OT: BC wildfire smoke has now reached the Ottawa valley

Status
Not open for further replies.

Engineer

Rustled your jimmies
Dec 23, 2013
6,143
1,892
Do fossil fuel contribute, yes, but is it at a catastrophic level, no.
Anthropogenic climate change is nearly unanimously agreed upon by the scientists who have spent their professional life studying in the field. Why do you think your uneducated denial is more valid than the expertise of the scientists who spend their whole professional life researching this subject?

Go get a journal article published proving them all wrong; you'll become a household name in days if there was any validity to your argument.
 
Last edited:

jbeck5

Registered User
Jan 26, 2009
16,218
3,239
I know this isn't a hockey related post but it is an Ottawa related post and I assume a lot of Ottawa fans here live in the Ottawa valley.

Have you noticed this smoke? Just heard on the news here in Calgary that it had reached the Ottawa valley.
Its brutal out here. I was surprised to hear that it had travelled as far as Ottawa.

Here's what downtown Calgary has been looking like for the past couple of weeks..View attachment 135011
Looks like LA with the smog lol
 

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,288
8,100
Victoria
I've lived in Kelowna, BC for my whole life, it's pretty standard this year based on the hectares burnt. Lots of small fires which is actually good for sustainabilty of forests.

There are some coneheads here in BC that cry for every fire to be put out immediately, obviously costing millions of tax dollars. All this really does is increase possibility of a massive one that cannot be stopped. 2003 was a good example of that (Okanagan Mountain Park fire) where thousands of homes were lost because there was just so much fuel built up from putting out naturally started fires. Unfortunately waking up to ash on our vehicles in the morning is common in August. It's about 9 or 10 on the air quality scale here now. Last year it was 10+, but if the scale was linear and didn't have this strange cap it would be about 40!

View attachment 135171

Oh man I remember that. I went hiking in the park across the lack the following year and hike through this nice trail through the woods and then broke out into open all of a sudden and it was just km's of burned out char... Looked like the gates of hell or something.

It's definitely a yearly event and natural for the most part. Obviously there is always the push to respect the fire bans so that humans don't add to the mix, and the loggers have to properly clear their cuts, but by and large lightening starts the fires, and like you say it's natures way of clearing the brush.

It's definitely more hazy this year on the island than most years, though there is a fire burning up in Nanaimo right now.

Love Kelowna by the way, lived 5 years in Vernon and it's such a beautiful area. Less than an hour to one of two pristine lakes (Ok and KAl) and less than an hour to the parking lot of the ski hill (Silver Star).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mr Hat

Mr Hat

Registered User
Oct 24, 2017
555
556
Kelowna
Oh man I remember that. I went hiking in the park across the lack the following year and hike through this nice trail through the woods and then broke out into open all of a sudden and it was just km's of burned out char... Looked like the gates of hell or something.

It's definitely a yearly event and natural for the most part. Obviously there is always the push to respect the fire bans so that humans don't add to the mix, and the loggers have to properly clear their cuts, but by and large lightening starts the fires, and like you say it's natures way of clearing the brush.

It's definitely more hazy this year on the island than most years, though there is a fire burning up in Nanaimo right now.

Love Kelowna by the way, lived 5 years in Vernon and it's such a beautiful area. Less than an hour to one of two pristine lakes (Ok and KAl) and less than an hour to the parking lot of the ski hill (Silver Star).

The Island is awesome too, I head to Victoria every summer for a guys golf trip. The man caused fires are definitely unfortunate and the careless people who cause them I want to be more severely punished. That said the "sticks" as we call them are great snowmobile and biking areas and when they start filling out again it's time to explore a new area. Keeps it interesting! Of course the day after I say "it's not that bad" a nasty amount settles in the valley...
Screenshot_20180819-123536.png
 

Mr Hat

Registered User
Oct 24, 2017
555
556
Kelowna
Anthropogenic climate change is nearly unanimously agreed upon by the scientists who have spent their professional life studying in the field. Why do you think your uneducated denial is more valid than the expertise of the scientists who spend their whole professional life researching this subject?

Go get a journal article published proving them all wrong; you'll become a household name in days if there was any validity to your argument.

I'm not a climate change denier, people do seem to have a significant effect on global warming and we should do what we can to minimize not only carbon but all environmental footprints. I'm an avid recycler and water consumer. I did come across this interesting article a few years back which tries to discredit the 97% consensus stat.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
 

jbeck5

Registered User
Jan 26, 2009
16,218
3,239
Anthropogenic climate change is nearly unanimously agreed upon by the scientists who have spent their professional life studying in the field. Why do you think your uneducated denial is more valid than the expertise of the scientists who spend their whole professional life researching this subject?

Go get a journal article published proving them all wrong; you'll become a household name in days if there was any validity to your argument.


This over and over. It's annoying when people refuse all the evidence that experts are using and have zero education on the subject. It's like flat earthers.
 

saskriders

Can't Hold Leads
Sep 11, 2010
25,064
1,599
Calgary
Yes, temperatures go up and down over hundreds of thousands of years...but we're making it change faster. That's the point. We're doing what nature does in 80,000 years in 80 years.

