Canadian Federal Election 44 - Sep 2021

[Altair]

You forgot tp mention while flying around in planes designed to hold 100's of passengers......

Oh, the beauty of focusing on the miniscule amount of emissions from world leaders flying to a climate summit to deal with the far more troubling 99.999 percent of emissions humanity creates.

I guess if they didn't fly to the climate summit climate change would be solved overnight.

Just asinine.

 

[Brad Sallows]

with less rain.

More heat in the atmosphere causes more water to evaporate at the boundary between water and atmosphere. Increased evaporation increases the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere. Because the atmosphere is not already saturated, the net mass of water vapour can increase. Water vapour will not magically adopt a pattern of evenly distributing itself so that it does not locally saturate more frequently. When water vapour concentrations reach saturation, precipitation occurs. More water vapour mass in the atmosphere means more local pockets of saturation, hence precipitation (rain).

Don't confuse "heat" with "desert". Desertification occurs where there is little or no precipitation. A desert can be a very cold place as well as a very hot one.

 

[QV]

Of course it has consequences.

A warmer climate will most likely be a net benefit. Longer growing seasons, more precipitation (more water vapour, which can't just hang around in the sky indefinitely - it circulates). Also, more CO2 is good for plants. Deforested and de-vegetated lands will recover more quickly.

We are living during an interglacial (period between massive glaciations) of an ice age. A warmer climate might be a helpful buffer to stall the resumption of extensive glaciation.

All the bullshit from people clamouring because they are suffering from erosion, land subsidence, water shortages, etc due to mismanagement of land and waters has to be squarely set aside under "politically engineered crises". Then the pros and cons of whatever is left over can reasonably be debated.

You would have to be paying attention to history to understand warmer climates are more beneficial to life, just as during periods of global cooling the world saw widespread famine and disease.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Increased sea levels threatens to completely submerge

Sea level increase has two primary causes: increase of water volume (for which the source is ice), and land subsidence. The estimates of sea level rise due to loss of ice caps that I come across consistently report 2 to 3 mm per year. Estimates of land subsidence I've read range from a few mm to amounts exceeding 10 cm. Higher numbers tend to be found in regions where people are drawing water out of the ground faster than it is replaced. More rainfall due to atmospheric warming can mitigate some of that, but not all of it. Cities at risk are in that predicament because they draw too much water out of the ground or out of the rivers that supply the large river delta cities, complicated by erosion due to man-made interruption of natural soil replenishment patterns.

 

[Altair]

More heat in the atmosphere causes more water to evaporate at the boundary between water and atmosphere. Increased evaporation increases the mass of water vapour in the atmosphere. Because the atmosphere is not already saturated, the net mass of water vapour can increase. Water vapour will not magically adopt a pattern of evenly distributing itself so that it does not locally saturate more frequently. When water vapour concentrations reach saturation, precipitation occurs. More water vapour mass in the atmosphere means more local pockets of saturation, hence precipitation (rain).

Don't confuse "heat" with "desert". Desertification occurs where there is little or no precipitation. A desert can be a very cold place as well as a very hot one.

And don't confuse storms with rain.

You're right that there will be increased evaporation. That will fuel storms. Coastal regions in storm tracks will get increased precipitation. That does little for a farmer in Kansas or Saskatchewan.

And there is also the fact that we don't know if places will get more rain overall or just the same amount of rain faster. If that's the case, we have more flooding, and over saturation.

I also like how you ignored every other negative that goes with increased global temperatures to say "but more rain"

 

[Brad Sallows]

The same glaciers that fuel our rivers.

Glaciers are just temporary storage. Ultimately, it's precipitation and ground water that feed rivers. More rainfall due to increased atmospheric warming will increase net water flows. Yes, that will mean more flooding.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Good for the plants, but they already have enough carbon.

Generally, plants in resource-rich areas thrive more than plants in resource-poor areas. Higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 mean more rapid and healthier plant growth. This is useful for reforestation, re-vegetation, and agriculture.

