Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

Climate Change?

Recommended Posts

Those two quotes aren't wrong.

While people have gotten stupider, and show no respect to the environment leading to fires, the hotter drier climate is allowing what used to be a small brush fire blow up into what we see today.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California is under a drought.  All of that wilderness is tinderbox.  That is directly related to climate.

The BC wildfires are a different story.

While the cause might be human, California has a harder time of it due to the lack of moisture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The forest fire situation has also been made worse by invasive/non invasive insects which kill trees. The dead fall and litter provide a huge fuel source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True but this is also a natural cycle.  All of that mess gets turned to ash and in a relatively short period of time a new forest will spring forth.  Healthier and stronger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 8:04 AM, boestar said:

California is under a drought.  All of that wilderness is tinderbox.  That is directly related to climate.

The BC wildfires are a different story.

While the cause might be human, California has a harder time of it due to the lack of moisture.

Disagree. It's directly related to building sub-divisions in areas prone to extremely dry conditions in areas prone to regular, annual brush/forest fires.

It is indeed climate - it's like that every year. That is what climate is - a standard type of weather year after year after year over a given area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right but look at history.  In the early 1990s California was under a drought for 5 years.  Same sort of water shortages.  After that things turned around and the drought was over.  I has been fine for well over 2 decades.  The cycle is just repeating.  So yes its climate but you cannot blame people for it.  At least not directly.  California is a totally different place now than it was in the early 90s.

As for BC Again the wildfires would happen with or without those subdivisions.  How do you explain wild fires hundreds of miles from the nearest civilization?  Many of these start every year with no human intervention whatsoever.  

climate plays a part in the severity but is not the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, boestar said:

How do you explain wild fires hundreds of miles from the nearest civilization?  Many of these start every year with no human intervention whatsoever. 

Forest fires in remote areas, isolated from human contact, are common. Lightning starts most remote fires that are not caused by human actions. Anyone who's spent time in the NWT has seen huge tracts of forests burn year after year. It is part of the phenomenon of rejuvenation. The main reason we attack fires so furiously is to protect a natural resource first, life, limb and property second.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2018 at 7:40 PM, Moon The Loon said:

Forest fires in remote areas, isolated from human contact, are common. Lightning starts most remote fires that are not caused by human actions. Anyone who's spent time in the NWT has seen huge tracts of forests burn year after year. It is part of the phenomenon of rejuvenation. The main reason we attack fires so furiously is to protect a natural resource first, life, limb and property second.

my point exactly.  Mother nature is bigger and stronger than us.  We need to face the fact we picked a fight we will eventually lose.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Paris Tax sham is unfolding as pay up time comes due. At least several thousands of politicians got a free Paris vacation out of it. Guess it wasn’t a total loss.

 

PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT ‘ON THE BRINK’ AS WESTERN GOVERNMENTS REFUSE TO TRANSFER $100 BILLION P.A.

 

UN climate talks in Bangkok have foundered over the key issue of how efforts to limit climate change are funded and how contributions are reported. Activists called out the European Union, Britain and Australia for falling into line with Washington’s position.

 

https://www.thegwpf.com/paris-climate-agreement-on-the-brink-as-western-governments-refuse-to-transfer-100-billion-p-a/

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any GW nutters need to review history  (as much that is documented) even Gore admitted he was wrong.  We are entering a grand solar minimum that happens every 400 years.

Google it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PilotsWife said:

Any GW nutters need to review history  (as much that is documented) even Gore admitted he was wrong.  We are entering a grand solar minimum that happens every 400 years.

Google it!

Oh wait. Big tech aka DO just want the dummys to pay another tax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Al Gore has not "admitted being wrong". In fact, global climate change has moved more in the direction of his predictions than the other way. No, the snow on Mount Kilimanjaro has not all melted, but it is shrinking.

As far as the grand solar minimum, it may have the effect of a single degree, while human caused global warming will have up to a 5 degree impact by the end of the century. That single degree in the 1600s caused a "mini ice age". Think of the global effect of a net 3 or 4 degree increase.

Who predicts grand solar minimums and their effect on climate? It's the scientists, many of which support both theories of grand solar minimum and human-caused solar warming.

Confirmation bias runs deep.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do believe we humans have had an impact, I also believe that the Arctic Ice would have melted and Kilimanjaro Glacial ice would have retreated or melted, Greenland would become green, all without us being present.  One has to go back thousands of years to see the cycle of the planet.  Did we speed the process up?  probably.  Can we stop it? not likely.  Can we slow it down?  Maybe.

Mother nature will find the balance.  I am pretty sure that balance will come with a reduction of the human population on the planet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climates change over time and always have; change is the norm. It seems that when they change, the change is very rapid. In some areas, like Darfur, desertification is actually an inducement to war as is access to fresh water in others.

Although there are ethnic problems in the Darfur area to be sure, the advancing desert is a huge factor in the conflict deaths of about 200,000 people. Don’t hear much about that in do-good liberal news outlets do ya? CNN is too focussed on identity politics and hating Trump to even care about real news. And ,if you think changing your lightbulbs will reverse desertification and its geopolitical effects here, well, I’m rooting for ya… I even bet most liberals think Janjaweed is going to be legal in Oct.

Over 90% of the plastic in our oceans comes from 8 or 9 rivers.... they are all in Africa and Asia. Thinking that paying five cents for a plastic bag at Superstore will impact that is ridiculous. As a species, we are uniquely capable of not addressing root problems. If you ever get to see a truly polluted river, you will forever laugh at discussions about lightbulbs and 5 cent fees. I see no where to go with any of this.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, gator said:

Al Gore has not "admitted being wrong". In fact, global climate change has moved more in the direction of his predictions than the other way.

