Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum

View Poll Results: What role do humans play in contributing to climate change?
Humans are the primary contributor to climate change 392 62.92%
Humans contribute to climate change, but not the main cause 163 26.16%
Not sure 37 5.94%
Climate change is a hoax 31 4.98%
Voters: 623. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-08-2019, 09:47 AM   #601
Shazam
Franchise Player
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Memento Mori
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
How is it not true? It is a future prediction. May not be evident now.

You ask a good question - as this summer seems pleasantly cooler and wetter in Southern Alberta than usual (so far - it is only July 8th).

All is not doom and gloom. I'm reading an interesting book now called "Enlightenment Now" - the thesis is that there is never been a better time to be a human being despite all the present problems we perceive. We have made amazing measurable progress in the last 100 years in so many spheres (health, poverty, peace). For example, it is conservatively estimated that medical science has saved over 5 billion lives. We have the means to address climate change too.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Now
You should also read Homo Deus. Humanity has never had it this good.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Shazam is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Shazam For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 09:50 AM   #602
The Fonz
Our Jessica Fletcher
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman View Post
https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/...ne-statements/

Both past and future warming in Canada is, on average, about double the magnitude of global warming. Northern Canada has warmed and will continue to warm at more than double the global rate. {2.2, 3.3, 4.2}
The Fonz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to The Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 09:51 AM   #603
Bill Bumface
My face is a bum!
 
Bill Bumface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch View Post
The problem with trees is that while young ones remove huge amounts of carbon, old and dead trees give it back through decay and fire. Canada’s forests are apparently currently a net source of CO2 with all the beetle kill etc,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...urce-1.5011490
Exploring the expanded use of wood in construction is a big part of the tree planting plan.

Or fire the wood into space. One of the two.
Bill Bumface is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bill Bumface For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 10:45 AM   #604
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch View Post
The problem with trees is that while young ones remove huge amounts of carbon, old and dead trees give it back through decay and fire. Canada’s forests are apparently currently a net source of CO2 with all the beetle kill etc,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...urce-1.5011490
Canada is doing a terrible job at forestry management.

Should be one of our prime resources and we are absolutely brutal at managing it properly.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 10:48 AM   #605
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface View Post
Exploring the expanded use of wood in construction is a big part of the tree planting plan.

Or fire the wood into space. One of the two.
One could say in fact that expanded use of wood in construction is the ONLY way we can make the tree planting plan work, and the only way to immediately begin storing and removed excess carbon from the atmosphere.

Not only does it increase the amount of carbon being stored over a longer period of time, but it removes the carbon being created by high CO2 outputting construction methods like the manufacturing of cement and steel, an amount which is staggering, especially in highly developing nations.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 11:06 AM   #606
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch View Post
The problem with trees is that while young ones remove huge amounts of carbon, old and dead trees give it back through decay and fire. Canada’s forests are apparently currently a net source of CO2 with all the beetle kill etc,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...urce-1.5011490
Fuzz continues to talk about weather related to climate instead of looking at the actual changes as a result of climate change. Yes, the temperatures are changing to a more moderate range, but what is the outcome of that change? The above issue is directly related to climate change. The more moderate winters prevent the beetle larva from being killed off. This is directly a result of a change in our climate. These are the matters we should be paying attention to as they signal that nature is adjusting to the rapid change in climate. Changes in migration patterns, changes in the ranges in which animals will follow prey, changes in growing seasons, and so on, are all examples of climate change in action.

People need to stop focusing in on the change in temperature and need to start looking at the outcomes of those climatic changes. Diseases that were once countered because cold temperatures are spreading to new areas because of temperature moderation (see West Nile and Zika virus as easy examples). Animal migration patterns are changing in alarming ways (see bird migration and predator encroachment into new areas as easy examples). Species that were once dominant in a given biome are seeing their dominance challenged. These are warning signs that are much more damning than any temperature and should give us cause to recognize the critical nature of the problem.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 11:13 AM   #607
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

