Climate change could kill ice hockey in Canada

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm actually not opposed to this. If Calgary one day turned into a Vancouver climate, you won't see me complaining. And that includes rainy winters - I can't stand the cold and dust!

[Hatter]

Global warming, solved!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'm actually not opposed to this. If Calgary one day turned into a Vancouver climate, you won't see me complaining. And that includes rainy winters - I can't stand the cold and dust!

Calgary will be a parched desert before it turns into the next Vancouver.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Yes because we're at solar minimums and should be on a cooling trend. That view is not mutually exclusive to what's happening now, infact it's another log on the fire. Thanks for supporting my point!

Originally Posted by photon

Not really, unless by concern you mean a cover on some magazine. Don't get science information from the media...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/...2008BAMS2370.1
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...w/warm1956.pdf
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

I guess I should've used green text. I really have no desire to get into this topic and should've not even opened the thread.

[troutman]

Could this record-breaking heat wave be the result of the dreaded greenhouse effect? Well, if 70-degree days in the middle of winter are the ‘price’ of car pollution, you’ll forgive me if I keep my old Pontiac.

- Kent Brockman

RANGER: Young lady, the federal government’s position on global warming is that it does not exist. This glacier’s doing just fine.
LISA: No, it isn’t. It’s a lump of slush. Look at it!
(Later, Lisa falls in a pool of meltwater created by the disintegrating glacier.)
LISA: Help, I’m sinking in the lake!
RANGER: You mean, you’re walking on the glacier!

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I'm at the point where climate change discussion have reached saturation with the amount of fact based research and analysis is out there. There is no way that an educated human looking for truth could arrive to the conclusion that global warming is not a severe problem facing us right now.

If people still deny the existence or the reason to act they aren't well positioned to be argued with further. These people should be called out for what they are, moronically self interested and ultimately very dangerous not coddled further to support their straw men and irrelevant arguments that further promote stasis.

And when someone presents something supported by NASA you respond by calling it a heap of lies and stupidity?

[photon]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Obviously this is the right sentiment and the high-road is the best road to take on these things, but it's so damned frustrating dealing with people who stubbornly refuse to accept reality. Not that Polak is one of those but they are frequently encountered. You could explain to them in detail, take them through powerpoint presentations explaining exactly why they're wrong, and 24 hours later will be back to the same idiotic garbage they were spewing in the first place.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

I'm at the point where climate change discussion have reached saturation with the amount of fact based research and analysis is out there. There is no way that an educated human looking for truth could arrive to the conclusion that global warming is not a severe problem facing us right now.

If people still deny the existence or the reason to act they aren't well positioned to be argued with further. These people should be called out for what they are, moronically self interested and ultimately very dangerous not coddled further to support their straw men and irrelevant arguments that further promote stasis.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think there's a difference between "deniers" as a whole and an individual; I think an individual deserves the benefit of the doubt when beginning a discussion and should be given an opportunity to at least see if they're willing to engage in a meaningful discussion.. beginning with "stupid" makes that more difficult.

But I certainly agree that someone who rejects the science without good reason or refuses to engage in anything other than 'nuh uh it's not true' should be called out, but the degree and method of that calling out is still subject to the rules of the forum.

There's a difference between "lies and stupidity" and "I think you're refusing to consider the evidence, I'm not continuing this" or "You're not engaging in a discussion you're just copy/pasting propaganda, no point in continuing".

Not that I don't want heated discussions at all, but lets take a little time to get from zero to 100

[polak]

Frankly its the "doomsday" type of people who turn these types of discussions into a joke.

The moment someone uses that absolute, worst case scenerio as their starting off point, they instantly lose credibility.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I guess I should've used green text. I really have no desire to get into this topic and should've not even opened the thread.

Lol sorry, my near inability to remember past behaviours or opinions of people, while makes it easier for me to not get mad, also makes it hard for me to spot the implied green text

And I agree, before I open threads like this I should always ask myself "do I have anything else to do over the next 48 hours?"

[Tinordi]

Your risk tolerance of 10 degrees is simply chosen to support an inaction agenda. 10 degrees is hell on earth. 6 degrees and human civilization likely cracks. 4 degrees is terrible. Even 2 degree warming is significant shifts in our biosphere.

As the World Bank has put it:

A world in which warming reaches 4°C above preindustrial levels (hereafter referred to as a 4°C world), would be one of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought, and major floods in many regions, with serious impacts on human systems, ecosystems, and associated services.

In fact, in a 4°C world climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth´s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline—afforded by coral reefs and mangroves).

http://climatechange.worldbank.org/s...ry_English.pdf

[macker]

Closing in on 30 times at the outdoor rinks/ponds this year which will easily surpass last years 37 times. Still have a month and a half of solid outdoor hockey weather. This year has been great as we have had a few days of sustained -20 temperatures followed by 2-3 weeks of 0 to -10 range and repeat which is perfect for outdoor hockey. Get it while you can

[polak]

for two non-mitigation emission scenarios (sres a1fi and a

reference scenario close to sresa1b), both of which come close to, or exceed by a substantial margin, 4°c warming by 2100

Thats from the article itself.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then by non-mitigation they mean that in those models, no changes are made to our current GHG emission rate.

Which again, is simply not the case. Either way though, yeah a 4 degree world would screw stuff up for a lot of low latitude countries and hurt a lot of our biodiversity but we as a species would be fine.

