Well, I’m not debating the existence of climate change. It’s always been changing, ever since there has been a climate. I’m asking Cecil why he thinks Canada would be any better than any other place, with the data that I provided.
That’s not what you asked at all. It really wasn’t that long ago, you should be able to remember what you asked.
The answer to why Canada might fare better is because Canada is further north and it warming up will unlock resources and arable land. I’m pretty sure that was in the article. Did you read the article?
(For clarity, I’m not telling you that you cannot bring up the subject. I’m not a mod, that’s for the mods to decide. I’m just saying that you probably won’t get a lot of bites on an attempt to debate climate change. It is considered observed fact.)
Nothing to explain. The statement is false. CO2 is the principal driver of global warming, currently contributing a net of more than 1.68 W/m-2 of heat energy over the entire surface of the earth every hour of every day.
It’s never been changing like this, at this incredible rate of artificially-induced change.
You didn’t provide any “data”. The short answer is that besides the fact that colder regions will obviously become more temperate, there is also the phenomenon of arctic amplification, where more northerly regions warm much more rapidly than the planet on average due to factors like polar ice loss and changes to ocean-atmosphere circulation systems. In fact the high Arctic is warming about four times faster than the planet on average.
Way to prove me wrong. 
I <3 this thread.
So yeah, Canada could get lovely, just like Greenland will be lovely…
Medieval Warm Period – fact vs. fiction - YouTube
Again, I want to know what the rest of the world was like during the Medieval Warm Period it may be very nice for Greenlanders, but most people don’t live in Greenland. How come we’re never given examples of balmy wonderful riches anywhere else in the world? Well, the reason could be because not everywhere was like Western Europe; one of the best known and best researched examples is North America which certainly seems to warm during the Medieval Warm Period but it also got a lot drier.
So dry that researchers are referring to conditions as a mega drought and as more research is done into the Medieval Warm Period, coincident drought is turning up in areas as far afield as China and Amazonia. And this is exactly what computer modelers had predicted as the consequence of the current increase in temperatures and increasing drought spreading out from the southwestern United States that will eventually encompass much of the grain belt and as in the Medieval Warm Period other parts of the world will also become drier, but here’s the good news that somewhat vindicates those who say the Medieval Warm Period was a golden balmy earth full of riches…
Greenland’s going to be lovely.
For Canada, those lovely conditions are likely to be mixed, mostly in the North East, a good part of the west of Canada will not be as lovely.
Y’all are looking at it the wrong way. Canada doesn’t want to become a world power. They’re too polite. Look around at the world; is any major power filled with polite people?
The more likely outcome is the creation of the North Coast. The strip from Sault Ste Marie to Kingston will merge with the northern states that are on the other side of the Great Lakes. (It should go farther, but Quebec won’t stand for it.) We already have a sufficient number of Tim Horton’s and take change indiscriminately. The only obstacle is the impassable QEW. Just build a bridge across Lake Ontario, or Lake Opulent as it will be renamed. Or just wait for flying cars, which will solve all problems.
Naw. There is definitely a correlation, but you have the cause and effect backwards.
(ETA: This graph is the exact graph from “An Inconvenient Truth”.)
Temperature is on the bottom. CO2 is on the top. Which changes first, and which follows? There is an average span of 800 years between the two, by the way.
If temperature follows CO2 so closely, why does it not at the very end of the graph?
I scanned over Cecil’s article. It was not convincing. It seemed to be more like a square peg into the round hole of some fan fiction. The only thing beneficial is if the temperature in Canada does rise, that would produce more CO2, which plants need for photosynthesis.
It seems like what you’re trying to do is argue that increasing global temperatures cause higher CO2. Are you proposing that a temperature increase is also responsible for the ~40 billion tons of CO2 human beings are pumping into the atmosphere every year? If so, how do you explain that connection? If not, then what is the point of bringing this up when we’re talking about anthropogenic climate change? Even if it’s true that a natural rise in temperature alters the natural amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, what does that have to do with humans adding almost half as much CO2 to the atmosphere than what is produced and absorbed every year via natural processes?
We’re starting to get a bit off-topic here. Let’s try to keep things relevant to Canada. Cecil’s article doesn’t even mention CO2.
But the fatal flaw in your argument is that just because increased temperature results in higher CO2 levels, you seem to think that increased CO2 levels can’t cause increased temperatures. The reality is that both are true. If you increase the temperature, then CO2 levels will rise. If you increase CO2 levels, the temperatures will rise (which will by itself cause a further rise in CO2 levels). But this is more of a general discussion of climate change, and that is a tired topic for the SDMB.
What Cecil’s article focuses on is what happens to Canada when all of this happens.
Putting aside the actual mechanisms for climate change for the moment, I don’t see the sense in this statement at all. If the temperatures in Canada do rise for whatever reason, snow won’t stay frozen. I would think that this would be fairly obvious. Plants that thrive in warmer temperatures would now grow much more easily in Canada. As Cecil said, Canada’s capacity for farming would increase dramatically. This would be a huge benefit for Canada.