 

[Altair]

Glaciers are just temporary storage. Ultimately, it's precipitation and ground water that feed rivers. More rainfall due to increased atmospheric warming will increase net water flows. Yes, that will mean more flooding.

Incorrect.

Learn

Quick facts, basic science, and information about snow, ice, and why the cryosphere matters The cryosphere includes all of the snow and ice-covered regions across the planet.

nsidc.org

Glacier retreat, melt, and ablation result from increasing temperature, evaporation, and wind scouring. Ablation is a natural and seasonal part of glacier life. As long as snow accumulation equals or is greater than melt and ablation, a glacier will remain in balance or even grow. Once winter snowfall decreases, or summer melt increases, the glacier will begin to retreat. Some biological processes, such as microbes on the surface of a glacier, can reduce the glacier's ability to reflect sunlight back into space. These bioalbedo processes can hasten glacier retreat.

It's telling that glaciers have been around in more or less constant form until the last 100 years or so, when they have all started to retreat. Since the ice age until recently. From 11700 years ago until the last 100 years.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The world gets warmer

Yes.

the droughts get worse

Occasionally locally, yes, but on net, no.

rivers and lakes dry up as glaciers melt away

Occasionally locally, yes, but on net, no.

sea levels rise

Yes, but cities at risk will be fucked by poor land use long before they could potentially be fucked by sea level rise due to ice melt.

more destructive hurricanes and storms.

Increased atmospheric heat retention == increased energy, so yes, potentially more energetic events. However, the cost of "destructive" depends on what people are building and where. The problem with destructive weather events is that people persist in building in high-risk locations. When a bunch of shoreline millionaires lose their mansions, it's not a tragedy. The "destruction" could be reduced by removing incentives to build in risky areas, by not subsidizing losses.

 

[Altair]

Generally, plants in resource-rich areas thrive more than plants in resource-poor areas. Higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 mean more rapid and healthier plant growth. This is useful for reforestation, re-vegetation, and agriculture.

This is great news for plants.

The rising temperatures are not great for humanity and many ecosystems.

And I don't think plants are exactly starving for carbon.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Incorrect.

No, I'm entirely correct. Glaciers are just accumulated precipitation.

I appreciate that you work so hard at being obtuse, because it gives me an opportunity to preach some facts and ideas for the benefit of others who might usefully absorb the information, assuming they are not so zealously ignorant because of their politics.

 

[Altair]

Yes.

Yes.

Occasionally locally, yes, but on net, no.

Hotter temperatures lead to increased evaporation, which leads to dryer soil, which does play a part in more droughts.

You keep saying more rain, but that rain isn't going to be equally distributed across the globe.

Occasionally locally, yes, but on net, no.

Up to 50 percent of some rivers are glacier melt. Take away the glaciers, and rivers have up to 50 percent less water flowing through them.

Yes, but cities at risk will be fucked by poor land use long before they could potentially be fucked by sea level rise due to ice melt.

The two compound the issue.

Increased atmospheric heat retention == increased energy, so yes, potentially more energetic events. However, the cost of "destructive" depends on what people are building and where. The problem with destructive weather events is that people persist in building in high-risk locations. When a bunch of shoreline millionaires lose their mansions, it's not a tragedy. The "destruction" could be reduced by removing incentives to build in risky areas, by not subsidizing losses.

I like how you equate all low lying areas as shoreline millionaires.

 

[Altair]

No, I'm entirely correct. Glaciers are just accumulated precipitation.

I appreciate that you work so hard at being obtuse, because it gives me an opportunity to preach some facts and ideas for the benefit of others who might usefully absorb the information, assuming they are not so zealously ignorant because of their politics.

They are accumulated precipitation, but they are not temporary.

Glacier mass has been more or less constant for millennial, only melting at this rate due to the increase in global temperatures.

And while you're right that that precipitation will occur regardless, precipitation is not constant, so rivers will dry up some without glaciers constantly feeding them. Around 1/3 of the world's rivers do not have enough continental runoff to continue without glacier melt.

