ec.gc.ca · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:What is the Timeline for global warming? by qualico · 2006-01-23 08:41 · Score: 2, Informative · on Brits Ready Crops For Global Warming

Guys in BC are reporting a LOT of rain.
Trees budding already.

No doubt there is a lot of changes going on all over the place.
From where I sit, things are just not right at all.

If Alberta does not get a sustained snow/rain fall before spring, there is going to be water restrictions/bans and a whole lot of fire fighting going on.

The fire fighters I work for are already reporting for duty in January.
That is just crazy.

Just so you don't think I'm doing the Chicken Little dance, here is the long term forcast 9-12 months, from environment Canada:
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/saisons/image_e. html?img=ccatemp_12_s_m1
http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/saisons/image_e. html?img=ccapcpn_12_m1_s

If things don't go back to normal, there is about to be some serious issues to contend with.

Churchill, Canada by __aaijsn7246 · 2005-12-18 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative · on Polar Bears Drowning As Globe Warms

No discussion of polar bears is complete without mentioning Churchill, Manitoba, The Polar Bear Capital of The World. I visited at the end of October and had the chance to go out on a "Tundra Buggy" tour. It was quite exotic.. we saw 3 polar bear. There's also a guy who lives out on the tundra for a few months a year in a huge tundra buggy with satellite internet access.. He has a site: http://www.polarbearcam.com/

The buggies are amazing.. probably about 4-5 feet off the ground, HUGE tires, furnace inside to keep warm.. we ate dinner on board as well, with the bears just outside. Our tour guide was VERY professional and knowledgeable, we were quite impressed. It turned out he had also lived in Africa for many years and given tours there, etc etc..

Here's some fun facts about polar bear off the top of my head:

Their skin is actually black to absorb the sunlight (it's amazing how well adapted they are). The fur is really transparent but looks white in the same way a cloud looks white because of all of the water droplets.

They have suction cups on their paws to keep from slipping on the ice.

Churchill has had, I believe, only 2 or 3 fatalities in the past 30 years. One was a few weeks before I got there as a drunk wandered out of the town limits.

They are very careful about bear up there, for obvious reasons. Every night they fire off shotguns to keep the bears away. People living on the outskirts of town always have rifles in their houses just in case - they also put out traps.. basically boards with nails going through them.. to keep the bears away.

If a bear comes into town they will stun it and carry it away with a helicopter! We actually saw this happening! They move it further north IIRC... but if the bear comes back 2 more times, they put it into the "polar bear jail" which is in town (no tourists allowed sadly). They only water the bear in the jail, and do not feed it, otherwise the bear may view it as a rewarding experience.

I was surprised how nice everything was up there.. beautifully decorated hotels, at least on the insides. Food is expensive though and their economy is pretty much dependent on the bears, although they do export grain to Europe. The train takes 2 days from Winnipeg and is quite a slow ride, sometimes traveling at only 10 miles per hour. (They run 2 engines just in case one breaks down.)

I remember lots more about the bears and Churchill if anyone is interested.. just ask!

Oh - there was far less ice compared to previous years when I was up there. Everyone I asked said they weren't sure if it was global warming or just a temporary cycle. You can check the sea ice information for the Hudson Bay at the Canadian Ice Service site.

Re:Thank you, Bush. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-11-30 22:39 · Score: 0 · on Failing Ocean Current Raises Fears of Mini Ice Age

The USA has by far the largest emission of greenhouse gases in the world (yes, that is per person). One might think they might start reconsidering, but to the contrary.

Greenpeace should be asking instead "Why is Canada here?"

The most recent GHG inventories show that, during 1990-2003, Canada has increased its total GHG emissions by 24 percent.

Over the same period, the US increased its total GHG emissions by 13 percent.

In fact, during 2000-2003, the US actually decreased GHG emissions by 0.8 percent! During this time Canada increased its emissions by 2.9 percent.

