• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Heat dome moves toward Alberta after shattering temperature records in B.C., N.W.T.

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Climate change is real. It’s time people accept it and stop burying their heads hoping they won’t have to change behaviours. My opinion is that people are reticent to accept climate change for selfish reasons (don’t want to give up their luxuries). The Earth will survive climate change regardless. The human race? Probably not.
No use arguing with experts. Others have tried, and given up. 148 pages worth.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
642
Points
1,060
No use arguing with experts. Others have tried, and given up. 148 pages worth.
But I have so many appropriate memes!
433C8B14-A338-4C7E-BB11-A5CFF730633E.jpeg69A78AD3-20A8-41AA-A8D0-3FA1393A0960.jpeg70A9B8D8-8F99-41AD-A1CE-F27589871ACF.jpeg
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,284
Points
1,060
No use arguing with experts. Others have tried, and given up. 148 pages worth.
Who specifically are the experts you're talking about and who's arguing with them?
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Who specifically are the experts you're talking about and who's arguing with them?
Specifically, Jarnhamar, the experts I am talking about are the scientists.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,457
Points
1,160
Alot of fires breaking out across BC right now, mainly caused by lightening. Two dead in Lytton, which was destroyed by fire yesterday, so far. Dozens of people are still unaccounted for:

Fire destroys most of Lytton; anguished son recalls seeing parents trapped

Lytton resident Jeff Chapman could only yell and scream in despair as he watched the Lytton wildfire kill his mother and father a few metres away.

Wildfires have destroyed most of the village. Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said the fires, one spanning nearly 90 square kilometres, levelled most buildings in Lytton, situated where the Thompson and Fraser rivers meet at the north end of the Fraser Canyon. Farnworth said multiple residents are unaccounted for, but he didn’t give numbers.

 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110

TheHead

Full Member
Reaction score
38
Points
280
I'm sure someone whos credentials are airline pilot or "OWNER of FastCAM" are to be trusted more than an actual climate scientist. :ROFLMAO:
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
642
Points
1,060
I'm sure someone whos credentials are airline pilot or "OWNER of FastCAM" are to be trusted more than an actual climate scientist. :ROFLMAO:
He’s quoting reliable scientific material against people vomiting crap they read one Facebook one time.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,284
Points
1,060
Ah yes, because an MBA grad or a Professor of law are experts in climate…. Look at the signee list. Many have no experience in science at all and most do not have experience in a field related to climate science.
List of Canadian signators.

Alain Bonnier, Physicist, INRS-Centre de Recherche and Energy Montréal, Canada
Ian Clark, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Ottawa
Paul A. Johnston, Associate Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta
Kees van Kooten, Professor of Economics and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, Canada


You also have "expert reviewer" Madhav Khandekar and Independent Climate Researcher Paul MacRae, I'm not sure when you unlock expert level researching.

All I'm saying is there's a healthy dose of confirmation bias when it comes to citing experts and science. There also seems to be some ridicule leveled towards anyone daring to question experts.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
1,229
Points
1,110
List of Canadian signators.

Alain Bonnier, Physicist, INRS-Centre de Recherche and Energy Montréal, Canada
Ian Clark, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Ottawa
Paul A. Johnston, Associate Professor, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta
Kees van Kooten, Professor of Economics and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Studies and Climate, University of Victoria, Canada


You also have "expert reviewer" Madhav Khandekar and Independent Climate Researcher Paul MacRae, I'm not sure when you unlock expert level researching.

All I'm saying is there's a healthy dose of confirmation bias when it comes to citing experts and science. There also seems to be some ridicule leveled towards anyone daring to question experts.
I didn’t say all have no experience in science. I said many.

Science is about questioning experts. That’s its basis. However, there is an overwhelmingly large consensus within the field of climate science that supports the theory of climate change. Just like there is an overwhelmingly large consensus within the physics community that supports the theory the Earth is spheroid.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,457
Points
1,160
I didn’t say all have no experience in science. I said many.

Science is about questioning experts. That’s its basis. However, there is an overwhelmingly large consensus within the field of climate science that supports the theory of climate change. Just like there is an overwhelmingly large consensus within the physics community that supports the theory the Earth is spheroid.

Apparently, when it comes to acting on Climate Change research it's not about the 'hard science', but that's where all the money goes:


THIS SURPRISING FACT ABOUT RESEARCH FUNDING COULD EXPLAIN WHY IT’S SO HARD TO GET TRACTION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE​

“Natural scientists and policymakers tend to just assume that if the natural and technical sciences identify the problem and solutions, society will automatically solve the problem,” Øverland, head of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs’ Centre for Energy Research, wrote in an email to Ensia. “I think the past three decades have proven that assumption does not hold.”

Published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, the study reviews grants from hundreds of government agencies and other organizations around the world that fund academic research, such as the European Commission and the U.S. National Science Foundation. Grants assessed were from the Dimensions database.

Between 1990 and 2018, the natural and technical sciences received billions of dollars in climate change-related research funding. The social sciences and humanities? Just US$393 million for climate change mitigation, the researchers estimate.