Event attribution analyses relevant to Canada

Table 4.7 [assesses possible attribution to recent events]


https://changingclimate.ca/CCCR2019/chapter/4-0/


Quote:
It is generally not feasible to answer the question, Did human-induced climate change cause a particular weather or climate event? Often, that event could have occurred in the absence of human effects. Instead, recent research has focused on whether human activity has influenced the probability of particular weather or climate events or, in some cases, the strength or intensity of the events. As the climate changes, largely due to anthropogenic influences, the likelihood of a particular class of events — all events as extreme as or more extreme than the one defined in the study — also changes (NASEM, 201658). In this sense, an extreme event may be attributable to causes external to the natural climate system. Thus, a new branch of climate science, called event attribution, has emerged that evaluates how the probability or intensity of an extreme event, or more generally, a class of extreme events, has changed as a result of increases in atmospheric GHGs from human activity.
__________________
https://www.mergenlaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 12:17 PM   #608
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Fuzz continues to talk about weather related to climate instead of looking at the actual changes as a result of climate change. Yes, the temperatures are changing to a more moderate range, but what is the outcome of that change? The above issue is directly related to climate change. The more moderate winters prevent the beetle larva from being killed off. This is directly a result of a change in our climate. These are the matters we should be paying attention to as they signal that nature is adjusting to the rapid change in climate. Changes in migration patterns, changes in the ranges in which animals will follow prey, changes in growing seasons, and so on, are all examples of climate change in action.

People need to stop focusing in on the change in temperature and need to start looking at the outcomes of those climatic changes. Diseases that were once countered because cold temperatures are spreading to new areas because of temperature moderation (see West Nile and Zika virus as easy examples). Animal migration patterns are changing in alarming ways (see bird migration and predator encroachment into new areas as easy examples). Species that were once dominant in a given biome are seeing their dominance challenged. These are warning signs that are much more damning than any temperature and should give us cause to recognize the critical nature of the problem.
My point was that we are repeatedly told we are seeing more climate extremes in Canada and to expect them to get worse. The data I looked at showed the opposite, a moderating of the range of temperatures. I agree there are negative effects like the lack of pine beetle kill. That's not what I'm disputing. I don't understand why they need to mis-state or exaggerate climate effects. Tell us the truth, what you know and don't know, and stay away from the extreme fearmongering. All I'm asking.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 12:39 PM   #609
Lanny_McDonald
Franchise Player
 
Lanny_McDonald's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
My point was that we are repeatedly told we are seeing more climate extremes in Canada and to expect them to get worse. The data I looked at showed the opposite, a moderating of the range of temperatures. I agree there are negative effects like the lack of pine beetle kill. That's not what I'm disputing. I don't understand why they need to mis-state or exaggerate climate effects. Tell us the truth, what you know and don't know, and stay away from the extreme fearmongering. All I'm asking.
Moderating in temperatures is not going to prevent the extreme in events. The extreme events science speaks about are storms, flooding, fires, etc., things predicated on by change in climate. Do you think tornadoes have become more or less an issue in Alberta? Do you think forest fires are become more or less a larger problem? Do you think flooding is become more or less a larger problem? All of these have been predicted and have been proven to be accurate, no? And it just isn't in Alberta. Look at what is happening in DC right now. That is an extreme event and consistent with forecasts. I don't think this is fearmongering, it is recognizing what happens as balance in the system is disrupted.
Lanny_McDonald is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 12:58 PM   #610
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
My point was that we are repeatedly told we are seeing more climate extremes in Canada and to expect them to get worse. The data I looked at showed the opposite, a moderating of the range of temperatures. I agree there are negative effects like the lack of pine beetle kill. That's not what I'm disputing. I don't understand why they need to mis-state or exaggerate climate effects. Tell us the truth, what you know and don't know, and stay away from the extreme fearmongering. All I'm asking.
I recall reading the other day that Canada wouldn't be affected that much due too climate change. More forest fires, colder / warmer winters, pine beetles, etc. But most people won't see more extreme weather patterns and stuff like that. If anything due to the artic opening up our country should benefit.

As an example flooding in Manitoba might be reduced because the ice will melt faster. Stuff like that.

Can't find the article though.....
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 12:59 PM   #611
Nyah
First Line Centre
 
Nyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Kilt & Caber
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz View Post
Big graphic
Not to diminish the message that this graphic is trying to get across, but what is the global average?? These headlines seem to contradict each other quite a bit. According to all these headlines, the following places are warming:

- Faster than Average: Britain, China, South Africa, Adirondacks & Europe
- Twice the Global Rate: Switzerland, Canada, Mountains (??), Singapore, Alaska and Sweden
- Faster than the rest of the northern hemisphere: Spain
- Faster than anywhere else in the world: Finland, Russia and Australia

I mean, these places make up the majority of the world, no? How can they all be warming at minimum 'above average'? How can Russia (faster than anywhere else in the world) be warming faster than Spain, who is apparently warming faster than anywhere else in the northern hemisphere? How can Finland, Russia and Australia be on the same list of 'fastest warming in the world'? Shouldn't only one country be on that list? It just contradicts left & right.

