Global warming: Real or Fraud?

[gristle]

You're right Admiral Beez, the threats of imminent danger and ensuing chaos have been greatly over-stated. Hurricane activity is a perfect example of this. Predictions of larger and more numerous hurricanes resulting from human emissions of carbon dioxide is not supported by the evidence. Some hurricane experts have suggested that warming air and oceans could actually reduce the severity of these storms by reducing the temperature gradient, and that a cooling atmosphere might even increase the severity of these storms. It just goes to indicate that the science is not as settled as so often stated, and that more research is likely required.

Regarding the Arctic, the tree line has not changed appreciably in centuries. Warmer temperatures should be resulting in northward movement. Add to this the extra carbon dioxide - which is absolutely necessary to plant life. Yet the forests are not pushing north.

The last time the tree line actually moved north was during the Medieval warm period about a thousand years ago. It then receded during the Little Ice Age (which is often regarded to have "ended" around 1850).

Is global warming a fraud? I doubt it - given that there appears to be some warming over a number of decades. Is it caused by human beings exclusively? Again, this has not been proven either. Satellite data does not show a consistent upward warming trend over time that matches carbon dioxide emissions. However, people can certainly alter local climate by way of how land is used for human activity. Will such alleged warming cause havoc globally? No, but some locations will probably experience some sort of negative effect if warming continues. Other locations will have positive outcomes.

It strikes me that there is still much to learn.

 

[Second_in_pie]

One thing that bothers me about climate change coverage in the media is how they assume that climate change, man-made or otherwise will be a disaster for the world. If the world gets warmer, this could be very beneficial for Canada, we could grow crops further northward and for longer periods, we could transit ships via the NW Passage increasing trade, etc. I think the assumption that climate change is bad for everyone is just that, an assumption.

Again, Global Warming would have been great for Canada about 300 years ago. Things would be warmer, so we could compete with the US as a nice place to live. But now, the effects of Global Warming are almost all bad for Canada. The "pros" we might have had long ago are really redundant now. I'll go over some of that.

First of all, the farming thing. This is all totally false. Global warming will not make farming better here. In fact, it will kill one of our most productive farming regions (the prairies,) by turning what's currently semi-arid plains into total desert.
The problem here in Canada isn't quite the temperature. They grow some of the best potatoes in Alaska. The problem is our specific geography. A vast majority of the country has the Rocky Mountains, Canadian Shield and Appalachian Mountains. That creates terrible soil conditions, inconvenient physical relief, and wet/dry drainage basins/hills. So if you think that we could just move the prairies up into northern Saskatchewan, you're wrong. We'd start moving into the Canadian Shield and other rocky geological formations, which make for bad natural farming.
But modern farming techniques can most certainly help farming up north. The Mayans, over 1000 years ago, dug straight into the side of mountains to create fully irrigated farm fields. Surely, we can do the same, by blasting, bulldozing, or relocating rock and soil. We can also create advanced farm rotations to create prime soil conditions. With very carefully decided crop rotations, soil can go from being terrible to excellent in a generation. It requires money to start, undoubtedly from the government, but at that time you're still producing food, and you'll be able to start new jobs through farming. A warmer climate really just can't do any of that. Other things you could do is hydroponics and algae farms, or even tree farms. With research and funding from the government, scientists could find ways to make trees that can grow to full size in 10 years, producing prime wood, in terrible soil conditions like the Canadian Shield. There's also the opportunity for orchards using trees that are adapted or modified to a colder climate.

I think the warmer temperatures = nicer for people to live in idea is actually kind of crazy. While it may be nice to live the life prescribed by the State of California commercials, that's really only a secondary factor. In days of central heating, warm clothing, a dependent food supply, and the ability to have a totally ordinary work day while being outside for less than 5 minutes, it's more a concern of a good place to work. I mean, Baja California has beautiful beaches and a warm climate, but you don't see people scrambling to get there. Just take a look at Alberta: for the most part, they're freezing in the winter, but people are flocking all over because there are tonnes of high paying jobs. And if that existed up in Nunavut, I'm sure people would be all over that too. Actually, just look at the Klondike Gold Rush as an example. With just the slightest hint of gold, people braved freezing conditions living in tents to get a chance at money.
Also, with rising sea levels, there won't be many places to appreciate. Victoria and the nice parts of Vancouver island will mostly be underwater, as well as Vancouver. Halifax will be a significantly smaller island, and PEI would be lucky to be a few rocks sticking out of the ground.

