Violent storms, water shortages in store for Canada: report

[Praxius]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/03/06/climate-study.html

Canada can expect to see more devastating storms and extreme weather because of climate change, a yet-to-be released federal report concludes.

The report, prepared by more than 100 Canadian scientists on behalf of Canada's Department of Natural Resources, will be made public soon, but CBC News has learned some of the details it contains from several people involved in compiling the report.

The report focuses on the impact climate change will have on the country, in terms of the weather it will generate, and the effects on areas like infrastructure, energy production and drinking water.

The report, the first of its kind done for the federal government in 10 years, says Canada can expect more ice storms, torrential downpours, floods, droughts and landslides, as well more days of extreme heat and smog.

The report says the increase of extreme weather has already begun, and will only get worse.

"The models predict as we go into the future that those events will be more frequent than they have been in the recent past," said Gordon McBean, a geography professor at the University of Western Ontario in London.

McBean was one of the scientists involved in the report.

He said the extreme weather will mean more insurance claims from damaged homes and property, while the country's roads and bridges will take a beating. Coastlines in some communities will erode more rapidly than usual.

Canada will have to adapt, McBean said.

"What's really important is that as we invest in rebuilding that infrastructure, we build it for the climate of the future, not the climate of the past."

In Iqaluit, Nunavut, subdivisions are already being built to withstand more rain in areas that were once considered Arctic desert, but are now seeing warmer weather.
Drinking water shortage

While some communities will be coping with more rain, others may endure droughts lasting a decade or more. Western Canada, in particular, could face short winters and long, dry summers.

Water levels in rivers in Alberta and British Columbia are already dropping significantly, as are the levels of the Great Lakes.

The result could be a shortage of drinking water, the report says.

It also warns that industries that rely on water — oil, gas, hydroelectricity, agriculture, even salmon fishing — will also suffer, while there could be an increase in forest fires.

But there will be some positives sides to climate change's impact. McBean said the growing season in some parts of Canada's north will be longer, while crops in southern Canada will improve as the weather warms up.

"I'm told by some wine enthusiasts in the country that we'll have even better wines coming from southern British Columbia and the Niagara area as we get warmer, hotter summers in those parts," McBean said.

Oh wow... although they make it sound like Canada is about to hit a hell hole.... Don't Worry! Our Wine will be better *smacks head*

But besides that:

"The models predict as we go into the future that those events will be more frequent than they have been in the recent past."

^ Recent past as in like what? 10 years ago? 50 years ago?

To me it just sounds more like the old days where we had to walk several miles through 15 feet of snow to get to school.

Lack of water due to:

"Water levels in rivers in Alberta and British Columbia are already dropping significantly, as are the levels of the Great Lakes."

Um... wasn't there just a huge concern of so much ice and water through BC's rivers this winter, that they began to flood areas there? The same ones they were claiming are going to get smaller?

I predict myself that yes Canada will be hitting some more extreme weather then what we've had in the last 10-20 years, but I feel it'll be more back to what we were used to. It'll change a little, but for the most part, it's all pointing more towards an old fashion Canadian climate then what they're talking about.

I'll bow to their findings if they hold true for the next 5 years. If not, and things go the way I am predicting, then they should all be fired and I get their pay cheques.

 

[smac972]

"The report, prepared by more than 100 Canadian scientists on behalf of Canada's Department of Natural Resources"

"I'll bow to their findings if they hold true for the next 5 years. If not, and things go the way I am predicting, then they should all be fired and I get their pay cheques. "

I love it. There are experts, notably tobacco deniers of the past, who are paid to spread skepticism about global warming by oppressive, money guzzling oil companies. But why should they even pay them? Because there are armchair scientists the world over who like to play pundit to bolster their egos that gladly do it for them.

Here's another one. Global warming isn't the problem "scientists" make it up to be because I read somewhere that Mars is heating up too. Now, far be it from me to know any particular science about the planets or the Sun itself, but I read that somewhere.

Now I have an opinion I can bolster proudly. I don't really care whether it's well founded or not as long as someone is listenning to me. Don't worry about what those scientists say. I'm Canada's new Glenn Beck. All opinion. No fact.

 

[Praxius]

"The report, prepared by more than 100 Canadian scientists on behalf of Canada's Department of Natural Resources"

"I'll bow to their findings if they hold true for the next 5 years. If not, and things go the way I am predicting, then they should all be fired and I get their pay cheques. "

I love it. There are experts, notably tobacco deniers of the past, who are paid to spread skepticism about global warming by oppressive, money guzzling oil companies. But why should they even pay them? Because there are armchair scientists the world over who like to play pundit to bolster their egos that gladly do it for them.

