Climate Nearing “Point of No Return”

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
Every time you insist this, your inability to understand nuance is displayed all over again.
"Nuance", OK. We'll overlook the hypocrisy of this statement, considering you stripped nuance to misrepresent others' positions (as well as outright substituting their words) a mere few posts ago. Let's just look at those statements.

But also, pointing at increased risk in numerous areas and treating it as generalized increased risk is completely one sided counterfactual analysis.
^ So, am I not to understand from this that you're disputing the overall risk will rise? I mean, your focus from the start has obviously been to dispute the danger.

A billion is roughly the population of the western hemisphere, in case you didn't recognize that. The majority of those people are here within a handful of generations.

The comment I made for a billion, and then for hundreds of millions, was for the entire hemisphere, which is a lot bigger than just specifically European migration to specifically the US.

You're being exceptionally picky about numbers you don't actually understand pulled just from my memory with explicit qualifiers that they aren't exact. Don't waste your time on this.
Not exactly "picky". You tried to intimate that hundreds of millions to billions of forcibly-displaced people moving to an already-densely populated area over a century wouldn't be much of an issue. And the comparison point you chose was 28-50m people moving from habitable zones into sparsely-populated land over a century.

I don't expect you to get exact numbers right. But the magnitude of the discrepancies render the comparison completely foolish.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
^ So, am I not to understand from this that you're disputing the overall risk will rise? I mean, your focus from the start has obviously been to dispute the danger.
I'm disputing that is the claim in the first place. Let me put this deliberately: "There will likely be forest fires that wouldn't have happened in a cooler climate" is not the same sentence as "there will likely be more forest fires because of the warmer climate."
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,802
709
118
"there will likely be more forest fires because of the warmer climate"
But that is what the sources said, isn't it ? Not that every single forest fire is caused by climate change but that there will be more forest fires. That the situation of forest fires in Canada specifically is about to worsen.

Here, directly from the article

Declining snow, increasing temperatures and worsening droughts are all hallmarks of climate change and are projected to keep driving larger and more intense fires across Canada, according to Environment Canada.


And they even provide a link to the analysis

Climate change during the 21st century is expected to result in more frequent fires in many boreal forests, with severe environmental and economic consequences.

Fire-prone conditions are predicted to increase across Canada. This could potentially result in a doubling of the amount of area burned by the end of this century, compared with amounts burned in recent decades. Boreal forests, which have been greatly influenced by fire through history, will likely be especially affected by this change.


So the expectation is a doubling of the area burned on average per year in Canada due to climate change,
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
I'm disputing that is the claim in the first place. Let me put this deliberately: "There will likely be forest fires that wouldn't have happened in a cooler climate" is not the same sentence as "there will likely be more forest fires because of the warmer climate."
Yeah, that's not the same sentence. Yet as Satinavian outlines above, the sources fall squarely in line with the latter sentence.

"Higher temperatures in the future will contribute to increased fire potential ("fire weather")"

"Higher temperatures in the future will contribute to increased values in the FWI [Fire Weather] indices and, therefore, increased fire risk"

^ these statements do not come with caveats like "[but only in a few areas]" or "[and elsewhere there will be a corresponding decrease that cancels it out]". They're speaking of the overall situation. They say the fire risk will increase. The fire potential will increase.
 
Last edited:

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
If not, why are people coming this way in comparable scale to 100 years ago right now?
If so, why is it not a comparable situation suggesting people use the largely uninhabited land in Canada?
In the old days, land could be stolen from native Americans and parcelled out for self-supporting, productive use to almost anyone with a few basic farm tools. Furthermore the vast majority of immigrants were relatively socially, culturally and racially similar to the existing population (although even then there were significant frictions).

These days, everything is already owned. Self-reliance doesn't quite exist the same way - subsistence farming ain't going to cut it. Citizens don't necessarily want to accept people: the USA after all controls immigration. For instance, about as many immigrants naturalising in the USA have a degree as non-immigrant Americans: immigration is deliberately attempting to select for high-skill and high-productivity workers. That's very different from what is liable to happen with a wave of refugees. Plus I shouldn't need to tell a Republican voter how hostile people can get about immigrants from other races and cultures, especially if they are poor and may require substantial human development.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
In the old days, land could be stolen from native Americans and parcelled out for self-supporting, productive use to almost anyone with a few basic farm tools. Furthermore the vast majority of immigrants were relatively socially, culturally and racially similar to the existing population (although even then there were significant frictions).