That's why I don't like graphics like these. They tend to be alarmist without any substance or context.

Last edited by Nyah; 07-08-2019 at 01:16 PM.
Nyah is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Nyah For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 01:03 PM   #612
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

To be fair headlines claiming the opposite are alarmist as well.

And we are not really sure how everything will go, which is another reason headlines are stupid.

All we know is that overall the trend is in the wrong direction and we should take it very seriously. My problem is the common sense solutions like CLT construction, planting trees by the billions, carbon capture and storage, mandated movement towards natural gas electrical generation by shutting down ALL coal plants immediately.....these are not sexy solutions and therefore nobody cares about them.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 01:07 PM   #613
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era View Post
Moderating in temperatures is not going to prevent the extreme in events. The extreme events science speaks about are storms, flooding, fires, etc., things predicated on by change in climate. Do you think tornadoes have become more or less an issue in Alberta? Do you think forest fires are become more or less a larger problem? Do you think flooding is become more or less a larger problem? All of these have been predicted and have been proven to be accurate, no? And it just isn't in Alberta. Look at what is happening in DC right now. That is an extreme event and consistent with forecasts. I don't think this is fearmongering, it is recognizing what happens as balance in the system is disrupted.
Except that's exactly what I'm talking about. Troutman's link says temperatures will get more extreme(and have been trending that way), which is what I'm taking issue with.



Tornados: no, and I've never seen any evidence they are increasing in Alberta, have you? As far as I know the trend in the US isn't up at either. This doesn't really indicate it is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends


Forest Fires: I'm not sure how you separate climate change, and not other issues like forestry management. If you can prove regions are getting hotter and drier, then ya, perhaps, but the last time I looked for that information I actually found most of BC had gotten wetter.


Floods: Again, really crap management. We worry of flooding in Calgary, yet strip the Elbow headwaters of forests. I've yet to hear of any reasonable attribution of flooding to climate change where it wouldn't have been more likely caused by other factors like paving over the earth, putting people where they shouldn't be and deforestation. There is no increasing flooding trend in Calgary or area, certainly nothing you could say "climate change has caused these to be more frequent".


I'll agree that all of these have been predicted, but I dispute the accuracy. I have yet to see any reasonable explanation, and correlation between events and rising temperatures. What does the IPCC have to say? I'll paste the whole section so I don't get accused of cherry picking.



Quote:
It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase
in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely
that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium
confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily
temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In
many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number
of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]



There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely
that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and
subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]



There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,
intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been
a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in
observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and
inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]



There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in
particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,
or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]



There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and
frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,
there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of
these changes. [3.5.2]

It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level.
[3.5.3]
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...l_Report-1.pdf


What this tells us is that there is large variability globally, and confidence in the predictions. So again, my POINT is that if they can't prove it for a specific region(namely, Alberta or Canada) stop attributing these disastrous effects when they are regional. All it does is make people say "well I'm not seeing that here, so the whole theory is BS." Be honest with the public. Use facts. That is going to include the perhaps uncomfortable position that climate change is actually going to improve life and prosperity for Canada(though not all regions, and there will also be negative effects).
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 01:09 PM   #614
Nyah
First Line Centre
 
Nyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Kilt & Caber
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
To be fair headlines claiming the opposite are alarmist as well.

And we are not really sure how everything will go, which is another reason headlines are stupid.
For sure, I'm just responding to the posted graphic, where upon a quick study can be picked apart really easily. I've seen climate change deniers use this kind of stuff as ammunition because it doesn't make any sense and contradicts itself. They're just headline readers too when it's convenient!

I'm with you an the solutions that you listed too. It's pretty incredible how little we've moved forward with common sense stuff like that.
Nyah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 01:29 PM   #615
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Except that's exactly what I'm talking about. Troutman's link says temperatures will get more extreme(and have been trending that way), which is what I'm taking issue with.