Considdering everything in which I have followed and studied since the mid/late 80's have either not occured as predicted by these great minds, or never occured to begin with, not to mention the whole "Global Warming" fiasco (Notice that just about every news agency, offical, scientist, etc. these days now refer to it as Climate Change? Because they fuct it up)

Here's another one. Global warming isn't the problem "scientists" make it up to be because I read somewhere that Mars is heating up too. Now, far be it from me to know any particular science about the planets or the Sun itself, but I read that somewhere.

As remote a chance-connection that may be, I have heard it as well, and I don't believe that is a factual relation to our overal planet's status. The problem is that these reports are based on older reports to make newer reports. The problem is, is that most of these reports didn't account for several key factors which need to be taken in for the whole thing to make sense.

These scientists may have figured out what may happen in Canada's climate.... but what about the overall climate of the planet? These things are not just isolated to one location of the planet, as climates, winds, oceans, all of it is interconected within one another and when one thing changes, so does everything else.... all be it slightly or substantially.

They were pretty well right on about this winter being one of the stronger ones Canada has seen in a few decades..... but why was it? I mean if we're hitting this Global Warming thing as Gore and his fools claim.... then what made this winter suddenly become cold as hell and drop snow all over? Shouldn't it continued along the same trend of getting warmer and warmer?

What about Hurricanes and Typhoons and their role in the whole system? The Global Warming nuts think that with Global Warming occuring we'll have bigger and much worse Hurricanes. That maybe true.... but Hurricanes counter global increases in temps.... so if they do occur bigger, the following couple of years will be collectively cooler, thereby killing their Global Warming theory.

Hurricanes are related to how our winters will be the following year. Those winters determine the overall climate in the following summer and so one and so forth. The GW fools have focused on the effects of pollution and greenhouse emissions and predicting from those trends on how our climate will be in the future, but there is a hell of a lot more to it then just pollution.

Our planet is continually changing. The Rockies are no longer rising but coming down, while in India/China the mountains are still rising. These alone will affect the climates in those areas of the planet and change how we live our lives in the future.

What do they propose we do about the mountains changing each year? Shall we try and stop them from rising and falling? How exactly? Would that even be a good idea to do that?

With this winter alone, technically we should be seeing an increase of ice (although slight) in the north compared to the previous years. If the next winter remains like how this one was, then it will continue the trend and before you know it.... we're going the opposite direction of where Global Warming is claiming we are going.

We will be expecting some more intense weather patterns then what we are recently used to, that's a given. But the types in which they are explaining contradict the last few years of information. And I know that since this winter is not yet over, they have not put it into their calculations (As the winter stats for this year are not yet complete) therefore this study will most likely change come the same time next year.

 

[smac972]

Again, I'll state my case. Stephen "Opy" Harper and his crew of autobots finally had to acquiesce when the World's leading Scientists declared that there was absolutlely no doubt that global warming was attributed to none other than human activity. Finally, it seemed that those who profited from endangering the Earth could no longer put up red herrings, shut up and get to fixing things.

Yet, here we are saying things like, "Oh yeah? It was COLD this winter, so what about that?"

The answer is clear and well documented. This year the Earth was in an "El Nina" cycle which calls for colder winters.

It seems logical to me that global warming doesn't happen overnight and it's not going to instantly replace the Earth's weather patterns. Our weather will obviously fluctuate but what THOUSANDS of scientists agree on is that steadily as the Earth warms, our climate will change. Even Al gore that Nobel Prize for Science winning "fool" We are reaping what we are sowing.

You, of course, have heard all of this before, and since it apparently has become branded as a partisan viewpoint, you like many others refuse to acknowledge it.

If you care to step outside that viewpoint, watch the Denial Machine, a Canadian documentary. (you can actually download it - go ahead - at the risk of having to change your mind) You may be surprised to discover that Big Oil hired a PR firm called APCO (who coincidentally worked very hard for Big Tobacco). APCO's job was to diminish the threat that Global Warming played. So, THEY coined the term "Climate Change"

What you'll also learn is that your biggest allies in this battle, that is, Big Oil, are well aware of the damage we're doing.

I mean look, let's say you and every other armchair scientist has grasoed the right straw and you're right. What's wrong with cleaning up our act anyhow? We're going to run out of oil. Our current means of power are heavy on pollutants. And investing in new science creates jobs.

Yet, despite the mountains of evidence supporting global warming, it seems there are still a very few that are sticking to their guns, largely for the sake of bravado. Along that line...there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Thanks for the verbal spar. Honestly, download that video.

 

[smac972]

btw -- to acknowledge your hurricane theories. Sit down with the thousans of scientists and tell them all about your discovery. I'm sure they'll hand over their paychecks and mutter in unison about how silly they must have been to have missed that. Or perhaps they, being experts in meterology, et cetera, see a bigger picture.

As to the rising mountains, it's about as irrelevant as my Grandmother wetting her pants. Surely, it's a phenomenon, but, in this context, who cares?