Also, from the agricultural revolution to the industrial revolution there was relatively little change in the earth's temperature. While humans have survived in a world that was much colder (not sure off the top of my head whether or not the earth has been hotter than it is now during human history, but I want to say no) human society has not. We were able to start farming when temperatures reached what was approximately moderate levels, and starting farming is what led to the start of society. Too much change to the environment could mean that the places that currently supply food for millions of people may no longer be able to grow those crops. And rising sea levels could mean a refugee crisis bigger than the world has ever seen if people are forced to abandon maritime communities. I don't have much doubt that humans could survive a warmer world, but I do have doubts that our society can survive without having a drastically reduced standard of living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nac Mac Feegle

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
I'm not a climate change denier, people do seem to have a significant effect on global warming and we should do what we can to minimize not only carbon but all environmental footprints. I'm an avid recycler and water consumer. I did come across this interesting article a few years back which tries to discredit the 97% consensus stat.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
I'm not a climate change denier either I just think it is a lot easier to get a message across the more you bombard people with it. Over time people will come to accept anything regardless of what it is. It is equally important to listen to the other side no matter how much you agree or disagree with it. It took a movie from Al Gore to get people emotionally involved thus setting the stage for a whole new industry to become the next big thing that only money can fix.
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
Also, from the agricultural revolution to the industrial revolution there was relatively little change in the earth's temperature. While humans have survived in a world that was much colder (not sure off the top of my head whether or not the earth has been hotter than it is now during human history, but I want to say no) human society has not. We were able to start farming when temperatures reached what was approximately moderate levels, and starting farming is what led to the start of society. Too much change to the environment could mean that the places that currently supply food for millions of people may no longer be able to grow those crops. And rising sea levels could mean a refugee crisis bigger than the world has ever seen if people are forced to abandon maritime communities. I don't have much doubt that humans could survive a warmer world, but I do have doubts that our society can survive without having a drastically reduced standard of living.
The earth has always been stable enough to farm on it, it just depended where. The agricultural revolution was based in Europe not the rest of the world. They found a way to adapt to their climate. Farming in south America has been going on for thousands of years and not hundreds. Ancient Egyptians farmed, Sumerians farmed, and pretty much every ancient civilization. The discovery of fossil fuels led to the explosion and efficiency of farming. The Industrial revolution led to a massive population growth. If not for fossil fuels neither would have happened and society would not be nearly as advanced.

I prefer to be skeptical.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nac Mac Feegle

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,828
9,251
The earth has always been stable enough to farm on it, it just depended where. The agricultural revolution was based in Europe not the rest of the world. They found a way to adapt to their climate. Farming in south America has been going on for thousands of years and not hundreds. Ancient Egyptians farmed, Sumerians farmed, and pretty much every ancient civilization. The discovery of fossil fuels led to the explosion and efficiency of farming. The Industrial revolution led to a massive population growth. If not for fossil fuels neither would have happened and society would not be nearly as advanced.

I prefer to be skeptical.


It's interesting how some scientists have been looking at ancient farming techniques for the past few decades. I'm starting to read a fair bit about "forest farming", natural gardens, mixed farming (three sisters farming) and the use of animals to help with growing plants (like having fish in rice paddies, or using a certain breed of ducks in fields to eat weeds and bugs) instead of pesticides. It's really amazing just how smart many of the ancients and indigenous folks were, and how they used the environment around them to their advantage, instead of fighting against nature.
 

Ice-Tray

Registered User
Jan 31, 2006
16,288
8,100
Victoria
We haven't lots this knowledge, it's just relatively inefficient, costly, and designed to produce levels of sustenance needed for smaller populations. It also doesn't allow for massive profit making.

Insert runaway capitalism, growing socioeconomic divides, and massive overpopulation, huge urban centers, and you quickly realize that things wouldn't work like that without a massive global paradigm change. Or a restart level event.

Community farming, chickens, goats, and pigs allowed in urban yards, hobby farms, and more local produce in neighbourhood grocery stores are steps in the right direction though.

Profit is king these days, and unfortunately most aren't willing to make less to create better. We tend to be at our absolute best in absolute crisis, and we're a ways away yet.

Its sad because there are so many neat solutions right in front of our eyes, like you mentioned, if it weren't so important to make vast sums of money that couldn't be spent in several life times.
 

Engineer

Rustled your jimmies
Dec 23, 2013
6,143
1,892
It is equally important to listen to the other side no matter how much you agree or disagree with it.
To form a proper opinion, yes you should listen to both sides. When the research in the field presented by the people who actually understand the data, and are under constant peer-editing any time they present material, have a near unanimous consensus on the cause of anthropogenic climate change, you are simply being a denier. First, there is very few accepted "against-arguments" in academia second, I have a very hard time believing you have properly understood the arguments presented if your opinion after researching this subject remains skeptical.

