What are your thoughts on global warming?

[mgmine]

I think that Canada is going to wake up fairly soon and realize that our neighbor to the south isn't as friendly as we once thought, hence the need to find alternate trade partners.

I doubt that, the countries are too much alike. I see the same words being spewed from the politicians and the citizens. You have Justin Trudeau and we have Obama is there really that much difference? Neither won election by 100% and I would guess that those voting against them would have voted for the same candidate. As far as trade goes I would open the boarders and let each country produce and sell what it does best. Neither country has an advantage. As a benefit maybe some of your taxes could come down a little if they proved to be a disadvantage.

.[/QUOTE]
Pipelines to both the east and west coast would go a long way in diversifying our customer base for petroleum products. I'm also a staunch believer in the building of refineries in Canada, rather than sending off our raw product for refining in a foreign country, only to have to buy it back to sell in this country.
The problem is can you get them past the environmentalists? As I said above the countries are too much alike. Next year gas prices are going up thanks to OPEC. They however may be in for a surprise with Trumps energy policy.

 

[MitchM]

Regarding this video (besides the bookcase...lol) ( as a carpenter, I am offended by that bookcase.)

In his 1st slide, he states that with greater CO2 atmospheric levels, plants need less water...?
I thought transpiration was a method of temperature and oxygen control in plants, so they don't suffer the same fate that is presently affecting corals in the world's oceans (overproduction of internally produced food) ? Plants need water for effective transpiration and temperature control.
It's similar to us humans eating a lot of sugar, having our metabolism heat up our bodies as a result, but no way to release the heat that is produced.
We humans would overheat and die.

.

 

[MitchM]

Sorry, I couldn't make it past the 1st 10 minutes of the video.
The assumptions were really skewing the conclusions.
Maybe I'll try watching it later.

.

 

[mgmine]

Regarding this video (besides the bookcase...lol) ( as a carpenter, I am offended by that bookcase.)

In his 1st slide, he states that with greater CO2 atmospheric levels, plants need less water...?
I thought transpiration was a method of temperature and oxygen control in plants, so they don't suffer the same fate that is presently affecting corals in the world's oceans (overproduction of internally produced food) ? Plants need water for effective transpiration and temperature control.
It's similar to us humans eating a lot of sugar, having our metabolism heat up our bodies as a result, but no way to release the heat that is produced.
We humans would overheat and die.

.

Good point I for one don't know the answer but here is something from the NASA web site

With more atmospheric carbon dioxide available to convert to plant matter in photosynthesis, plants were able to grow more. This increased growth is referred to as carbon fertilization. Models predict that plants might grow anywhere from 12 to 76 percent more if atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled, as long as nothing else, like water shortages, limits their growth. However, scientists don’t know how much carbon dioxide is increasing plant growth in the real world, because plants need more than carbon dioxide to grow.


Plants also need water, sunlight, and nutrients, especially nitrogen. If a plant doesn’t have one of these things, it won’t grow regardless of how abundant the other necessities are. There is a limit to how much carbon plants can take out of the atmosphere, and that limit varies from region to region. So far, it appears that carbon dioxide fertilization increases plant growth until the plant reaches a limit in the amount of water or nitrogen available.

To me I would think that scientists should be studying how to either make plants need less water or how to make it rain. Nitrogen seems to be easy enough to manage. The world needs food more than it needs nice beaches.

 

[mgmine]

Sorry, I couldn't make it past the 1st 10 minutes of the video.
The assumptions were really skewing the conclusions.
Maybe I'll try watching it later.

.

Yes give it a try to the end. Especially the parts about what the swings in temperature represent. The other point that he raises that has troubled me is what if we start to go in the other direction as most on the time on earth has been.

 

[MitchM]

Good point I for one don't know the answer but here is something from the NASA web site

With more atmospheric carbon dioxide available to convert to plant matter in photosynthesis, plants were able to grow more. This increased growth is referred to as carbon fertilization. Models predict that plants might grow anywhere from 12 to 76 percent more if atmospheric carbon dioxide is doubled, as long as nothing else, like water shortages, limits their growth. However, scientists don’t know how much carbon dioxide is increasing plant growth in the real world, because plants need more than carbon dioxide to grow.


Plants also need water, sunlight, and nutrients, especially nitrogen. If a plant doesn’t have one of these things, it won’t grow regardless of how abundant the other necessities are. There is a limit to how much carbon plants can take out of the atmosphere, and that limit varies from region to region. So far, it appears that carbon dioxide fertilization increases plant growth until the plant reaches a limit in the amount of water or nitrogen available.

To me I would think that scientists should be studying how to either make plants need less water or how to make it rain. Nitrogen seems to be easy enough to manage. The world needs food more than it needs nice beaches.

I never finished high school, so I'm fortunate that I am not indoctrinated with the biases of the teachers. I enjoy following the facts and learning from that.
I'll watch the video further.
Thanks.