Neither the US nor Canada has a chance in hell of meeting their Kyoto targets. But at last the US is vaguely moving in the right direction, even if only by accident!

Re:Ummm, yeah. by Dashing+Leech · 2005-11-02 09:18 · Score: 1 · on Hydrogen Fuel Cells Hit the Road

but is there anyone that can top all three?

Ottawa, Ontario can probably beat that. Record low: -32.9 F (-36.1 C), high: 100.0 F (37.8 C), and snowfall: 16.0 inches(40.6 cm). Average yearly snowfall is 87.2 inches (7.3 feet).

Note that these are not exactly very unusual values. It is regularly below -30 C in winter, mid-30 C in summer, and heavy snowfall. I might also add that the humidity is very very high, so the humidex (feels like) is mid-40's in the summer. So the only one not beat is the maximum daily snowfall by a few inches, but temps and average snowfall are worse.

For storms, how about this one:

On January 4, 1998 the first drops of freezing rain started to fall in Eastern Canada. Ten centimetres of freezing rain fell in less than a week, destroying trees, grounding airplanes, and leaving over a million people without electricity. Check out the links below for more about the event.

Re:Mars Dust Bad! by Stephen+Samuel · 2005-10-28 16:27 · Score: 1 · on New Dust Storm on Mars Viewable with Telescopes

I'm thinking that this may be an interesting opportunity to see a Mars dust storm (and what it does) from the inside. It may have an impact on the rovers' ability to run around on the surface, but it may also make some entirely new science possible.

It may even be possible to track the wind speeds of the storm if two closely spaced images are lucky ehough to track a recognizable object moving across the line of sight.

In the meantime, the dust storms don't make any real difference to my personal view, because I live in Vancouver which is almost permanently clouded over at this time of year.

Re:Doom and Gloom by Rei · 2005-09-16 07:06 · Score: 1 · on Global Warming Past The Point of No Return

For example, the Mount Pinatubo eruption

lowered the temperature by the addition of aerosols (dust and sulfuric gasses), which mostly leave the atmosphere over the next several years. CO2 does not (there is sequestering, but it's a slow process). CFCs do not (half-lives often over a hundred years). Methane does not, although it is one of the shorter lived greenhouse gasses (12 years) and some of our actions have added new permanent influxes (for example, dambuilding). Etc. Mt. Pinatubo actually helped validate models of global warming

There is nothing unique in time scale or magnitude

Yes, there distinctly is.

The little climatic optimum ... the little ice age

Was nothing compared to recent temperature change; check the graphs. Some conservative sites distort the issue by citing temperature changes *In Europe* during this period, not global temperatures. If you want to talk *regional* climate change, be my guest - compare Europe's little ice age change to the modern Arctic climate change.

lasting about 1000 years on average

Completely false (unless you're, for some reason, talking about small-fraction-of-a-degree changes, as opposed to real ice ages). Again, look at the graphs; I can't stress enough that you review the data again, because you're wrong about what it says.

The pre-holocene glacial period had prpbably some of the most rapid climate changes in history, yet they still took a 650-3000 years to accomplish what we've done in a two hundred, and what we will repeat in 50 or less.

Same here in Canada by Lord+Satri · 2005-08-19 01:57 · Score: 4, Informative · on Weather Service Becoming More Tech Friendly

Because weather.gov is so good and ad free, people prefer to use it.

Same here in Canada. The govermental weather site is the most visited website of Canada (about 18 millions hits per day IIRC). http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/

For-profit organizations try to offer value-added products, but it's crippled with ads. And what many clients do not know, they (example http://meteomedia.com/) basicly simply repackage and reinterpret the data the government sells them (I work for the Canadian Meteorological Centre :-).

A dud? by rueger · 2005-07-26 02:06 · Score: 3, Interesting · on New Google Homepage Features

Well, I played with it for five minutes and couldn't see much use. It wouldn't let me fine tune the news feed to suit my needs, or at least not in an obvious way, and didn't display the accompanying pictures from news stories.

