Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is amazing that we have "adults" reduced to such inane commentary that Canada could use global warming because it is cold. I guess these "adults" don't care to realize that increased temperatures are anathema to a frozen environment's sustaining its flora and fauna. Further there is overwhelming evidence that climate change is wreaking havoc on the Arctic habitat. I guess when you have no support for the denier position child-like arguments are all you have left.
I think most of the people who are making inane commentary are not Canadians and don't actually know anything about Canada's seasonal temperatures other than what they think they know about the winter temperatures. So many people around the world think that Canada is a perpetually cold place and have no idea how hot it gets in the summers.
I've heard a lot of ignorant comments from people saying that if Canada warms up it will mean more agricultural potential for Canada to feed the world (as if they think it will be Canada's obligation or desire to feed the world ). The fact is that the exact opposite, a loss of current and future agricultural potential in the south and no agricultural prospects at all in the north, is what will happen. That, plus the loss of wild flora and fauna throughout the entire nation and a massive increase in destructive, ravenous insects that presently couldn't live in Canada will swarm northwards to consume what remains.
Canada and the Canadian Arctic is one of the climate change canaries in the coal mine and people everywhere need to pay attention. Personally I think that discussions about the extreme cold or extreme hot temperature records being broken - and the useless politically charged debates about whatever caused it - is a waste of precious time and intelligence. People should be focusing more on preparing for much, much worse extremes of weather to come EVERYWHERE in the world in the immediate future. Everyone should be making plans for how to anticipate, adjust and adapt to the environmental toxicities, the privations, starvations and failing economies that everyone will have to face.
This new report from Environment Canada should be serving as another wake up call to the rest of the world and everyone needs to stop their bickering and complaining and finger pointing and start getting smart and personally involved and constructive.
I wonder if it was possible to grow palm trees on the beaches of SW British Columbia 50 years ago or longer.
Of course it's only certain types of hardy palms that grow here. The windmill palm, which is grown in North India and can handle a fairly cool winter. So it might have been possible, just not popular.
The first ones the city planted was about 20 years.
Of course it's only certain types of hardy palms that grow here. The windmill palm, which is grown in North India and can handle a fairly cool winter. So it might have been possible, just not popular.
The first ones the city planted was about 20 years.
Maybe so ....but I saw some Windmill Palms and photographed them at the Aquarium
in Stanley Park a bit before that, in 1992.
I think most of the people who are making inane commentary are not Canadians and don't actually know anything about Canada's seasonal temperatures other than what they think they know about the winter temperatures. So many people around the world think that Canada is a perpetually cold place and have no idea how hot it gets in the summers.
I've heard a lot of ignorant comments from people saying that if Canada warms up it will mean more agricultural potential for Canada to feed the world (as if they think it will be Canada's obligation or desire to feed the world ). The fact is that the exact opposite, a loss of current and future agricultural potential in the south and no agricultural prospects at all in the north, is what will happen. That, plus the loss of wild flora and fauna throughout the entire nation and a massive increase in destructive, ravenous insects that presently couldn't live in Canada will swarm northwards to consume what remains.
Canada and the Canadian Arctic is one of the climate change canaries in the coal mine and people everywhere need to pay attention. Personally I think that discussions about the extreme cold or extreme hot temperature records being broken - and the useless politically charged debates about whatever caused it - is a waste of precious time and intelligence. People should be focusing more on preparing for much, much worse extremes of weather to come EVERYWHERE in the world in the immediate future. Everyone should be making plans for how to anticipate, adjust and adapt to the environmental toxicities, the privations, starvations and failing economies that everyone will have to face.
This new report from Environment Canada should be serving as another wake up call to the rest of the world and everyone needs to stop their bickering and complaining and finger pointing and start getting smart and personally involved and constructive.
.
That's great.....
Here is the visitor brochure for Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. Great brochure....download it and print it.
Notice the retreat of the glaciers since 1753. Note the miles. It is truly a amazing event. There is no doubt that the Arctic is warming. It started in the 1750's and really accelerated during the 19th century.
Looks to be finally slowing in the late 20th and early 21st century
That's real data..not computer modeling. So how do we deal with that information and global warming??