 

[mgmine]

I never finished high school, so I'm fortunate that I am not indoctrinated with the biases of the teachers. I enjoy following the facts and learning from that.
I'll watch the video further.
Thanks.

I finished before there was a bias (as far as I know) and definitely before there was political correctness. Maybe there is just too much news today because a lot of people won't listen to the other side. I enjoy watching news from all over the world and comparing how much of the reporting is alike. It's as if they have the same writers.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Yes give it a try to the end. Especially the parts about what the swings in temperature represent. The other point that he raises that has troubled me is what if we start to go in the other direction as most on the time on earth has been.

Actually I remember them using data and graphs like that years ago to show that we were on the verge up slipping into a new ice age. The Data he presents shows that the slip has somehow been delayed. However, this delay appears to have started long before humans could ever of had any effect on the climate so it's not our doing.

Anyway, about all that video really shows is that CO2 levels in the past were much higher then they are now when Earth use to be a much greener place, and that temperature levels and CO2 levels do not always correlate as some climatologist would have us believe.
One thing we know for sure from looking at ice and fossil records is that global climate change is inevitable.
Maybe we should be more concerned with the more immediate air pollution problem the fossil fuels are causing in larger metropolitan areas around the world.

 

[mgmine]

Actually I remember them using data and graphs like that years ago to show that we were on the verge up slipping into a new ice age. The Data he presents shows that the slip has somehow been delayed. However, this delay appears to have started long before humans could ever of had any effect on the climate so it's not our doing.

Anyway, about all that video really shows is that CO2 levels in the past were much higher then they are now when Earth use to be a much greener place, and that temperature levels and CO2 levels do not always correlate as some climatologist would have us believe.
One thing we know for sure from looking at ice and fossil records is that global climate change is inevitable.
Maybe we should be more concerned with the more immediate air pollution problem the fossil fuels are causing in larger metropolitan areas around the world.

One other thing that it shows is that the swings in temperature is much greater now than those predicted for the future and that we are not dead from it. As for the air pollution places like China pollute at their own risk. This is one of the big reasons why trade is unfair with them. When the air gets too dirty to breath or the water too poluted to drink that's when I get nervous.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

When the air gets too dirty to breath or the water too poluted to drink that's when I get nervous.

You should probably start fidgeting. Water quality, globally and domestically, is rapidly deteriorating, exacerbating an already increasing water shortage, globally and domestically.
Hardly a day goes by during my research that I don't encounter a new paper or article concerning water quality/pollution.

 

[Mucky_Waters]

When the air gets too dirty to breath or the water too poluted to drink that's when I get nervous.

I couldn't agree more.
The problem with the way pollution happens it's a relatively slow process (from the perspective of a human life span anyway) and as things slowly get worse and worse we just seem to adapt.
As far as the air and water being to dirty to breath and drink, it's already there! In some big cities anyway. Tap water in many places is not drinkable, and streams and waterways in many cities is also undrinkable. So what do they do. They purchase filtered water for drinking, or they boil the water they have, or they get sick, and a rare few seem to be able to drink dirty water without too much problems. They adapt.
As for the air being too dirty to breath. I haven't traveled extensively but I've been to a few Asian cities where the air was too dirty to breath as far as I'm concerned. Shanghai China, and Metro Manila come to mind, but there are plenty of other places just as bad or worse, this is a world wide problem. Sure once in a while the air blows the right way and these cities are almost livable, but when there is an air inversion and the smog gets stuck and they start issuing smog advisories to keep your children inside and wearing those air filter masks, then you know the air is already too dirty to breath. But people keep living there, they just adapt. (they also accept an increasingly higher and higher ratio of respiratory related problems in their population)
I'm afraid that this is the way it will continue to go in one place after another on this planet until some sort of major catastrophe changes everything. Somehow I just don't think global warming will be the big catalyst for change. Maybe a big asteroid impact, maybe nuclear war, maybe Trump. LOL
I'm still hoping for divine intervention.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

The meeting that this article describes is indicative of the critical nature of the supply of water and how it ties in with climate change.
https://thewaternetwork.com/article...ld-conflict-over-water-INR2RbIsN4yl6dCUbM51SA

 

[adavisus]

Somehow I just don't think global warming will be the big catalyst for change

Right now, the planet buffer zones are seeing anomalies in the 10c-20c range, notably the north pole, where methane emissions will be a feedback

Feel free to use the following probability curve and apply it to your own location...

 

[Mucky_Waters]

Right now, the planet buffer zones are seeing anomalies in the 10c-20c range, notably the north pole, where methane emissions will be a feedback

Feel free to use the following probability curve and apply it to your own location...

View attachment 96380
View attachment 96381

I wish I could apply +10 c or 20 c to my location right now. It's cold out there.

 

[mgmine]

Problems with everything it seems yet we survive. I my be wrong but I don't see the end of the world coming. As far as water 71% of the earth is covered with water. Again I say if there is a problem spend the resources on planning for it. One can argue that that is what climate research is, but what have we gotten out of the billions spent besides steps that we can take to limit change?