Tornados: no, and I've never seen any evidence they are increasing in Alberta, have you? As far as I know the trend in the US isn't up at either. This doesn't really indicate it is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends


Forest Fires: I'm not sure how you separate climate change, and not other issues like forestry management. If you can prove regions are getting hotter and drier, then ya, perhaps, but the last time I looked for that information I actually found most of BC had gotten wetter.


Floods: Again, really crap management. We worry of flooding in Calgary, yet strip the Elbow headwaters of forests. I've yet to hear of any reasonable attribution of flooding to climate change where it wouldn't have been more likely caused by other factors like paving over the earth, putting people where they shouldn't be and deforestation. There is no increasing flooding trend in Calgary or area, certainly nothing you could say "climate change has caused these to be more frequent".


I'll agree that all of these have been predicted, but I dispute the accuracy. I have yet to see any reasonable explanation, and correlation between events and rising temperatures. What does the IPCC have to say? I'll paste the whole section so I don't get accused of cherry picking.





https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...l_Report-1.pdf


What this tells us is that there is large variability globally, and confidence in the predictions. So again, my POINT is that if they can't prove it for a specific region(namely, Alberta or Canada) stop attributing these disastrous effects when they are regional. All it does is make people say "well I'm not seeing that here, so the whole theory is BS." Be honest with the public. Use facts. That is going to include the perhaps uncomfortable position that climate change is actually going to improve life and prosperity for Canada(though not all regions, and there will also be negative effects).
Aren't even hurricanes trending downwards in terms of occurrence?

I know forest fires for sure people thought were increasing in rate and size, but at least in Canada the evidence suggests otherwise.

We are terrible at managing our forests so the fires are not something I would use to see 'oh this is because of climate change.'
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 08:38 PM   #616
#-3
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
Aren't even hurricanes trending downwards in terms of occurrence?

I know forest fires for sure people thought were increasing in rate and size, but at least in Canada the evidence suggests otherwise.

We are terrible at managing our forests so the fires are not something I would use to see 'oh this is because of climate change.'
I believe hurricane frequency is dropping, but that is well within the model. Hurricane Magnitude on the other hand is going up quickly. With less regional variation in temperature, there are fewer opportunities to set off storms, but when they go off there is more energy to fuel them.

The data actually show with modern computing climate models have become pretty accurate, the inconsistencies are knowing what shapes clouds will form to know how energy will bounce off them. This is pretty random and unpredictable so little pockets of unexpected energy can cause surprises.
#-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 08:55 PM   #617
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by #-3 View Post
I believe hurricane frequency is dropping, but that is well within the model. Hurricane Magnitude on the other hand is going up quickly. With less regional variation in temperature, there are fewer opportunities to set off storms, but when they go off there is more energy to fuel them.

The data actually show with modern computing climate models have become pretty accurate, the inconsistencies are knowing what shapes clouds will form to know how energy will bounce off them. This is pretty random and unpredictable so little pockets of unexpected energy can cause surprises.

Do you have a citation for that?
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 09:01 PM   #618
nik-
Franchise Player
 
nik-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
Do you have a citation for that?
It really doesn't seem to be the case. There are spikes and valleys throughout the years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlant..._satellite_era
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji View Post
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
nik- is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Old 07-08-2019, 09:10 PM   #619
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

This is the best research I could find:


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/


I won't post all the text, but you can read the summary in section F. Sounds fairly inconclusive.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2019, 10:49 PM   #620
#-3
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
This is the best research I could find:


https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/


I won't post all the text, but you can read the summary in section F. Sounds fairly inconclusive.
Well from the satellite era data, if you just take a sampling of what they call high intensity (cat 3 / 4 / 5 hurricanes).

the 60's were on pace for 31
the 70's had 29
the 80's had 30
the 90's had 41
the 00's had 69, and
the 10's have had 43 to date.

Its a pretty small sample, but I think its fair to say the high intensity storms are on an upward trajectory. You've gotta remember that in spite of a recent lul in the highest intensity storms, seeing an increase in 3 out of 4 measured periods is a trend, and the current decade will still finish as the second highest decade recorded.

It's also important to note that human caused climate change has been centuries in the making, and was already accelerating by the time these measurements begin, meaning a simple comparison like this cannot establish a good base line.
#-3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:52 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021