These days, everything is already owned. Self-reliance doesn't quite exist the same way - subsistence farming ain't going to cut it. Citizens don't necessarily want to accept people: the USA after all controls immigration. For instance, about as many immigrants naturalising in the USA have a degree as non-immigrant Americans: immigration is deliberately attempting to select for high-skill and high-productivity workers. That's very different from what is liable to happen with a wave of refugees. Plus I shouldn't need to tell a Republican voter how hostile people can get about immigrants from other races and cultures, especially if they are poor and may require substantial human development.
None of that answered the question. If the situation is so different, why is there just as much migration now as there was 100 years ago?
But that is what the sources said, isn't it ? Not that every single forest fire is caused by climate change but that there will be more forest fires. That the situation of forest fires in Canada specifically is about to worsen.

Here, directly from the article

Declining snow, increasing temperatures and worsening droughts are all hallmarks of climate change and are projected to keep driving larger and more intense fires across Canada, according to Environment Canada.

And they even provide a link to the analysis

Climate change during the 21st century is expected to result in more frequent fires in many boreal forests, with severe environmental and economic consequences.

Fire-prone conditions are predicted to increase across Canada. This could potentially result in a doubling of the amount of area burned by the end of this century, compared with amounts burned in recent decades. Boreal forests, which have been greatly influenced by fire through history, will likely be especially affected by this change.


So the expectation is a doubling of the area burned on average per year in Canada due to climate change,
That is not what the sources say, because the sources don't want to say something they know is wrong. They say that effects of climate change coincide with markers of risk of wildfire, or talk about the attribution of a particular fire to climate change. The source there talks about some of the forests burning more while southern parts actually burn less from increased rain.

Here's the situation long term: wildfires in Canada are going to dramatically decrease due to climate change. I know this, and so do most of the people doing these studies, which is why they are careful not to say explicitly wildfires are going to increase. A change in climate is absolutely going to destroy those forests as we know them, but it's not wildfires that will end them, wildfires in that region have likely been there longer than people have.

The killer is going to be deciduous tress. The boreal forests burn the way they do not because they get too hot, but because they stay so cold that evergreens are well adapted to be the dominant vegetation. If the climate warms up, which is to my knowledge especially rapid in high latitudes, and if the region gets a little more rain and little more humidity, it's not going to suddenly be too wet for pine trees to burn, but it is going to be the right conditions for deciduous trees to move in and space out the dense needly trees that are so prone to explode.

The majority of the Earth is warmer than Canada and burns way less. It's silly not to make that connection.
They say the fire risk will increase. The fire potential will increase.
But they don't say "fires will increase", do they?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,802
709
118
That is not what the sources say, because the sources don't want to say something they know is wrong. They say that effects of climate change coincide with markers of risk of wildfire, or talk about the attribution of a particular fire to climate change. The source there talks about some of the forests burning more while southern parts actually burn less from increased rain.
I had direct quotes from the article. Yes, they were saying that the fires in the south will decrease while those in the north will increase. But they also clearly say that the overall effect is an increase in fires and the estimated area burned per year will double. Even taking the decrease in the south into account. The increase elsewhere in Canada seems to be that much worse.
Here's the situation long term: wildfires in Canada are going to dramatically decrease due to climate change.
No, that is in direct contradition to the article. The fires will increase in Canada long term, not decrease. Everything else is just wishful thinking and completely removed from or in direct contradition to facts.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
I had direct quotes from the article... the estimated area burned per year will double.
That's not what "could potentially" means. "Potentially" means it is a plausible outcome within the models, and is usually used when describing the least or most extreme plausible scenario.
No, that is in direct contradition to the article. The fires will increase in Canada long term, not decrease. Everything else is just wishful thinking and completely removed from or in direct contradition to facts.
It isn't in direct contradiction to the article: " From global climate models and scenarios, researchers are interpreting how climate change and climate variability may alter patterns of lightning, fuel moisture, temperature, precipitation and vegetation—all factors that can affect fire occurrence." Or how about " Also contributing to the variations have been changes in land use, vegetation composition, firefighting (meaning suppression) efforts, and other factors."

Again, there is a reason they speak concretely about only things like "fire-prone conditions".

