Just how pointless and stupid our climate reductions efforts are

[RedDog]

How are carbon taxes doing in China, India and Russia? ? 

[SpankyMcFarland]

If I win this argument what do I win exactly? A charred husk of a country, that’s what. So I want to be wrong about the fires that could engulf us but wishful thinking doesn’t get you far in this world. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by SpankyMcFarland

[psikeyhackr]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

well there is a shit tonne of that evidence out there and much much scientific research has been done.  Read a book.

As to how fast it depends.  Sometimes pretty fast, sometimes not for millenia.  Read about that time it didn't rain for a million years then rained for a million years

 

At the beginning of the 1300's - the worst century in history to live in by far -  the weather which had been stable for ages suddenly shifted and it caused mass crop failures across all of europe and asia and starvation became rampant and a constant threat for the better part of the century as crops no longer grew like they used to as a result of the weather change. That was pretty fast.

Bringing the climate of more than 5 million years ago into the discussion is somewhat ridiculous and doing it for more than 100 million years ago is utterly ridiculous.

No one was trying to grow wheat, corn and rice to feed hundreds of millions of people back then. It has been from 2 to 4 million years since CO2 was this high. The cycles of Ice Ages has only been occurring for a couple of million years, maybe not much more than one.

The Himalayan mountains did not exist 60 million years ago and their weathering is what pulled a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere.  So throwing up drivel about 200 million years ago is just a distracting waste of time. Is that your objective ? 

Edited June 9, 2023 by psikeyhackr
words missing

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

If I win this argument what do I win exactly? A charred husk of a country, that’s what. So I want to be wrong about the fires that could engulf us but wishful thinking doesn’t get you far in this world. 

The last time I saw comparison maps of what countries would 'suffer' the most from climate change in a century Canada was one of those who would suffer almost nothing. We'll lose some land do to drought and flood but gain other land as previously unused lands become more capable of growing food. Overall, the difference to our GDP in a century was estimated at +/- 1%. 

So ditch the silly hyperbole.

Edited June 10, 2023 by I am Groot

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

No one was trying to grow wheat, corn and rice to feed hundreds of millions of people back then. 

True enough. The question that arises then is would an increase in temperature make it more difficult to grow wheat, corn, and rice? My guess is... no.

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

The last time I saw comparison maps of what countries would 'suffer' the most from climate change in a century Canada was one of those who would suffer almost nothing. We'll lose some land do to drought and flood but gain other land as previously unused lands become more capable of growing food. Overall, the difference to our GDP in a century was estimated at +/- 1%. 

So ditch the silly hyperbole.

Actually that's my understanding as well.  It's not reported on much (for obvious reasons) but as far as i can tell Canada walks away pretty unscathed and in some areas even better off with most of the modelling.  We'll have to change a few things to get ready for more extreme weather events but it won't be a massive problem for us.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

The last time I saw comparison maps of what countries would 'suffer' the most from climate change in a century Canada was one of those who would suffer almost nothing. We'll lose some land do to drought and flood but gain other land as previously unused lands become more capable of growing food. Overall, the difference to our GDP in a century was estimated at +/- 1%. 

So ditch the silly hyperbole.

How does that work exactly?  We all just move three hundred miles north and hope for the best?

Genuine question.  I have no idea.

Edited June 10, 2023 by bcsapper

[CdnFox]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

How does that work exactly?  We all just move three hundred miles north and hope for the best?

Genuine question.  I have no idea.

Like i said, it's not popular to talk about so  you have to dig to find any info - but from what i understand it's more like you'll stay in place and there will largely only be minor changes.  We might have longer growing seasons, we'll have more extreme weather events that we'll have to prepare for so it doesn't impact us. For bc for example that might mean more heat domes, more forest fire seasons and more flooding in the winter. So - more air conditioning, better forest management and better dikes. That sort of thing.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Like i said, it's not popular to talk about so  you have to dig to find any info - but from what i understand it's more like you'll stay in place and there will largely only be minor changes.  We might have longer growing seasons, we'll have more extreme weather events that we'll have to prepare for so it doesn't impact us. For bc for example that might mean more heat domes, more forest fire seasons and more flooding in the winter. So - more air conditioning, better forest management and better dikes. That sort of thing.

Those changes you mention don't seem to be minor changes.  I've been evacuated three times so far this year.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Those changes you mention don't seem to be minor changes.  I've been evacuated three times so far this year.

 

They are if we're talking about scale and history. Evacuations have always happened.  We've always had flooding. There have always been extreme weather events.