 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
435
Points
930
No, the premise is that the experts predicted a 1.5 degree increase by 2015 which didn't happen. .6 in 30 years is well within the margin of error and can probably be more attributed to heat islands around urban growth which while significant to the residents do not reflect the environment as a whole. The Malvinas are supposed to be underwater now. Hasn't happened in fact there is a slight increase in area as the land is still rising slightly. There was supposed to be open water across the top of Canada in 2015. Didn't happen in fact the expeditionary vessel got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued. The only reason there was an increase in named storms was due to a change in the criteria for naming and there has been no increase in the number of intense storms (NASA) The cost of storms has indeed risen but then again so has the cost to replace my house and yours. And there is a greater population density as well. The Great Barrier Reef has almost fully recovered so it isn't dying and Antarctica just recorded and is still recording one of its coldest winters ever.

For the bad news: every windmill disturbs 11.2 acres of usually productive farm land and renders 52 acres uninhabitable. For every windmill constructed a corresponding natural gas/coal generator needs to be built and maintained in a hot standby position to backup the wind when it is either too strong or not strong enough. The source for the minerals required is 90% Chinese and mining and refining is done by forced labour. The average number of birds killed by each wind farm varies between 140,000 and 500,000 annually. (Do Windmills Kill Birds? | How Many Birds Are Killed By Windmills And Wind Turbines?). Because of UN pressure many African villages must still rely upon charcoal for heat, cooking and light. They manufacture the charcoal in crude home-made kilns. Many suffer from eye infections as a result. Water is drawn from potentially contaminated streams because there is no power to operate a water purification plant and all because there is no help to construct electric generators because we the west have deemed them to be pollutants. Green energy is only for the rich. 80% of current US electricity comes from non-renewable sources. To replace that by wind or solar would require the construction of 6,700,000 windmills or the equivalent solar arrays. They are currently adding 3000 per year. You do the math. The cost of a wind turbine is 1.3 million dollars per mw and you need to replace 3.2 trillion kw of energy just to match today's needs and that doesn't add any extra to charge all those car batteries. Did I mention that the car batteries only last 5 years, are hazardous to replace, highly flammable and finally sourced in China in those slave camps.
All of this to achieve what? They don't even know if reducing CO2 content will do anything to reduce temperature since only computer programmes can show an increase in temperature that correlates with carbon increase. There is no scientific proof only guesses. The cost is definitely not worth the outcome any way you slice it.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,284
Points
1,060
I didn’t say all have no experience in science. I said many.
Right. And some of them are physicists and professors of environmental science, so a little more read in.

However, there is an overwhelmingly large consensus within the field of climate science that supports the theory of climate change.
Agree. I'm a big believer in climate change. Yes, it's been happening for billions of years but humanity is driving it towards sabotaging our own existence. We need to change how we live and work on being less abusive of the environment.

I'm equally concerned when I read about millions of tax dollars disappearing into Climate Change grants and projects with no accountability and or paper trail.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
2,821
Points
1,010
Climate change is real. It’s time people accept it and stop burying their heads hoping they won’t have to change behaviours. My opinion is that people are reticent to accept climate change for selfish reasons (don’t want to give up their luxuries). The Earth will survive climate change regardless. The human race? Probably not.

It's trivially obvious that climate change is real. It's trivially obvious that throughout history people have changed behaviour and adapted to it.

What isn't obvious is that some sort of catastrophe is around the corner.

What is predictable is that if the strategy to give things up is followed, people will compensate by re-adopting whatever they did back when those things were unavailable. We have almost a couple of centuries of empirical evidence that increasing prosperity promotes increasing desire and willingness to mitigate environmental damage. (Crudely, people have time to worry about their air quality when they no long need an open fire inside the hut. Etc.) Those who would move backward are the ones in denial of that evidence.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
671
Points
1,060
Apparently, when it comes to acting on Climate Change research it's not about the 'hard science', but that's where all the money goes:


THIS SURPRISING FACT ABOUT RESEARCH FUNDING COULD EXPLAIN WHY IT’S SO HARD TO GET TRACTION AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE​

“Natural scientists and policymakers tend to just assume that if the natural and technical sciences identify the problem and solutions, society will automatically solve the problem,” Øverland, head of the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs’ Centre for Energy Research, wrote in an email to Ensia. “I think the past three decades have proven that assumption does not hold.”

Published in the journal Energy Research & Social Science, the study reviews grants from hundreds of government agencies and other organizations around the world that fund academic research, such as the European Commission and the U.S. National Science Foundation. Grants assessed were from the Dimensions database.

Between 1990 and 2018, the natural and technical sciences received billions of dollars in climate change-related research funding. The social sciences and humanities? Just US$393 million for climate change mitigation, the researchers estimate.