 

[Praxius]

Again, I'll state my case. Stephen "Opy" Harper and his crew of autobots finally had to acquiesce when the World's leading Scientists declared that there was absolutlely no doubt that global warming was attributed to none other than human activity. Finally, it seemed that those who profited from endangering the Earth could no longer put up red herrings, shut up and get to fixing things.

Yet, here we are saying things like, "Oh yeah? It was COLD this winter, so what about that?"

The answer is clear and well documented. This year the Earth was in an "El Nina" cycle which calls for colder winters.

"El Niño and La Niña are officially defined as sustained sea surface temperature anomalies of magnitude greater than 0.5°C across the central tropical Pacific Ocean. When the condition is met for a period of less than five months, it is classified as El Niño or La Niña conditions; if the anomaly persists for five months or longer, it is classified as an El Niño or La Niña episode. Historically, it has occurred at irregular intervals of 2-7 years and has usually lasted one or two years."

Yay... both are spin terms to explain something they decided to invent up. When things get warmer they call it El Nino, and when it's colder it's La Nina.... both of which explains nothing but a name and a generic explination that things are going to be warmer or colder.

But once again.... what causes this? Go back to what I was explaining.... because this La Nina and El Nino crap is a waste of time and produces no results we can use to apply to real life.

What causes these effects to occur? When were these terms created and adopted for use?

Here allow me to get those answers:

"Causes of El Niño

The mechanisms which might cause an El Niño event are still being investigated. It is difficult to find patterns which may show causes or allow forecasts. As the phenomenon is located near the equator, events in both hemispheres may have an effect. As the weather events are somewhat chaotic, the onsets of El Nino-events may also be. This is not to say predicting is totally impossible."

Why is this still being investigated? Why is it hard to find patterns?

Because they don't know wtf they're talking about and relying on some cocked-up invention that doesn't exist..... just like Global Warming.

All offical reports in which I have read still classify El/La as theories still. Theories are not answers, let alone solutions.

And I didn't just claim "Oh but this winter is colder, so...." as I explained my reasoning why I came to the conclusions I have. Heck if you want, I could even pin point the paticular hurricanes which had the effect to make this winter colder. I seem to know more of what's going on then these idiots getting paid because they're focusing on two "Theories" as being the answers, which they're not... they're Theories.

It seems logical to me that global warming doesn't happen overnight and it's not going to instantly replace the Earth's weather patterns. Our weather will obviously fluctuate but what THOUSANDS of scientists agree on is that steadily as the Earth warms, our climate will change. Even Al gore that Nobel Prize for Science winning "fool" We are reaping what we are sowing.

Those thousands and thousands of scientists you like to use as a defense did not unanomously agreed on Global Warming's existence.

In fact here's some ligit information as to why many still oppose the idea:

http://www.matchdoctor.com/blog_79975/ARGUMENTS_AGAINST_GLOBAL_WARMING_NOT_ALL_SCIENTISTS_AGREE.html

You, of course, have heard all of this before, and since it apparently has become branded as a partisan viewpoint, you like many others refuse to acknowledge it.

I have heard it all before, and I have acknowledged it for what it is.... pure tripe.

If you care to step outside that viewpoint, watch the Denial Machine, a Canadian documentary. (you can actually download it - go ahead - at the risk of having to change your mind) You may be surprised to discover that Big Oil hired a PR firm called APCO (who coincidentally worked very hard for Big Tobacco). APCO's job was to diminish the threat that Global Warming played. So, THEY coined the term "Climate Change"

So what's your point? That I'm an undercover tobacco guy trying to downplay global warming? Hardly. As I have explained before in other threads.... the original predictions of global warming back in the mid/late 80's didn't occur..... now 20 some years later.... all those predictions are back, only it'll occur in the next 20-50 years. Well what happened to the older predictions? You don't seem to hear about those, where apparently by the end of the 90's New York was supposed to be under several metres of ocean due to the ice caps melting.

That didn't happen. Oh but now it's certainly going to happen in another 20-50 years.... then it'll be another 100-130 years after that.... then where do they go?

What you'll also learn is that your biggest allies in this battle, that is, Big Oil, are well aware of the damage we're doing.

I agree that there are various levels of damage occuring to our planet based on fuels and other things we humans are creating and using..... but that's a different matter to the overall effect of the climate. I agree that seeking more environmentally friendly alternatives can't hurt but probably make things better.... so why not? What my concern is, is about their approach of fear mongering over something in which they created in their minds from a limited perspective of the entire situation and telling us the planets going to be destroyed or the end of the civilisation as we know it will occur if we don't do what they say.

Hell Gore is stll flying around in his private jets and burning more then his fair share of pollution. If he truly believed in what he was preaching, one would logically think he'd change his ways a little.