For whatever reason it won't display the weather for my location (Hamilton ON). I don't particularly like the way it displays my g-mail info, and would like to change the arrangement and width of the blocks.

All in all this one actually looks like a beta - dull, uninspired, and not fully realized.

Re:Not in Australia by djmurdoch · 2005-07-05 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Sunscreen Not So Good for You?

The only difference between northern climates and australia is that the southern hemisphere has a lower ozone density http://www.webwombat.com.au/careers_ed/education/o zone.htm

Hmm? That web page makes no such claim.

The claim might be true, but things are complicated. See here for recent measurements and here for what it was like in January.

I suspect the actual cause of the high skin cancer rate is really a combination of all of the factors: population that is mostly northern European, not adapted to the sun; low latitudes; higher insolation in the summer due to perihelion; low ozone levels; nice weather; nice beaches. They just seem to have lucked out in all the categories.

Re:Not in Australia by djmurdoch · 2005-07-05 03:35 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Sunscreen Not So Good for You?

The only difference between northern climates and australia is that the southern hemisphere has a lower ozone density http://www.webwombat.com.au/careers_ed/education/o zone.htm

Hmm? That web page makes no such claim.

The claim might be true, but things are complicated. See here for recent measurements and here for what it was like in January.

I suspect the actual cause of the high skin cancer rate is really a combination of all of the factors: population that is mostly northern European, not adapted to the sun; low latitudes; higher insolation in the summer due to perihelion; low ozone levels; nice weather; nice beaches. They just seem to have lucked out in all the categories.

Re:Yes, climate will change... by Bongo+Bill · 2005-05-11 14:57 · Score: 1 · on Gulf Stream Slowdown in Progress?

It's rather unfair to assume that the only people who think that the environment is not in immediate and grave danger due to pollution anthropogenic erosion are those who have a vested and short-sighted economic interest in keeping the environment unregulated. What about people who think, Even if there is a danger, we're probably going about it the wrong way? Or the people who think, I don't mind being environmentally friendly and in fact I recommend it to all my friends, but that doesn't give the government the right to force anyone into it? Not everyone who disagrees has a sinister self-serving agenda.

1. Evidence will certainly appear exaggerated when you see projections which (although I am not a meteorologist) feature predictions that do not at first appear mathematically sound. It's difficult to seem unbiased with cases like journals suppressing dissenting opinion on global warming. It's hard to present yourself as even-minded when you attract support for your cause with slogans like "save the planet."

The IPCC does an outstanding job of researching it, but too few listen to reason and most of the rest content themselves with predicting the end of the world based on incomplete data, and demand that actions be taken which are likely to be either ineffective or excessively costly.

2. There are scientifically literate people on both sides of the equation. The Cooler Heads Coalition, while hardly unbiased, demonstrates that in its selection of articles.

Re:seems sort of a waste by chefmonkey · 2005-05-09 15:02 · Score: 1 · on Hybrid Drivers Provide Real-World Mileage Data

Yes, turbo diesel cars get incredible mileage, but the particulate emissions -- despite dramatic improvements over the past decade -- still fall near the bottom of the heap.

So, if you want to improve your mileage to save a couple of hundred dollars a year and/or to reduce dependance on foreign oil, a diesel is definitely the car for you.

On the other hand, if you're concerned about that grey haze hanging low in the sky that you notice every morning driving to work and wonder about what it's doing to your lungs, the current batch of gasoline hybrids make a ton more sense.

Re:What about the weather? by CastrTroy · 2005-03-02 23:42 · Score: 1 · on Google Calendar Coming Soon?

Canadian readers can check out Environment Canada's Weather Office. Much better than the Canadian Weather Channel's web site with no ads, and lots of info.

Honest question by AxelTorvalds · 2005-02-18 06:06 · Score: 1 · on Humans are Causing Global Warming

Okay, I'm not a physicist.