The North-West Passage might be one of the arguments that has the most merit, but again, it still has some flaws. By today's standards, the passage was navigable 300 years ago, before our CO2 emissions were really something to worry about. In the summer, ice receded relatively far, and what ice was blocking the actual passage would be more than thin enough for modern icebreakers to get through. With today's navigation, ice-free channels could easily be created and tonnes of ships could be brought through. The only thing we'd be missing out on, actually, is a direct link to Russia through Murmansk. It'd still be incredibly close across the North Atlantic, but we just wouldn't be able to go straight over the pole to get there.

EDIT: Sorry for the massive post, I couldn't contain myself.

 

[gristle]

Again, Global Warming would have been great for Canada about 300 years ago. Things would be warmer, so we could compete with the US as a nice place to live. But now, the effects of Global Warming are almost all bad for Canada.

Oddly enough, three-hundred years ago Canada was gripped in the Little Ice Age. That global climate event killed many people In Europe due to crop failure and icy temperatures.

First of all, the farming thing. This is all totally false. Global warming will not make farming better here. In fact, it will kill one of our most productive farming regions (the prairies,) by turning what's currently semi-arid plains into total desert.

The thing is, there was a warm period about a thousand years ago, with temperatures as warm - if not even warmer - than today. There is nothing that indicates that the prairies were a desert at that time. Also, many crops that are grown in Canada have been bred to deal with the cooler temperatures in this country.

If anything, the most arid climate conditions occurred during the glacial periods. For most of its history, the earth has actually been a very wet, warm world.

A vast majority of the country has the Rocky Mountains, Canadian Shield and Appalachian Mountains. That creates terrible soil conditions, inconvenient physical relief, and wet/dry drainage basins/hills. So if you think that we could just move the prairies up into northern Saskatchewan, you're wrong.

Yes, contrary to popular belief Canada does not have huge swaths of the most productive farmland. But again, there is no way to accurately predict what exactly would happen if average temperature climbed by half a degree or one degree. It could possibly mean a slightly shorter winter and maybe a need for some crops that would be somewhat more resilient in slightly drier weather conditions.

The Mayans, over 1000 years ago, dug straight into the side of mountains to create fully irrigated farm fields.

The Mayan society existed during a period in time that was warmer than today. If you ever go to the American south west, you can see the effects of climate cooling - abandoned dwellings brought on by drought and crop failure. And these people were experts at farming with limited water supplies. Essentially, they did better when it was warmer.

Surely, we can do the same, by blasting, bulldozing, or relocating rock and soil. We can also create advanced farm rotations to create prime soil conditions. With very carefully decided crop rotations, soil can go from being terrible to excellent in a generation. It requires money to start, undoubtedly from the government, but at that time you're still producing food, and you'll be able to start new jobs through farming. A warmer climate really just can't do any of that.

But we have done the same! And so much more!

I think the warmer temperatures = nicer for people to live in idea is actually kind of crazy. While it may be nice to live the life prescribed by the State of California commercials, that's really only a secondary factor. In days of central heating, warm clothing, a dependent food supply, and the ability to have a totally ordinary work day while being outside for less than 5 minutes, it's more a concern of a good place to work. I mean, Baja California has beautiful beaches and a warm climate, but you don't see people scrambling to get there. Just take a look at Alberta: for the most part, they're freezing in the winter, but people are flocking all over because there are tonnes of high paying jobs. And if that existed up in Nunavut, I'm sure people would be all over that too. Actually, just look at the Klondike Gold Rush as an example. With just the slightest hint of gold, people braved freezing conditions living in tents to get a chance at money.

The cold kills more people than warm temperatures. Oddly enough, the rest of your statement actually suggests a slight warming is good.

Also, with rising sea levels, there won't be many places to appreciate. Victoria and the nice parts of Vancouver island will mostly be underwater, as well as Vancouver. Halifax will be a significantly smaller island, and PEI would be lucky to be a few rocks sticking out of the ground.

Sorry, but where do you get your information? Where will all this water come from? The best estimates for sea level rise over the twentieth century was about 1.7 millimetres (yes, millimetres) per year on average (there is always variation over time). This was even noted in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Earlier, I pointed out that the Little Ice Age ended roughly by the middle of the nineteenth century, and the gradual warming from that cool period (cooling and warming both naturally caused) can account for this very slight sea level rise. The single largest deposit of frozen water - the Antarctic - is not melting.

There has been considerable hype about all the extreme worst-case scenarios - which gets them all the top press coverage. But while global warming is an issue, the extreme scenarios should not be taken to be actual facts. They are not.

And sorry for my really long post.