I mean look, let's say you and every other armchair scientist has grasoed the right straw and you're right. What's wrong with cleaning up our act anyhow? We're going to run out of oil. Our current means of power are heavy on pollutants. And investing in new science creates jobs.

I never said there wasn't anything wrong with improving things. I'm not a big oil/fossil fuel fan myself. I'll admit, I've been an environmental wing nut for most of my younger life, recycling long before it became manditory, etc..... I'm just PO'd about the approach. I'm tired of the fear mongering and BSing of the public by these people.

Then again, I suppose in the 80/90's nobody really listened to them before and not much changed, so perhaps their only logical tactic now is to scare the hell out of everybody. Sorry, but I fell for it once, I won't be fooled again.

Yet, despite the mountains of evidence supporting global warming, it seems there are still a very few that are sticking to their guns, largely for the sake of bravado. Along that line...there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Thanks for the verbal spar. Honestly, download that video.

Perhaps I will when I get home. I'm aware there wern't any WOMD in Iraq.... I also knew that long before they invaded. No evidence was provided to prove their case, no evidence was found afterwards..... just like this Global Warming stuff.

Seriously, I am not trying to downplay the enviroment's health and current status, and I am not a skeptic. I'm down right calling Global Warming Bull Shat because they pulled this stunt before and their predictions came out as blaitent lies. Since Gore made his little movie, now all of a sudden the entire world knows about Global Warming. What a hero.

They said in the late 80's (and I remember it well, because it scare the crap out of me as a kid) they had reports, studies and diagrams shown on TV, claiming that if we did not switch to electric cars, start recycling, cut our greenhouse gasses, start biodegrading and all that crap, by the late 90's (and they showed diagrams of the future) that most of the atlantic coast of north america would have submerged under 7 metres of water, that there would be drastic droughts, starvation, wars.... blah blah blah.

At the time I believed it.... now that time has past, and apparently we really haven't improved our ways, if not, we're even worse with our emissions today then before.

So how does that push their prediction up another 20-50 years from now? Would we logically have had it come our way much sooner and much worse?

Come on, even you have to admit something is up.

And besides all that, other scientists have studied samples from glaciers and determined timelines and heat/cold patterns through the last couple of thousand years. Guess what? Halfway through the Roman Empire's rule, they had tempratures on the planet which are even higher then what we have today.... so how does that work? Must have been burning down more villages and salting more lands then we do today I suppose.

Granted when you just look at the last 100 years, sure the planet appears to be warming.....

but look further back:

Now why do you suppose that Global Warming charts, graphs, reports, studies all seem to focus more on just the last century or so? How come they won't show you these bigger charts determined from glacial studies?

Probably because they know those blow the hell out of their theory of Global Warming, as you can see it's been hotter in the past then it is today, long before we started to pollute the snot out of the planet.

 

[Praxius]

btw -- to acknowledge your hurricane theories. Sit down with the thousans of scientists and tell them all about your discovery. I'm sure they'll hand over their paychecks and mutter in unison about how silly they must have been to have missed that. Or perhaps they, being experts in meterology, et cetera, see a bigger picture.

As to the rising mountains, it's about as irrelevant as my Grandmother wetting her pants. Surely, it's a phenomenon, but, in this context, who cares?

Then that just proves your own ignorance on the subject if you have that attitude and therefore you're clearly wasting my time. If you don't understand the effects mountains have on the planets climate, then you ain't got a clue to start off on to know what you're talking about.

Clue #1: What causes the following to occur?

Clue #2: This is the border of India and Tibet
Clue #3: This is also the cause of the Monsoon Rains in that area of india and why there is very little vegitation in and past the tibetan mountains.

If mountains is not your answer, then you need further education.

This mountain line is so high that most of the moisture and water that would normally pass through from the Indian ocean is blown up high into the air and either flows back south to where you see all that green, and the rest that flows past the mountains can not get low enough to condense into moisture and therefore the mountain area is pretty well barren in comparison. This is also why the Monsoon rains are so heavy and strong. Without these mountains, this would not even occur in the region.

To claim mountains have little to do with the climate in which we live in, is just plain foolish and ignorant.

 

[smac972]

First of all, thank you for an intelligent and well reasoned dialogue. I don't often get them from skeptics of global warming. I'm not being smug, but responses are usually canned soundbites. So, it is a pleasure to discuss this with you.

I do have to reiterate that rising mountains are irrelevant. Mountains very much affect the climate . While evidence seems to be offered that mountains are rising, is it now your claim that this is the cause of global warming rather than the rise of greenhouse gasses? Or perhaps that's just one of the myriad of possibilities that could be causing the Earth's warming (you know, like Mars, etc.) rather than the sound theory behind trapped Greenhouse gasses?

Hackneyed.