So all we're talking about is a mild increase in what we've already have

Now - ANY change has the potential to have a large impact.  So - it's necessary to adapt. Like i said - better forest management practices.  we can't afford to just skate by with what'we've been doing so far. It's not doable.  We have to get far more serious about managing forests and being ready to fight fires.

But that's it really. Serious weather changes make it significantly harder to live here - and there are many places that will face that.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They are if we're talking about scale and history. Evacuations have always happened.  We've always had flooding. There have always been extreme weather events.

So all we're talking about is a mild increase in what we've already have

Now - ANY change has the potential to have a large impact.  So - it's necessary to adapt. Like i said - better forest management practices.  we can't afford to just skate by with what'we've been doing so far. It's not doable.  We have to get far more serious about managing forests and being ready to fight fires.

But that's it really. Serious weather changes make it significantly harder to live here - and there are many places that will face that.

Okay, so what are we arguing about?   Climate change is making extreme weather events more extreme and more likely.  More towns will burn. (Edson was evacuated again last night) More towns will flood, etc.  More droughts will result in more crop failures and more livestock culls. 

I think the only argument we have here is with your use of the word "mild". 

I agree we need to adapt.  Total camp fire and ATV bans would be a no-brainer first step.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Okay, so what are we arguing about?

You mean you and me? I didn't think we were, it's been a pleasant talk at best!   You want to see fighting let me introduce you to a few of my ex's . Some of them make make a German SS panzer division seem 'non confrontational ' 

If you mean the country in general... I dunno. I mean, gotta argue about SOMEthing.
 

Quote

 

  Climate change is making extreme weather events more extreme and more likely.  More towns will burn. (Edson was evacuated again last night) More towns will flood, etc.  More droughts will result in more crop failures and more livestock culls. 

 

Well - with luck people will grab a brain and more towns will have fire mitigation plans so they don't burn, more dikes will be built higher so there is no more flooding, irrigation systems will be put in place as necessary, etc etc etc.

And if not pretty soon the towns that are going to burn are burnt and the crops that are going to die are dead etc and people learn to build differently and plant different crops.

We're talking about minor changes over all. This is peanuts to deal with. This isn't going to be like the great weather shift of the 1300's  There won't be a potato blight.

Quote

I think the only argument we have here is with your use of the word "mild". 

Meh - it's  dependent on perspective. Compared to history and even other weather changes in human times this is nothing.  There was a time when it just didn't rain for a million years and then suddenly it didnt' stop raining for 2 million That's some serious weather change!

how about this for a definition - any weather change that we can reasonably adapt to with a modest cost and existing tech is 'mild', anything that requires a sizeable portion of our budget to adjust to is moderate to high - anything we can't adapt to without developing new tech is extreme.

With that as a measure, what we're talking about right now according to the average of the models is pretty mild. Right now we spend more money on free drugs for drug users than we do fighting forest fires in all of bc - we have a 136 million dollar budget.  Bump that puppy to a billion and we won't be evacuating towns for a while.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You mean you and me? I didn't think we were, it's been a pleasant talk at best!   You want to see fighting let me introduce you to a few of my ex's . Some of them make make a German SS panzer division seem 'non confrontational ' 

If you mean the country in general... I dunno. I mean, gotta argue about SOMEthing.
 

Well - with luck people will grab a brain and more towns will have fire mitigation plans so they don't burn, more dikes will be built higher so there is no more flooding, irrigation systems will be put in place as necessary, etc etc etc.

And if not pretty soon the towns that are going to burn are burnt and the crops that are going to die are dead etc and people learn to build differently and plant different crops.

We're talking about minor changes over all. This is peanuts to deal with. This isn't going to be like the great weather shift of the 1300's  There won't be a potato blight.

Meh - it's  dependent on perspective. Compared to history and even other weather changes in human times this is nothing.  There was a time when it just didn't rain for a million years and then suddenly it didnt' stop raining for 2 million That's some serious weather change!

how about this for a definition - any weather change that we can reasonably adapt to with a modest cost and existing tech is 'mild', anything that requires a sizeable portion of our budget to adjust to is moderate to high - anything we can't adapt to without developing new tech is extreme.

With that as a measure, what we're talking about right now according to the average of the models is pretty mild. Right now we spend more money on free drugs for drug users than we do fighting forest fires in all of bc - we have a 136 million dollar budget.  Bump that puppy to a billion and we won't be evacuating towns for a while.

Where are they going to get their water?  Right now BC is looking at a major drought due to the lack of snowpack and the faster than usual melt of what there was.

That we are 8 billion strong now and there were far fewer of us when it didn't rain for a million years is a factor to be considered.  Sure, you can take all the money from programs you don't support and put it into fighting fires but that is an effect.  And not a mild one.