The Industrial revolution led to a massive population growth. If not for fossil fuels neither would have happened and society would not be nearly as advanced.
This is a red herring, it is irrelevant to the fact that our current use of fossil fuels is causing anthropogenic climate change, nothing you have posted has disagreed with that fact. You claim you are skeptical, yet all of your responses have failed to include any real substance on how you have formed your opinion, other than a series of irrelevant comments. Similar to your claim that "our climate has been much worst in the past", it is irrelevant.

It's easy to claim skeptic on a hockey forum and not get properly challenged. I encourage you to present your reasons for skepticism to a scientific forum or sub-reddit, as they will easily be dismantled. The few you have presented here can be simply disregarded as red herrings.

For some reading: Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
 

Engineer

Rustled your jimmies
Dec 23, 2013
6,143
1,892
I'm not a climate change denier, people do seem to have a significant effect on global warming and we should do what we can to minimize not only carbon but all environmental footprints. I'm an avid recycler and water consumer. I did come across this interesting article a few years back which tries to discredit the 97% consensus stat.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
This is interesting, I have heard this comment before but had never seen the source.

What it fails to do is determine if the paper was truly doctored and should be disregarded, or if there were simply some mistakes that were misclassified. One thing I did notice is that they mention less than 10 articles that were misclassified, when the total number of articles reviewed were nearly 12000. If we assume that 5x what was identified in that rebuttal article were misclassified (50), 50 out of 12000 is roughly a 0.4% change and the results would be 96.6% instead of 97% roughly.

But I do agree that does shed doubt on the results, I'd be curious to know what the results were to be if the analysis was repeated in a separate study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ray Kinsella

Mr Hat

Registered User
Oct 24, 2017
555
556
Kelowna
This is interesting, I have heard this comment before but had never seen the source.

What it fails to do is determine if the paper was truly doctored and should be disregarded, or if there were simply some mistakes that were misclassified. One thing I did notice is that they mention less than 10 articles that were misclassified, when the total number of articles reviewed were nearly 12000. If we assume that 5x what was identified in that rebuttal article were misclassified (50), 50 out of 12000 is roughly a 0.4% change and the results would be 96.6% instead of 97% roughly.

But I do agree that does shed doubt on the results, I'd be curious to know what the results were to be if the analysis was repeated in a separate study.

I had similar thoughts after reading it. I think they focused on 10 that stuck out based on the authors being well known against global warming being labelled as a crisis. It's probable the percentage is still very high but it sure isn't clear exactly how many are potentially mis categorized.
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
It's interesting how some scientists have been looking at ancient farming techniques for the past few decades. I'm starting to read a fair bit about "forest farming", natural gardens, mixed farming (three sisters farming) and the use of animals to help with growing plants (like having fish in rice paddies, or using a certain breed of ducks in fields to eat weeds and bugs) instead of pesticides. It's really amazing just how smart many of the ancients and indigenous folks were, and how they used the environment around them to their advantage, instead of fighting against nature.
Great video on potential ancient farming in southern Africa.

 

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,828
9,251
That sounds a bit too much like bait for scientology. There are a lot of those types of people out there, who take a few fragments of science and archaeology, and then add wild elements to it to try and push their stuff. And that is a dangerous thing....a lot of creationists, bible thumpers and for-profit nutbars can be very convincing, especially when they sprinkle a few bits of known science in their ramblings.

Gotta be careful. The internet is one heck of a minefield for that kind of stuff. Easy to step on a crazy. Once they grab hold of you, they empty both your brain and your wallet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: saskriders

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
That sounds a bit too much like bait for scientology. There are a lot of those types of people out there, who take a few fragments of science and archaeology, and then add wild elements to it to try and push their stuff. And that is a dangerous thing....a lot of creationists, bible thumpers and for-profit nutbars can be very convincing, especially when they sprinkle a few bits of known science in their ramblings.

Gotta be careful. The internet is one heck of a minefield for that kind of stuff. Easy to step on a crazy. Once they grab hold of you, they empty both your brain and your wallet.
What are you commenting on?
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
The video you posted. The whole "dragonology" stuff doesn't have any legitimate scientific backing.
What? I don't have any idea what you are talking about. the part of the video I posted was about the possibility of massive agricultural plots of land. If you are reffering to the stone serpent those people were worshiping 70,000 years ago I think you missed the whole point.
 
Last edited:

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
...did you watch the video you just posted? Fast forward to the end, and the buy our stuff part.
If that is how you determine somethings validity so be it. BTW i didn't buy anything but it doesn't change the fact that what is being said could shed some light on ancient civilizations. Maybe I should have linked you to a History channel clip instead since it's already paid with a cable subscription.
 

saskriders

Can't Hold Leads
Sep 11, 2010
25,064
1,599
Calgary
If that is how you determine somethings validity so be it. BTW i didn't buy anything but it doesn't change the fact that what is being said could shed some light on ancient civilizations. Maybe I should have linked you to a History channel clip instead since it's already paid with a cable subscription.

FWIW History Channel is largely crap and they have ruined any validity their name ever carried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->