Now let's say we take away 1/3 of humans water supply, to say nothing of the ecosystems involved. How would you say thats not a crisis?

How can you even say that's poor planning? Rivers that existed for thousands of years suddenly go dry, how does one plan for that?

The rise in global temperatures should be slowed down and stopped, as soon as possible without throwing us back into the stone age. 1.5 degrees is the best bet. 2 degrees is bad, but manageable(expensive)

2.7+ if humanity does nothing and continues as if it's not a problem will lead to massive problems that we are not at all prepared to deal with.

And this shouldn't be political. We should be treating this as if we noticed a comet coming to smack into earth. If we noticed a comet coming to smack into earth we wouldn't be be talking about the politics of letting it happen or not, if it was real or not, the benefits of it or the cons, or it being a left versus right thing, we would be focused on saving the planet as we know it, and we wouldn't care much about the costs.

This is a slow moving disaster but a disaster none the less.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Stop peddling hysterical suppositions and bullshit as if they were real threats.

 

[Altair]

Stop peddling hysterical suppositions and bullshit as if they were real threats.

It's not hypothetical.

Glaciers that have been around since the end of the ice age are disappearing. That's a fact.

Glaciers feed rivers. That's a fact.

1/3rd of the world's rivers do not have enough continental runoff to survive without glaciers. That's a fact.

Global temperatures are continuing to rise at an increasing pace. That's a fact.

Increasing global temperatures bring with it climate change. That's a fact.

CO2 Emissions contribute to the warming of the planet. That's a fact.

The warming of the planet has negative consequences for billions of people. That's a fact.

We should be doing whatever we can to lower emissions and slow the warming of the planet. Not a fact, but just an obvious course of action.

I know am asking much considering the members of one of the parties in parliament cannot even come to the conclusion that climate change is real, but at least 64 percent of the seats allocated to parliament belong to a party that does believe climate change is real.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The catastrophes that you imagine (that will not actually happen) can't be mitigated anyways by the inadequate policies that you insist on adhering to. Stop worrying.

 

[QV]

When you say "climate change" you're playing games and so are the politicians. Of course the climate is changing, it always has and always will.

When you say glaciers have been receding, yes they have slightly ever since we left the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago.

This is a manufactured crisis.

 

[Altair]

The catastrophes that you imagine (that will not actually happen) can't be mitigated anyways by the inadequate policies that you insist on adhering to. Stop worrying.

The catastrophes that scientists are saying may come to pass can be mitigated by reducing emissions. Reducing emissions slows the rate at which the planet is heating up. As for current policies, globally, they may just do the job. But that's so long as everyone works together to make it happen. Which is why global summits like COP26 happen. If they don't, and the scientists are correct, we are in for a world of hurt. So I fully support policies like the carbon tax, and I think its a good idea to start imposing extra costs on those who do not put a price on carbon themselves. Especially if the EU is on board, and it sounds like they may be, putting a minimum price on carbon globally may force other nations to address their carbon output or find their economies suffer from other countries putting addition taxes on what they produce.

Its a good idea to bring the fight to bring down emissions to the global stage. Far better than you're do nothing or forget our emissions, our emissions are fine, lets just focus on everyone else emissions, those are the bad emissions and of course not every country is going to take the same outlook as that, of course not, "plan".

 

[Altair]

When you say "climate change" you're playing games and so are the politicians. Of course the climate is changing, it always has and always will.

When you say glaciers have been receding, yes they have slightly ever since we left the Little Ice Age about 400 years ago.

This is a manufactured crisis.

View attachment 67001

Oh yes, of course, another one of the humans pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the air for the past 100 years has had no effect on things, this is just what the planet does, all that carbon just gets turned into fairy dust using magic, crowd.

 

[QV]

Oh yes, of course, another one of the humans pumping trillions of tons of CO2 into the air for the past 100 years has had no effect on things, this is just what the planet does, all that carbon just gets turned into fairy dust using magic, crowd.

How much does one volcano emit?

But I see you subscribe to the "if I raise taxes I can change the earth's climate" group.