I don't know if I'd agree with diverting funding scientific discovery to the social sciences would be helpful or useful
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,419
Points
1,060
So far i not seeing the Elite and powerful giving up much to save the world, but they are determined to make the rest of us to give it up. How about a quota on the number of times you can travel by air in your lifetime? YVR was going through some 375 large truckloads of fuel every few day prior to Covid. How about a carbon tax on every Chinese made good till they allow independent checking of their GHG releases?
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
642
Points
1,060
No, the premise is that the experts predicted a 1.5 degree increase by 2015 which didn't happen. .6 in 30 years is well within the margin of error and can probably be more attributed to heat islands around urban growth which while significant to the residents do not reflect the environment as a whole. The Malvinas are supposed to be underwater now. Hasn't happened in fact there is a slight increase in area as the land is still rising slightly. There was supposed to be open water across the top of Canada in 2015. Didn't happen in fact the expeditionary vessel got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued. The only reason there was an increase in named storms was due to a change in the criteria for naming and there has been no increase in the number of intense storms (NASA) The cost of storms has indeed risen but then again so has the cost to replace my house and yours. And there is a greater population density as well. The Great Barrier Reef has almost fully recovered so it isn't dying and Antarctica just recorded and is still recording one of its coldest winters ever.

For the bad news: every windmill disturbs 11.2 acres of usually productive farm land and renders 52 acres uninhabitable. For every windmill constructed a corresponding natural gas/coal generator needs to be built and maintained in a hot standby position to backup the wind when it is either too strong or not strong enough. The source for the minerals required is 90% Chinese and mining and refining is done by forced labour. The average number of birds killed by each wind farm varies between 140,000 and 500,000 annually. (Do Windmills Kill Birds? | How Many Birds Are Killed By Windmills And Wind Turbines?). Because of UN pressure many African villages must still rely upon charcoal for heat, cooking and light. They manufacture the charcoal in crude home-made kilns. Many suffer from eye infections as a result. Water is drawn from potentially contaminated streams because there is no power to operate a water purification plant and all because there is no help to construct electric generators because we the west have deemed them to be pollutants. Green energy is only for the rich. 80% of current US electricity comes from non-renewable sources. To replace that by wind or solar would require the construction of 6,700,000 windmills or the equivalent solar arrays. They are currently adding 3000 per year. You do the math. The cost of a wind turbine is 1.3 million dollars per mw and you need to replace 3.2 trillion kw of energy just to match today's needs and that doesn't add any extra to charge all those car batteries. Did I mention that the car batteries only last 5 years, are hazardous to replace, highly flammable and finally sourced in China in those slave camps.
All of this to achieve what? They don't even know if reducing CO2 content will do anything to reduce temperature since only computer programmes can show an increase in temperature that correlates with carbon increase. There is no scientific proof only guesses. The cost is definitely not worth the outcome any way you slice it.
I missed one Windmills improve crops
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
642
Points
1,060
No, the premise is that the experts predicted a 1.5 degree increase by 2015 which didn't happen. .6 in 30 years is well within the margin of error and can probably be more attributed to heat islands around urban growth which while significant to the residents do not reflect the environment as a whole. The Malvinas are supposed to be underwater now. Hasn't happened in fact there is a slight increase in area as the land is still rising slightly. There was supposed to be open water across the top of Canada in 2015. Didn't happen in fact the expeditionary vessel got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued. The only reason there was an increase in named storms was due to a change in the criteria for naming and there has been no increase in the number of intense storms (NASA) The cost of storms has indeed risen but then again so has the cost to replace my house and yours. And there is a greater population density as well. The Great Barrier Reef has almost fully recovered so it isn't dying and Antarctica just recorded and is still recording one of its coldest winters ever.

For the bad news: every windmill disturbs 11.2 acres of usually productive farm land and renders 52 acres uninhabitable. For every windmill constructed a corresponding natural gas/coal generator needs to be built and maintained in a hot standby position to backup the wind when it is either too strong or not strong enough. The source for the minerals required is 90% Chinese and mining and refining is done by forced labour. The average number of birds killed by each wind farm varies between 140,000 and 500,000 annually. (Do Windmills Kill Birds? | How Many Birds Are Killed By Windmills And Wind Turbines?). Because of UN pressure many African villages must still rely upon charcoal for heat, cooking and light. They manufacture the charcoal in crude home-made kilns. Many suffer from eye infections as a result. Water is drawn from potentially contaminated streams because there is no power to operate a water purification plant and all because there is no help to construct electric generators because we the west have deemed them to be pollutants. Green energy is only for the rich. 80% of current US electricity comes from non-renewable sources. To replace that by wind or solar would require the construction of 6,700,000 windmills or the equivalent solar arrays. They are currently adding 3000 per year. You do the math. The cost of a wind turbine is 1.3 million dollars per mw and you need to replace 3.2 trillion kw of energy just to match today's needs and that doesn't add any extra to charge all those car batteries. Did I mention that the car batteries only last 5 years, are hazardous to replace, highly flammable and finally sourced in China in those slave camps.
All of this to achieve what? They don't even know if reducing CO2 content will do anything to reduce temperature since only computer programmes can show an increase in temperature that correlates with carbon increase. There is no scientific proof only guesses. The cost is definitely not worth the outcome any way you slice it.
Batteries are Recyclable
Internal Combustion Engines are More Likely to Catch Fire than an EV
The stuff you are saying is just not true.
 
Top