So as I understand it, what we have been calling human caused global warming is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. This says that that increase has been from about 260ppm to 370ppm now; which is noticable and believable to me. So what I want to know is are we talking about those 370ppm molecules reflecting radiant energy back towards the surface of the earth?

By my math, that's 0.000259 % of the atmosphere doing that and now we've got 0.00036% of the atmosphere doing that. that 0.0001% more radiant energy is the concern? Which causes more water to vaporize which is more powerful greenhouse gas, yadda yadda yadda. But is that the core of the issue? We're getting 0.0001% more heat reflected back at us from the atmosphere? How much more energy does the sun send to us when there are big solar flares?

Re:Americans are different by EsbenMoseHansen · 2005-02-13 04:44 · Score: 1 · on NASA Says 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded

From this FAQ:

B.4 Don't volcanoes naturally release far more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than humans?

Response: No. On a global scale, volcanoes release less than 1% of human emissions of carbon dioxide and hence are a minor contributor to changes in its atmospheric concentrations. Furthermore, emissions from volcanoes have always been part of the natural cycle, which has been in approximate balance for many millennia, until the industrial revolution.

Explanation: Most recent estimates by volcanic experts with the U.S. Geological Survey suggest that, globally, volcanoes release about 150 million tonnes (Mt) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. By comparison, humans annually emit more than 22 billion tonnes (Gt) of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion alone, and another 6 or so Gt of CO2 from deforestation activities. That is more than 100 times as great as volcanic emissions.

Mount Etna, in Sicily, is the largest single volcanic emitter of CO2, estimated at 25 Mt of CO2 per year. By comparison, emissions from Mount St. Helens following its eruption several decades ago were less than 2 Mt of CO2/year.

Reference: Gerlach 1991.

Pre-emptive climate change faq by rush22 · 2005-02-13 00:54 · Score: 5, Informative · on NASA Says 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded

Frequently asked questions about the science of climate change

I find it very helpful.

Re:Let the Bush bashing begin! by nathanh · 2005-02-11 08:37 · Score: 2, Informative · on U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding

Still, remember the ring of fire that surrounds our oceans. That is many many active volcanoes erupting every day in the world. So much volcanic activity every day, it can be seen from space and some would say, it looks like a "Ring of fire", hence the name... How much greenhouse gasses are released every day by volcanic activity? activity that man has no control of.

Bugger all.

B.4 Don't volcanoes naturally release far more CO2 into the atmosphere each year than humans?
Response: No. On a global scale, volcanoes release less than 1% of human emissions of carbon dioxide and hence are a minor contributor to changes in its atmospheric concentrations. Furthermore, emissions from volcanoes have always been part of the natural cycle, which has been in approximate balance for many millennia, until the industrial revolution. MSC Canada

As I said before, I've no idea where the myth came from that volcanoes are a primary contributor to greenhouse gasses. It simply isn't true. I'm sure certain people wish it were true, and that explains why they keep repeating the myth, but it is NOT TRUE.

Just a second by armer · 2005-01-26 16:04 · Score: 1 · on New Climate Change Warning

the past week the daytime highs here in Ottawa Canada were -20 deg. Celsius. Normals for this period, according to Environment Canada http://weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/city/pages/on-118_me tric_e.html, are daytime highs of -5 deg. Celsius. If the tempurature is going to be raised at most 11 deg. IT WILL STILL BE #$%*#$ COLD HERE!!!!

Canada by tearmeapart · 2005-01-23 14:14 · Score: 2, Informative · on Should Taxpayers Pay Twice For Weather Data?

Canada tends to be more open and ever so slightly less wasteful with our money.
For example, Environment Canada has tons of information available, including:

Current conditions
"EnviroZine" (Environment Canada's online magazine, with past issues)
Media releases archive
Educational crap
More resources for teachers
Sea ice conditions
Laws and acts regarding meteorology
Climate history (but unavailable on the weekend)
Water data archive
City records
Many more archives!