SERIOUSLY?? Gore is nothing more than a rich, show-boating ex-politician. His "prediction" is as valid as the theory that the sky is falling.

And NONE of us will live long enough to see climate change - something that takes place over hundreds if not thousands of years. Weather patterns change continuously based upon the temperature of the Earth's oceans and for no other reason. The solar cycle is 11 years; the volcanic cycle - wait - there is no volcanic cycle - is continuous with most activity below the oceans' surfaces - hence the warming of the world's oceans. One thing that is certain is the the Earth's core is in it's half-million year cycle of flipping, hence the rapidly changing magnetic poles. Now there's a reason for increased volcanic/tectonic activity.

You wanna talk large scale (climate) change? There are a helluva lot more variables than what, for the most part, third world countries (and China and India) pump into the atmosphere with what has come to be known as GHG's.

As I've stated over a half dozen times in this eternal thread, is for GW proponents to realize the only real way to stop what They are espousing  is to cease, and cease completely, today, all industrial & domestic functions which contribute these GHG's into the atmosphere. Then, and only then, after maybe 100 or more years, the atmospheric composition will go back to what it was 500 years ago.

So there.........thhhhbbbbbbbbb!?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we introduce a "fart" fine.  you have to pay a tax every time you fart to fight your GHG commissions.

One Major Volcanic eruption undoes decades of GHG reductions by the population that actually does so.

Mother nature is bigger than us and she will win. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, boestar said:

So we introduce a "fart" fine.  you have to pay a tax every time you fart to fight your GHG commissions.

One Major Volcanic eruption undoes decades of GHG reductions by the population that actually does so.

Mother nature is bigger than us and she will win. 

 

volcanicco2smaller.jpg

Not sure where you got your information from, other than just pulling crap out of the air, but it ain't so.

Next someone will post that undersea volcanoes are warming the oceans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moon The Loon said:

As I've stated over a half dozen times in this eternal thread, is for GW proponents to realize the only real way to stop what They are espousing  is to cease, and cease completely, today, all industrial & domestic functions which contribute these GHG's into the atmosphere. Then, and only then, after maybe 100 or more years, the atmospheric composition will go back to what it was 500 years ago.

That's like saying that people in debt have to completely stop spending money to get back out of debt. 

As boestar says, Mother nature is bigger than us.  She can absorb a lot of our transgressions but there is a power curve. We just need to get back on the right side of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau had better find out if his carbon-tax ‘backstop’ is actually legal

A federal carbon price represents far-reaching constitutional territory: No court has yet said Ottawa can regulate GHG emissions.

Now that Premier Rachel Notley has broken with Ottawa over carbon pricing after the suspension of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Alberta joins Ontario and Saskatchewan in a growing resistance to the federal climate change plan. Last week, Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s government outlined its constitutional arguments against Ottawa’s carbon-pricing “backstop” plan. Today, everyone is wondering about Ottawa’s next move.

The Trudeau government has legislated the backstop to impose a federal levy on greenhouse gases in any province that doesn’t meet the federal standard by January 2019. The federal government seeks uniformity in the pan-Canadian pricing of greenhouse gases. However, the backstop is arguably the most significant assertion of federal authority in a generation, and there are major open questions about whether the backstop is actually within the federal jurisdiction under Canada’s Constitution. With the clock ticking, the federal government must ensure the constitutionality of its carbon-pricing backstop by referring the questions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Both Ontario and Saskatchewan governments are challenging the federal government’s legislation in their respective courts of appeal. While some downplay the legal merit of the challenges, a federal carbon price represents new and far-reaching constitutional territory: No court has yet affirmed a general federal jurisdiction to regulate GHG emissions. Without word from the Supreme Court, a definitive resolution will wait until the challenges are heard and decided by the provinces’ appellate courts, with a likelihood of follow-on appeal to the Supreme Court in any event. An adverse ruling would force the federal government to unwind or rush to amend its legislation.

Earlier federal governments sought direct answers from the Supreme Court on legislation that raised significant constitutional questions — particularly laws that stake out federal jurisdiction on novel issues. For example, in 1976, the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau asked the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of its wage and price controls as emergency measures for countering inflation. In 2010, the Harper government sought an answer on the federal jurisdiction to create a national securities regulator. Notably, many constitutional experts also believed that federal jurisdiction for a national securities regulator was a slam dunk — until the Supreme Court decided otherwise. The federal government similarly faces a risk that the rug gets pulled out from under its carbon-pricing backstop.

As recent court decisions have exhibited, constitutional law remains in flux. Indeed, commentators disagree about the specific head of power that would undergird federal jurisdiction for carbon pricing. Some point to the federal taxation power. However, this power requires that a tax be for the “raising of monies” rather than a charge that is primarily for regulating particular activities. Since it is applied only in select provinces and its express purpose is to encourage GHG reductions, the backstop carbon price is not intended to raise federal revenues. Moreover, if the backstop is a tax, it could be offside because our constitution requires a high degree of parliamentary control over taxes, and the backstop legislation gives discretion for the minister to decide which provinces face a federal carbon price.

Others believe a constitutional basis for the backstop could be the federal criminal law power, which has supported previous federal environmental legislation — for example, limits on contaminants and renewable content in diesel fuels. However, this power requires a prohibition backed by a penalty. In contrast, carbon pricing is not truly a prohibition since it expressly allows emissions for a price. Affirming the federal backstop as “criminal” legislation would dramatically increase the scope of the federal criminal law power.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/trudeau-had-better-find-out-if-his-carbon-tax-backstop-is-actually-legal

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, gator said:

Next someone will post that undersea volcanoes are warming the oceans. 

What else would warm up an average worldwide depth of 10,000 feet of salt water? The sun?? Seriously???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this