Climate Change and Canada

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But you're talking about something happening in an extremely large, wealthy, fully developed, relatively stable country. Very few things that happen in the US (or many fully developed countries for that matter) are going to play out in a similar way in the majority of the developing world.

I think the point stands. People who had to leave New Orleans in '05 for the foreseeable future or even permanently (and, importantly, who wouldn't have left in the first place had their city continued to be perfectly inhabitable) ended up mostly in places like Houston and Atlanta and Baton Rouge, etc. that were the closest options culturally, climatically, geographically.

I see no fundamental reason for this to not be the typical way such evacuations will take place in the future. If Shanghai and Mumbai ever get abandoned to rising seas (I really doubt it, FWIW), then the people will just be relocating to inland cities like Nanjing and Hyderabad, and so on.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

I think the point stands. People who had to leave New Orleans in '05 for the foreseeable future or even permanently (and, importantly, who wouldn't have left in the first place had their city continued to be perfectly inhabitable) ended up mostly in places like Houston and Atlanta and Baton Rouge, etc. that were the closest options culturally, climatically, geographically.

I see no fundamental reason for this to not be the typical way such evacuations will take place in the future. If Shanghai and Mumbai ever get abandoned to rising seas (I really doubt it, FWIW), then the people will just be relocating to inland cities like Nanjing and Hyderabad, and so on.

I'm afraid I still don't agree. Of course people in Louisiana went to places fairly close by. Because they had places fairly close by to go, since they were in such a large country full of other regions that weren't experiencing similar issues. You're still only looking at examples of very large countries that offer access to a variety of regions without people having to cross any national borders. I don't think anyone is saying that every natural disaster is going to result in a refugee crisis. But just imagine a scenario in which Louisiana was it's own separate country rather than part of the US. Imagine it had double the population, and 1/3 the per capita GDP. And also imagine it was surrounded by similar countries with which it has strained relations (perhaps containing rival ethnic or religious groups), or who are experiencing similar problems. There are lots of small countries in unstable regions, and lots of regions that could become unstable under traumatic circumstances.

Let's say many of them did manage to sneak across the border to one of the neighbours, would that really solve the problem? With the Syrian refugee crisis, the neighbouring countries like Jordan and Lebanon are saturated with refugees. Jordan has gained upwards of 4 million extra people since the instability began. Yet there are still people flooding Europe.

But to reiterate from before, I don't suspect that climate related events by themselves are going to cause refugee crisis's, but rather the political aspects and instability which the weather events would intensify. All the examples you've given are of weather related events without any major form of conflict or political instability.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

All the examples you've given are of weather related events without any major form of conflict or political instability.

Well, yes, because that's what we're talking about -- climatic refugees, in a vacuum.

If you're adding hypothetical potential future major conflicts to the picture, then of course it's going to be a different story. But humanity caused the advent of warfare way before we did anthropogenic climate change, and I don't forecast we'll see a big reverse causality relationship there. Wars have been fought over resources since the dawn of humanity, it's not going to start moving to the next level just because the globe is now ~+2C warmer on average.

[Nouvellecosse]

Well it seems on that, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I honestly expect the strains placed on resources such as those caused by drought, as well as losses of land and forced population dispersion to greatly intensify conflicts. But I guess only time will tell.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Well it seems on that, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. I honestly expect the strains placed on resources such as those caused by drought, as well as losses of land and forced population dispersion to greatly intensify conflicts. But I guess only time will tell.

I think we can still partly agree, 'cause it's clear that limited resources have always been a reliable cause for conflict throughout history, and with increasing global population regardless of the climate, I wouldn't be surprised to see more conflict over the aforementioned limited resources.

In other words, my point is that I don't think that for most future conflicts we'll be able to clearly state something like "if only the planet had been a mere ~2C cooler on average right now, all of this would've been easily avoided".

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by lio45

In other words, my point is that I don't think that for most future conflicts we'll be able to clearly state something like "if only the planet had been a mere ~2C cooler on average right now, all of this would've been easily avoided".

Oh that is so true! And I think that's one of the biggest problems with climate change in general; very few of its effects on humanity can be directly proven. It may cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of all sorts of weather events, but individually they're almost always things could happen anyway.

[Black Star]

It’s a wonderful thing to save the world. Literally, to save all the world. It surely doesn’t happen every day. Considering we have just had that rare, even singular, event transpire in Paris at the conclave of the convinced, it is passing strange how little jubilation the rescue of the planet has stirred. The billions who have seen Doom forestalled seem eerily disinterested.

Does Apocalypse deferred move them not at all? Are we all ingrates? There is more applause, and far more enthusiastic applause, when some plastic would-be-Beyonce wins America’s Got Talent.




http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ing-the-planet

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by Black Star

It’s a wonderful thing to save the world. Literally, to save all the world. It surely doesn’t happen every day. Considering we have just had that rare, even singular, event transpire in Paris at the conclave of the convinced, it is passing strange how little jubilation the rescue of the planet has stirred. The billions who have seen Doom forestalled seem eerily disinterested.