Here's some fun reading for you:
"...they predict that the increased abundance of deciduous trees in the boreal forests of North America will slow down global warming in the medium term and reduce the occurrences of fire; in the long run, they expect the cooling effect to weaken the fire regime in North America..."
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,802
709
118
Here's some fun reading for you:
"...they predict that the increased abundance of deciduous trees in the boreal forests of North America will slow down global warming in the medium term and reduce the occurrences of fire; in the long run, they expect the cooling effect to weaken the fire regime in North America..."
The sentence before is

"What this change means in concrete terms for the global climate is currently the subject of intense discussions by researchers:"

meaning it is deputed. And just after that we get

"At the same time, however, the reduction of the typical Siberian conifers, which store high levels of moisture at ground level, will increase the likelihood of forest fires even further. "

The whole article however is about how the undisputed increase of fires through climate change might change the kind of trees growing there with the new kind of trees potentially (this is the disputed part) causing less fires - but not so much less fires that the old trees can grow again, so we are still talking about a hypothetical increase in fires.
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
The sentence before is

"What this change means in concrete terms for the global climate is currently the subject of intense discussions by researchers:"

meaning it is deputed. And just after that we get

"At the same time, however, the reduction of the typical Siberian conifers, which store high levels of moisture at ground level, will increase the likelihood of forest fires even further. "

The whole article however is about how the undisputed increase of fires through climate change might change the kind of trees growing there with the new kind of trees potentially (this is the disputed part) causing less fires - but not so much less fires that the old trees can grow again, so we are still talking about a hypothetical increase in fires.
You seem to have forgotten how to use your own faculties of reason: do warmer forests burn more currently?
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,802
709
118
You seem to have forgotten how to use your own faculties of reason: do warmer forests burn more currently?
Considering the huge number of forest fires in warmer forests and the usually smaller size of said forests, yes, that might actually be the case when adjusted for the latter.

But i don't have the exact numbers for that.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
None of that answered the question. If the situation is so different, why is there just as much migration now as there was 100 years ago?
Look, I feel I need to blunt here.

Your argumentation for quite a while here is analogous to an adult explaining something to a child and the child saying "Why?" in response to every successive explanation. It's not providing insight, it's not incisive, it's not useful. It comes across as just obstructive and evasive, stringing along one-line tangents and trivialities in for no apparent sake except to say express disagreement.

What's my motivation to continue here? Because the way you handle the analogous scenario above is to stop responding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silvanus

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
What's my motivation to continue here? Because the way you handle the analogous scenario above is to stop responding.
You're welcome not to, I would not hold it against you, nor would I read that as any sort of concession.

I do think you created the corner that you don't want to argue out of though. You offered the idea that migration from climate change is going to be so much worse than all the other times people moved about in history and ongoing.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
I do think you created the corner that you don't want to argue out of though. You offered the idea that migration from climate change is going to be so much worse than all the other times people moved about in history and ongoing.
Worse than all the other times is not what I said. High likelihood of substantial humanitarian, political and economic cost, even crisis, is.

There are plenty of arguments already made why climate migration may not be comparable to the colonisation of the Americas, or current migration to North America.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,789
937
118
Country
USA
Worse than all the other times is not what I said. High likelihood of substantial humanitarian, political and economic cost, even crisis, is.

There are plenty of arguments already made why climate migration may not be comparable to the colonisation of the Americas, or current migration to North America.
It isn't what you said, but it is implied in a sense. "Worse than all the other time" is stretching sure, but it's got to be at least worse than any given day otherwise, or you wouldn't make the comment, right? You wouldn't say "climate change is so big a crisis that it will cause people hardship that pushes them to relocate and suffer more hardship in the process at exactly the same intensity or less than people already do all the time for a variety of other reasons." There's got to be a "things are going to be worse" in what you're saying, right?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,535
5,982
118
Country
United Kingdom
Do you get it yet?
I get that you're so unwilling to comprehend what the climateologists are telling you in plain terms, that you'll employ some spectacularly obtuse and tortured logic to avoid it.

"They said the risk of it will increase, but they didn't say more will happen" is... frankly just a bit pathetic. You're usually a bit better than that.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,807
6,083
118
It isn't what you said, but it is implied in a sense. "Worse than all the other time" is stretching sure, but it's got to be at least worse than any given day otherwise, or you wouldn't make the comment, right? You wouldn't say "climate change is so big a crisis that it will cause people hardship that pushes them to relocate and suffer more hardship in the process at exactly the same intensity or less than people already do all the time for a variety of other reasons." There's got to be a "things are going to be worse" in what you're saying, right?
We've not even come remotely close to addressing all the migrations in history and I don't think we need to. A tragedy remains a tragedy even if there has been a greater tragedy.

That climate change has substantial risk of driving a form of migration very different in nature from the economic migrations to North America both currently and during its colonisation period is obvious. You perhaps come closest when you mentioned the potato famine and thus the subset of migration from Ireland. But I can't help but point out that the potato famine and all that spiralled out from it was a humanitarian crisis.