Notice the retreat of the glaciers since 1753. Note the miles. It is truly a amazing event. There is no doubt that the Arctic is warming. It started in the 1750's and really accelerated during the 19th century.
Looks to be finally slowing in the late 20th and early 21st century
That's real data..not computer modeling. So how do we deal with that information and global warming??
That pdf of the brochure is in such tiny print it's impossible for me to read the writing on it even at high magnification.
I'm not understanding what it is that you're asking about real data. The report from Environment Canada is based on real data too, not computer modeling. Or are you asking how do we deal with global warming?
I'm familiar with Glacier Bay National Park. It isn't anywhere near the Arctic though, it's not even classified as a subarctic region, it's classified as coastal temperate. It's warmer there since it's right on the west coast where it's in the temperate rainforest region in southeast Alaska on the Alaska panhandle. Quite a bit further south of the BC/Yukon border. Historically it's always been warmer there on the west coast because of the warm Pacific Ocean. Just like all the rest of the North American west coast is always warm.
That's great.....
Here is the visitor brochure for Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. Great brochure...
....That's real data..not computer modeling. So how do we deal with that information and global warming
There are actually some advancing glaciers in this Park. Reason being, it is home to some very tall mountains in close proximity to the Pacific ocean, so they receive abundant precipitation in the form of snow during all seasons at their high elevations. it's been estimated that some parts of Mt. Fairweather (15,000 ft.) receive 100 ft. of snow per season.
If you visit the Mendenhall glacier in nearby Juneau, the ice recession has been incredible, even in a just a small window of time such as two or three decades. Reason being, the ice field that feeds it is not such a high elevation (3,000 ft.) and therefore is subject to increasingly common above freezing temperatures and rainfall up there.
That pdf of the brochure is in such tiny print it's impossible for me to read the writing on it even at high magnification.
I'm not understanding what it is that you're asking about real data. The report from Environment Canada is based on real data too, not computer modeling. Or are you asking how do we deal with global warming?
I'm familiar with Glacier Bay National Park. It isn't anywhere near the Arctic though, it's not even classified as a subarctic region, it's classified as coastal temperate. It's warmer there since it's right on the west coast where it's in the temperate rainforest region in southeast Alaska on the Alaska panhandle. Quite a bit further south of the BC/Yukon border. Historically it's always been warmer there on the west coast because of the warm Pacific Ocean. Just like all the rest of the North American west coast is always warm.
Not sure about your issue with the PDF's. I did manage to magnify and read the retreat of the glaciers since 1750 in Glacier Bay. It is interesting to see the dramatic retreat of the glaciers since 1750. IF that retreat were in progress today it would make world headlines. However, since it before significant increase in CO2 production by man....it is being ignored
I think the NPS employee is stretching it a bit calling the southern part of Glacier Bay a rainforest. As a Forester, I hardly think it has the extent or biodiversity and productivity that marks a "true" rain forest. However, throughout my professional career I have seen more arguments about definitions rather than facts!! Anyway, go to Google Earth and take a look at the "rain forest" at the southern end of Glacier Bay. And then look at southeast Alaska. That is a temperate rain forest.
The "report" from Environment Canada is a "report". Summary of information. It is NOT empirical scientific data, that is sorely missing in the global warming debate. But I grant you the point, that the Arctic is warming. My question is it a continuation of a natural trend or the result of man's activities??
Yes, Glacier Bay is below the Arctic Circle. But it is far enough north that it is greatly influenced by Arctic weather patterns. It might be in that "sweet" spot where climate changes are more dramatic. Something very dramatic happened there since 1750 due to climate. It is worth finding out why.
This book is about the western US, not the article. But it is a sobering read about climate change in the American west over the past 10,000 years. Climate change today...is a very small change compared to natural climate change in the past 10,000. By the way, the author DOES believe in man-caused climate change and the book has LOTS, and LOTS of references to scientific data. But in the end it is also a report. Worth the read.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). The fact is that the exact opposite, a loss of current and future agricultural potential in the south and no agricultural prospects at all in the north, is what will happen. That, plus the loss of wild flora and fauna throughout the entire nation and a massive increase in destructive, ravenous insects that presently couldn't live in Canada will swarm northwards to consume what remains.
