Nearly 50 per cent of Canadians say they can’t afford meat
(ipolitics.ca)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (67)
sorted by:
Not seeing that connection. I was thinking more like so the woods don't burn up and crops don't fail, Greenland and Antarctica's ice doesn't all melt, and so on. Noticed any changes in the weather lately?
If you have the time have a look at Table 1 "Top Six Areas of Climate Change Risk Facing Canada" in this report: https://cca-reports.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Report-Canada-top-climate-change-risks.pdf
Hahahaha. This is a serious report? All the northern Native communities gonna be running each other down with their canoes?
Don't know much about the North, eh?
you mean where I live? nah.
FYI the northern communities use either ice roads, trains, or planes to travel long distances.
where is my increased risk of tractor accidents because the growing season will get longer? The logic is very stupid
Ice roads require ice, which forms later and melts earlier in the places where the rivers still freeze properly. Trains don't get half way to the top of Canada but even so they - and a lot of the air strips further north - rely on permafrost, which is disappearing, for stability.
You may not be far enough north: not many canoes where the summer sea-ice lives.
Let’s do what if.
Internet search engines are your friends.
Or perhaps you have something you want to say?
One doesn’t need search engines to be aware of basic records of ancient geology and past climate averages.
Q 1. What’s so bad about a warmer earth? A. Going from prior geological records, nothing, unless one is arguing boiling seas levels of heat, and that isn’t likely to happen for about 4bn years.
The Cambrian period and other prior periods were way, way warmer than it is today, and some had large amounts of ppm Co2 and life was abundant & earth greened.(however high co2 and earth temp has little to no correlation over geological time frames)
The Roman and both medical warm periods also brought advances in civilisations because it’s easier to flourish in warmer climates than it is colder. The medieval warm period was warmer than it is today.
Q.2 what’s so bad about the ice caps melting? a. Nothing terrible. They melted and weren’t formed for long geological periods with no harm, it’s patently common sense that artic animals would prefer and thrive in a warmer ice free continent than a brutally cold one.
Some of the richest varied fish and coral life is found in the hottest waters. Coral loves warmer water and warmer is better for many species of ocean life.
Q3. What’s so bad about rising co2 levels? To say 2000ppm? a. Nothing. It’s been higher than that in the past, in fact, the current level, 400ppm is close to the ‘death zone’ of plants being viable.
We need more co2, not less. Co2 is the gas of life- it makes plants flourish. If co2 was “toxic” or a “pollutant” commercial greenhouses wouldn’t pump the gas into their greenhouses to thousands of ppm. (Natural gas burners basically)Even then you need at least 10,000ppm for co2 to start to have an effect on humans.
Even the miniscule rise in co2 levels has done wonders for some areas of the planet.
I’m any case. Even if mankind tried to burn all the fuels economically viable to extract as quickly as possible, there wouldn’t be enough fuel in the ground to raise it another 400ppm or so (conservatively) or 2600ppm at the top end to get to the 12c the IPCC claims to be at the top end of their predictions.
End of the day, there’s a simple answer to power generation that removes the co2 hysteria completely. Nuclear Power.
So if greenlands and Antarctic ice does melt…So what? Greenland is called Greenland becuase it used to be green. Greenland used to vary between 50F to about 1F.
The woods “burn up”? How do the woods “burn up” by simply having the average temperature increase by say. 3c? No. The cause of most forest and wild fires is lightning, not ambient temperature. Lightning will start a forest fire no matter if it’s 5c or 50c.
Higher co2 means better and thicker leaf growth and faster tree repopulation. Fire is a vital part of mother nature’s forest cleaning and renewal ecosystem and fires raged in the forest long before mankind came on the scene and interfered. Canada’s jack pine needs the heat of fire nearby to germinate. Can we reduce forest fires by clearing away undergrowth and having fire breaks? Yes. If we don’t, like California, Mother Nature will do it for us. The recent media hysteria of forest fires in BC were surreal. The fires should have been left alone to burn out, whilst protecting populated areas.
Rising sea levels. The consequences do not lend themselves to short OmegaCanada posts. National Geographic summarizes things fairly well: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/sea-level-rise-1
Lightning starts them. Climate change produces more lightning. How well they burn is firmly linked to climate change.
https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/np/2021/09/01/forest-fires/
This is the logical equivalent of saying "Raising the speed limit in cities to 100 miles per hour will allow people to get where they're going faster." True, but not a good idea given everything else it means.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/
Rising sea levels. Exactly. So what? Might sound like a flippant question but if one keeps asking ‘what if?’ And ‘so what?’ one can get further along. I looked at the article. The usual stuff about lowland flooding, people having to move inward, loss of habitat etc. Ok and? Whilst these things can be tragic if affecting humans or animals, the world has been through worse before. Humans and animals will move inland as before.
The seas will not boil and none of us are going to fry alive on the surface of the planet for the next 1000 years.
What about the opposite? During the ice age? Humans had to move south, many no doubt perished.
Greenland and Antarctica had no ice for long periods, much much warmer than it is now. Imagine Antarctica with no ice and it being not brutally cold/windy. I’m sure the penguins and polar bears would much prefer huddling together at -80c and walking for miles in the biting blizzards to have their young.
If ‘climate change’ and rising sea levels is so pressing and urgent (‘12 years’) why do so many politicians buy real estate on the coast?
Let’s say that there is more lighting. And it starts more fires, again, so what? We get more fires. The co2, nitrates and particulates released into the air wash down with rain and are re absorbed into nature.
If one is that concerned about things generating co2 then perhaps cutting co2 production with power generation would be a start?
Get the whole world to convert to nuclear power. Done. No more co2 production through power. Problem solved. Should offset cows farting no?
I agree that our species will probably survive. For a while, at least. I hope we evolve past this notion that we can do whatever we want.
Oh the highway thing. Yes. The faster traffic moves the better, if done safely. Speed doesn’t kill. It’s hitting other things that are going way slower or stationary that does. If speed killed, Germany’s autobahn would be a daily bloodbath.
The faster people can go, the faster they get off the roads and the faster someone else can get on and off. Slow traffic destroys productivity. The difference between cruise control a modern car at highway speeds (say 70mph) and fuel efficiency is hardly better than a car from 1994.
2020 Ford Taurus ecoboost 2.7/3.5) weighing about 4400lbs is about 16/24MPG. Ancient 1994 caddy fleetwood at 4400, Big primitive pushrod 5.7 350V8 18/26Mpg. Dodge caravan 2020 3.6 80-90mph for a few hours gets about 9litres/100km. At about 70mp it’s more or less same.
In any case, the US, Canadian and UK administrations have publicly stated they plan to outlaw sales of all new cars and light trucks by 2030, so you won’t have to worry about that. Better save up for a bicycle.
I see we're leaving day-to-day practicality behind
Nope.