Does Apocalypse deferred move them not at all? Are we all ingrates? There is more applause, and far more enthusiastic applause, when some plastic would-be-Beyonce wins America’s Got Talent.




http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...ing-the-planet

World's in peril again, surprised Obama hasn't fixed this gas leak with some harsh rhetoric and pixie dust, maybe he was too busy prepping for Paris to notice?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-la-gas-leak/

Scientists and environmental experts say the Aliso Canyon leak instantly became the biggest single source of methane emissions in all of California when it began two months ago. The impact of greenhouse gases released since then, measured over a 20-year time frame, is the equivalent of emissions from six coal-fired power plants or 7 million automobiles, environmentalists say.

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by jawagord

World's in peril again, surprised Obama hasn't fixed this gas leak with some harsh rhetoric and pixie dust, maybe he was too busy prepping for Paris to notice?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...n-la-gas-leak/

Scientists and environmental experts say the Aliso Canyon leak instantly became the biggest single source of methane emissions in all of California when it began two months ago. The impact of greenhouse gases released since then, measured over a 20-year time frame, is the equivalent of emissions from six coal-fired power plants or 7 million automobiles, environmentalists say.

That is a lot of methane... Funny how little press that little leak is getting, given how huge the amount of a greenhouse gas far more effective at trapping energy than CO2 is being released. WTF California, showing the world how it is done... hopefully Leo can get back home in time to fix it before too much more damage is done.

[koops65]

Soon (10-20yrs) Canada, USA, and Norway-Sweden-Finland, and Russia, will begin to emit MASSIVE quantities of greenhouse gasses when Arctic permafrost begins to melt... this will be the next tipping point in climate change...

[Laceoflight]

Results of a study from U. de Montréal, Massey U., Yale, U. of California-Santa Barbara, Utah State U., George Mason U. and U. of California-Berkeley, Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, were posted as an interactive map on Radio-Canada, today.

The maps speak for themselves, imo.

[Calgarian]

Not very surprising that the oil producing regions are a bit more skeptical. It's unfortunate that science can become politicized to such a large degree.

[SignalHillHiker]

Fascinating maps. Terrifying how low the belief it's caused by human activity is here.

Earth is getting warmer:

St. John's East: 83%
St. John's South-Mount Pearl: 81%

Mostly because of us:

SJE: 48%
SJS-MP: 47%

Party or mostly because of us:

SJE: 66%
SJS-MP: 62%

Support cap and trade system:

SJE: 70%
SJS-MP: 69%

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Fascinating maps. Terrifying how low the belief it's caused by human activity is here.

Earth is getting warmer:

St. John's East: 83%
St. John's South-Mount Pearl: 81%

Mostly because of us:

SJE: 48%
SJS-MP: 47%

Party or mostly because of us:

SJE: 66%
SJS-MP: 62%

Support cap and trade system:

SJE: 70%
SJS-MP: 69%

There also appears to be no statistically significant differences between rural and urban NL. In Alberta, there seems to be a divide between rural and urban areas.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

There also appears to be no statistically significant differences between rural and urban NL. In Alberta, there seems to be a divide between rural and urban areas.

All that left wing book-lernin'

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Laceoflight

The maps speak for themselves, imo.

If I could inject some actual science into this otherwise penis measuring contest we have going here, I have several issues with this cited study.

Firstly, the question. The question was "do you believe humans have an impact to climate change" with a bunch of possible answers, one of which was "mostly responsible" and yet another answer as "partly responsible". If I was reading this question I would assume that meant "we are partly responsible but not the dominant factor". Designing questions is a huge part of surveys, and in this case, one of those previous answers is objectively wrong. One of those answers is just as wrong as "humans aren't responsible at all".

It is like asking a quantum mechanics question such as "How does an electron further away from a nucleus move in relation to an electron closer to the nuclear? The same speed, faster, or slower?" One of those answers is objectively correct the rest are wrong.

Secondly, it's been a while since I've been involved in statistics but to claim a 95% confidence with 6% margin of error among provinces would mean they would have to talk to at least 250 people per province, which doesn't add up to their sample size numbers. You might make the math work if you treat samples from different years as independant sets, but I would question the assumption that those sets are really independant.

Finally, they claim 7% margin of error on local results, like Fort Mac. Not only is there no way to make the numbers work for that claim with a 95% confidence interval (it would take over 10k samples to cover each region in Canada over 100k) - but the assumption that the population of Fort Mac in 2011 is at all comparable to the Fort Mac in 2014 is even more dubious than the other assumptions.

Also odd how they skipped a year for sampling and furthermore changed the companies doing the actual sampling over the years.

It's just one poll, one result. It is somewhat interesting, if collaberated by other research, but on it's own I don't think it tells you as much as you think it does.

Finally, I have to love the claims of cognitive dissonance being thrown around by the researchers regarding areas like Fort Mac, as with most individuals involved with climate science they can't help but ratchet up the rhetoric and making grandiose statements to the media about their results whether they are qualified to make those statements or not. Very much reminds me of the pompous full of themselves attitude several contributors to this forum have especially those coming from academia.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I was shocked to find we didn't have a climate change discussion thread in the Canada section yet. As anthropogenic global climate change is beginning to affect Canadian urban areas, I feel like it is a topic of concern for most of us here.

Ironically, you insisting on ignoring me every time I prove you wrong just causes me to want to do it at every opportunity.