMHO, some of those reasons given could absolutely be factors in each occurrence, but don't appear to be proof that they are actually the only cause.

I’m curious who you’ve been reading these days who says that climate change isn’t happening.

Lately I have become overwhelmed by the sheer number of different occurrences that seem to have ballooned in recent times and have to ask myself how we can conclude that these occurrences are not due to some overall change that is occurring on our planet? Or, how can having a population of over 7.5 billion people on the planet, each of us having access to some form of technology that adds something to the atmosphere, not have some effect on the environment?

I don't have any easy answers to these questions, and from what I've read it doesn't seem like anybody else does either...

The point of the media barrage by the fear industry is exactly to overwhelm and to manipulate you through emotion, without facts. But the facts are out there, so when you’re feeling overwhelmed do some digging, and you’re feel a lot better. We’re not at a point where I’d say it’s problem solved, but we’re making great progress, and we have been for 10 years at least in various ways. But you won’t have read about that in the mainstream media, and that’s a problem.

[Eau Claire]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm sure you know that a ton of carbon emitted today doesn't result in 100% of it's greenhouse effect tomorrow right? Heat builds over time, and will continue to build even if no more carbon is emitted.

The carbon emissions that humans have caused will take centuries to be removed from the atmosphere through natural processes.

Carbon sequestration and storage, even if possible on a gigaton scale, could also have unforeseen impacts on the environment.

What if carbon capture becomes cheap and profitable? Some asshole companies will suck every last drop out of the air and kill all the plants.

Focusing on the conversion to renewable, non-carbon emitting energy sources should be the #1 priority.

Yes, and this is why it’s so important that we’re working on carbon removal technologies. Every tonne we remove from the atmosphere means removing that tonne x 100 years ish of impact. That’s a big multiplier and it makes this technology VERY important.

CCS is not only possible it’s being done today, and I’m not sure what negative impacts it could have on the environment. Generally we’re putting it down into the reservoirs it came from. You always have to be on the lookout for unforeseen issues, of course, but the chances of anything bad happening in this case seem remote.

If there started to be too much direct air capture, sucking too much co2 out of the atmosphere, we’d have to regulate it, but I don’t see that as a major issue. There are other ways to generate co2.

At this point we shouldn’t be limiting any of our options. I think that’s pretty clear, and the groups that are saying, “Panic! Panic! A global catastrophe is nigh! Oh, but you can’t use this tool, or this tool, to fight it. You can only use the tools WE want you to use!” are showing that they have another agenda, and that they’re not really taking the climate change issue seriously. And this is yet another reason why the general public is so cynical about this issue. But, if CCS and CCU technologies continue to make breakthroughs the way they have been, I don’t think we’re all that far from the point where they should become the focus of our efforts, that and new nuclear.

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by Eau Claire

So the claims that these areas are significantly hotter and dryer and thereby causing fires, on closer inspection, turn out to be false.

Ya ok buddy. All I had to do was type in "hotter dryer summers and BC" into google nothing about fires and almost all the links were about the connections of climate change and increase in fires.


An extended interview with Tim Takaro, a professor with Simon Fraser University, and how B.C. is being affected by climate change.
https://globalnews.ca/news/4636389/h...ity-professor/

How climate change is making B.C.’s wildfire season hotter, longer, drier
http://thenarwhal.ca/how-climate-cha...-longer-dryer/

Hotter, drier summers the ‘new normal
In British Columbia, 2018 has been the second-worst year ever recorded for wildfires, behind only 2017.
https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/ou...492869351.html

Vancouver Island’s hotter and dryer weather is killing trees, arborists say
https://www.cheknews.ca/vancouver-is...-trees-394457/

Ten times as many wildfires burn in B.C. compared to this time last year. Can government act fast enough?
With climate change, including hotter, dryer summers, wildfires are expected to increase in intensity and frequency across Canada.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...nment-act-fast

Hot summer days bring fun and risk of forest fires
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/editor...569/story.html


And the go on and on and on. How one can not connect the dots that climate change isn't a big cause in the increase of forest fires is dumbfounding.