GM foods can grow in poor soil conditions, desalination is becoming a real thing and carbon capture technologies are rapidly increasing... Add the 80-100 years or so before we reach the point where stuff will start to get bad and all the advancements that will be made in that time, and you can see why I'm not out there proclaimnig doom and gloom.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Thor

You understand we have been able to see the ups and downs back for millions of years, to the time when antartica was a tropical jungle and there was no ice anywhere on earth.

People seem to think because it WAS once way hotter that we would go back to that cycle naturally, but the warming periods and mini ice ages is a normal 10-20,000 yr cycle while the planet on the longer time scale has reached before the last 100 yrs a cycle that would never lead back to the extremes that are a big part of the fact 99.9% of all species have died out since life began.

There is no question we are harming and speeding up the warming, the question is how bad will this be for us in the next 50, 100yrs, 500yrs. Sea level rise is the most immediate concern, then there is more extreme weather, more droughts, more crazy winter storms, etc..

The evidence for what is coming is overwhelming, the problem is figuring out how severe it will be, we don't know but we can look at the distant past to see massive disasters caused by warming like releasing all the frozen methane gas at the bottom of the oceans and especially near Siberia, if the ocean warms enough it can turn the oceans into lifeless toxic waters.

There are literally dozens of distasterous scenarious we risk facing with allowing our planet to warm up over 4-5c, and more seriously closer to 10c warming.

No matter what happens, we are going to face some brutal challenges, and we have people with no expertise treating this like a conservative vs liberal argument, ignoring the experts and we do so at our own peril.

Doesn't mean we have to do extreme things now, but we have to start, we have to address this and we can even make money by doing it.

Sadly I have little hope of that, this issue deals with many decades and hundreds of years, politicians only care about the next 4 yrs, so how this issue ever gets addressed properly is problematic to say the least.

This is my concern. Methane gas (and water vapour) are far more effective green house gases than CO2. Methane has other obvious impacts as you mention. I read a few shocking artciles on recent data being gathered on this in the arctic...

http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/p/...one-human.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8205864.stm
http://theconversation.edu.au/methane-makes-shale-gas-a-current-climate-danger-5020

The scary thing is just how much methane there is stored under permafrost and undersea hydrates globally. I've read estimates that over 50% of the known hydrocarbon resources on the planet reside in this form. I'll look for a link to a couple papers and post it here when I find it.

Obviously, mild temperature changes are enough to cause a shift in the phase of the hydrates. Any release in pressure (caused by gas being liberated from the solid state) in these hydrates causes a pressure drop to occur, which creates a low pressure "front" that will encourage more methane to move from solid to gaseous state. In other words, its a chain reaction that you can't control. That's why we don't produce these resources as reserves currently.

[mykalberta]

Here is my problem with the current "Global Warming" group:

Cause: Hole in Ozone Layer
Effect: Rise in the average temperature of the earth due to increased greenhouse gas emissions
Remedy Option 1: Guilt people into trying to lower their individual greenhouse gas emissions by insinuating that their use of non renewable resources is in essence "killing people"
Remedy Option 2: None given

I dont doubt the world is warming - you can see that glaciers have grown smaller.

But it seems there is only 1 solution being brought to the table, that of reducing green house gasses. Why is this the only solution offered? I find it hard to believe that with the technology that we have to day, that if the problem is a reduced ozone layer (caused by increased green house gass emissions) then how is it that there have been no attempts made to repair the ozone.

Can it really be that difficult compared to other things humanity has accomplished?

[photon]

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Here is my problem with the current "Global Warming" group:

Cause: Hole in Ozone Layer
Effect: Rise in the average temperature of the earth due to increased greenhouse gas emissions
Remedy Option 1: Guilt people into trying to lower their individual greenhouse gas emissions by insinuating that their use of non renewable resources is in essence "killing people"
Remedy Option 2: None given

I dont doubt the world is warming - you can see that glaciers have grown smaller.

But it seems there is only 1 solution being brought to the table, that of reducing green house gasses. Why is this the only solution offered? I find it hard to believe that with the technology that we have to day, that if the problem is a reduced ozone layer (caused by increased green house gass emissions) then how is it that there have been no attempts made to repair the ozone.

Can it really be that difficult compared to other things humanity has accomplished?

I don't want to sound like a jerk, but you don't seem to have even a basic grasp on the matter.

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by pseudoreality

Its stayed below zero since Oct 22 in Yellowknife. We've also already have 45 days of colder than -30 this year. Pretty stupid to lump all of Canada in one category. We're not all Vancouver.

Agreed, this is clearly focusing only on what they're seeing out East, and grouping the entire massive country together. I think they should check out the prairies for a winter, hockey's not going anywhere out here..

[Red Slinger]

Ozone Depletion and GHG are not the same thing.

[Plett25]

Weather ≠ climate

[Thor]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Here is my problem with the current "Global Warming" group:

Cause: Hole in Ozone Layer
Effect: Rise in the average temperature of the earth due to increased greenhouse gas emissions
Remedy Option 1: Guilt people into trying to lower their individual greenhouse gas emissions by insinuating that their use of non renewable resources is in essence "killing people"
Remedy Option 2: None given

You are a perfect example of those who find political or non scientific reasons to doubt the science.

You are so beyond the reach of reason if you believe these points that it boggles the mind how the rest of modern humanity could join a serious conversation.