Edited June 10, 2023 by bcsapper

[CdnFox]

Just now, bcsapper said:

Where are they going to get their water?  Right now BC is looking at a major drought due to the lack of snowpack and the faster than usual melt of what there was.

We're not looking at a 'major drought'.  We're looking at unusually dry conditions.  But my creek is full of water, the fraser river still seems to be running, there's a tonne of water about and there will be all year even with dryer than usual conditions.

So they'll have to do things similar to how they do in the states and manitoba for example. But we have 20 percent of the entire world's fresh water in canada - even if it gets drier there will be water to be had. Even if that got cut in half we'd still have vastly more than anyone else and they make do.   It will take new infrastructure and some spending but not even all that much.

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That we are 8 billion strong and there was only one of us when it didn't rain for a million years is a factor to be considered.

We're talking about canada.  We're about 40 million strong, that's it. It's not hard to take care of our needs.

Again - nobody is claiming there's NO effect. But the costs to adapt are mild, and the tech is readily available. If bc put about 2 billion a year to adapting to climate change within 4 or 5 years we'd be set for far worse conditions than we're supposed to see for over 100 years.

 

[WestCanMan]

23 hours ago, RedDog said:

How are carbon taxes doing in China, India and Russia? ? 

They actually love it. Mostly because we are paying it for them.

You know them commies loves 'em some free shiznit. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We're not looking at a 'major drought'.  We're looking at unusually dry conditions.  But my creek is full of water, the fraser river still seems to be running, there's a tonne of water about and there will be all year even with dryer than usual conditions.

So they'll have to do things similar to how they do in the states and manitoba for example. But we have 20 percent of the entire world's fresh water in canada - even if it gets drier there will be water to be had. Even if that got cut in half we'd still have vastly more than anyone else and they make do.   It will take new infrastructure and some spending but not even all that much.

We're talking about canada.  We're about 40 million strong, that's it. It's not hard to take care of our needs.

Again - nobody is claiming there's NO effect. But the costs to adapt are mild, and the tech is readily available. If bc put about 2 billion a year to adapting to climate change within 4 or 5 years we'd be set for far worse conditions than we're supposed to see for over 100 years.

 

So basically we're agreed that Climate Change is going to affect us and how we live, but we disagree on severity.  Fair enough.

 

[WestCanMan]

On 6/9/2023 at 7:31 AM, CdnFox said:

 

That happened in Langley last year.

[WestCanMan]

21 hours ago, psikeyhackr said:

Bringing the climate of more than 5 million years ago into the discussion is somewhat ridiculous and doing it for more than 100 million years ago is utterly ridiculous.

He said: 

Quote

At the beginning of the 1300's - the worst century in history to live in by far -  the weather which had been stable for ages suddenly shifted and it caused mass crop failures across all of europe and asia and starvation became rampant and a constant threat for the better part of the century as crops no longer grew like they used to as a result of the weather change. That was pretty fast.

Quick question: WTF is 2023 minus 1300? Is it 5,000,000? 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So basically we're agreed that Climate Change is going to affect us and how we live, but we disagree on severity.  Fair enough.

 

Sure - that's fair.

Edited June 10, 2023 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He said: 

Quick question: WTF is 2023 minus 1300? Is it 5,000,000? 

Math is hard.  Especially for those on the left.

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So basically we're agreed that Climate Change is going to affect us and how we live, but we disagree on severity.  Fair enough.

Basically I'm at the point where I utterly reject as false anything that the Dems, Libs, and Science Incarnate say in unison.

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Math is hard.  Especially for those on the left.

Luckily for them it falls under the general category of "facts", so they can disregard it entirely. 

[eyeball]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So basically we're agreed that Climate Change is going to affect us and how we live, but we disagree on severity.  Fair enough.

If it took 50 years or more to agree climate change is even real how much time it will take to agree on its severity and what to do about it is anyone's guess but I suspect it will always be a dollar short and a day late - to put it mildly.

Edited June 10, 2023 by eyeball

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

If it took 50 years or more to agree climate change is even real how much time will it take to agree on its severity and what to do about it is anyone's guess but I suspect it will always be a dollar short and a day late - to put it mildly.

We don't have to agree.  We just have to watch.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Basically I'm at the point where I utterly reject as false anything that the Dems, Libs, and Science Incarnate say in unison.

Luckily for them it falls under the general category of "facts", so they can disregard it entirely. 

Well, you wouldn't be the first person to reject science. 

[psikeyhackr]

28 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

He said: 

Quick question: WTF is 2023 minus 1300? Is it 5,000,000? 

There was a video in the post about it raining for 2 million years. Did you watch it?