It would also suck for the rest of the world. At least once in the Earth’s history, the entire area around the equator became too hot to support life. While the poles became much nicer places to live (there were forests and trees all the way to the north pole), this was also a major extinction event for the rest of the world.
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the only effect would be a bit more CO2 for plants to breathe.
Canadian adventurism did not always end so well in the past…
Ah, for just one time
I would take the Nottheest Passage
To find the hand of Franklin
Reaching for the Beaufort sea.
Tracing one warm line
Through a land so wild and savage,
And make a Northwest Passage to the sea.
And…
The year was 1778,
(How I wish I were in Sherbrooke now!)
A letter of marque came from the King
To the scummiest vessel I’d ever seen
Goddamn them all, I was told
We’d cruise the seas for American gold
We’d fire no guns, shed no tears
Now I’m a broken man on a Halifax pier
The last of Barrett’s Privateers.
Of course, these days Canada has a much bigger fifth column in place, poised to quietly takeover American comedy clubs, maple syrup farms and crokinole and curling leagues.
Well, I would like to point out that it was posted above that a mod stated that “climate change” is not up for debate. I agree. But, others here are mentioning “global warming”, and you mentioned “anthropogenic climate change”. Those are different.
But, besides that, the CO2 is an effect. Not a cause. It doesn’t affect anything (besides making this planet more inviting for vegetation). CO2 is the result of dead and decaying matter from all plants, trees, insects, animals, and their waste across the planet, as well as being released from the oceans themselves. These are things that happen when the temperature rises. Humans also producing CO2 (along with all other biology on this planet) means really nothing.
Extremely very little, and I have seen data showing that there is a diminishing return with CO2 in regard to trapping heat. Water vapor’s and methane’s abundance and ability to trap heat far, far outstrip CO2 in both regards.
You’re wrong, but we’re getting too far off topic for this thread. Keep everything relevant to Canada, please.
All your arguments were debunked ages ago, drop it.
As for Canada:
Moving forward on climate change adaptation
Successful adaptation practices continue to emerge, but large gaps remain in Canada’s preparedness for climate change. We’re seeing the increased frequency and intensity of costly natural disasters, such as floods and wildfires, as well as growing risks to infrastructure, supply chains and communities as a result of sustained changes to our environment, like permafrost thaw and coastal erosion.
It’s critical to Canada’s economic and social well-being that we take rapid action on adaptation. That includes working here at home as well as looking at the climate change impacts and adaptation action occurring elsewhere in the world, which can strongly affect food availability, trade and immigration in Canada.
This points to one big elephant in the room issue: by not controlling emissions the target of a nice environment for Canada will be a moving one, and with increasing costs until we do control our emissions.
Sure. I can tell that I’m angering people here. So, I’ll drop it. But, “debunked”? Naw. I am very well aware and familiar with that website. You need to read the pages and pages of comments from actual scientists below each of those articles. They continually refute every claim in the article above it, viciously.
Uh uh.
Finally, CO2 levels may lag temperature in some ice-core records from Antarctica, but in some other parts of the world the reverse was the case: temperature and CO2 either rose in pace or temperature lagged CO2. Figure 2 demonstrates this graphically and shows how things are never as simplistic as purveyors of misinformation would wish.
Moderator Note
This is not a general discussion about climate change, and is not a thread about CO2 levels. Focus on the actual topic of this thread. Any further off-topic posts about CO2 levels will result in warnings unless they are directly relevant to Cecil’s article.
I remember seeing that site way back about 1998. As far as I can tell, it hasn’t changed significantly since then. I’m surprised it’s still around.
But I, for one, welcome our Canadian overlords. But I don’t care how overlordish they get, I refuse to eat poutine.
Unfortunately, Canada is not exempt from the side effects of climate change. Global “warming” isn’t just about warming, it’s primarily about unnaturally rapid forced change to the global climate system and atmospheric and ocean circulation systems. The result is extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and powerful storms, extreme heat and cold, northerly migration of invasive species, and general destabilization of the climate system. While it’s true that Canada will benefit more than most places from generally warmer weather, that warmth is not benign and comes at a big cost. One of the most insidious effects is permanent changes to regional climates such as average temperature or precipitation levels that are changing faster than the ecosystem can adapt and are threatening food crops and thus the world’s food supply.
A look at the Ontario wine industry offers a look at this phenomenon in action. Ontario wineries have become very successful in part thanks to warmer weather and in part because of the development of hybrids ideally suited to the southern Ontario climate. But they face threats for all the reasons noted above. Climate change is posing major challenges to the wine industry, not just in Ontario, but everywhere else. On the surface it might seem that increasing warmth would benefit Canada’s wine industry, but Canada’s winemakers would much rather that climate change go away.