Canada's Last Fully Intact Arctic Ice Shelf Collapses (reuters.com) 175
A reader shares a report: The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40% of its area in just two days at the end of July, researchers said on Thursday. The Milne Ice Shelf is at the fringe of Ellesmere Island, in the sparsely populated northern Canadian territory of Nunavut. "Above normal air temperatures, offshore winds and open water in front of the ice shelf are all part of the recipe for ice shelf break up," the Canadian Ice Service said on Twitter when it announced the loss on Sunday. "Entire cities are that size. These are big pieces of ice," said Luke Copland, a glaciologist at the University of Ottawa who was part of the research team studying the Milne Ice Shelf. The shelf's area shrank by about 80 square kilometers. By comparison, the island of Manhattan in New York covers roughly 60 square kilometers.
"This was the largest remaining intact ice shelf, and it's disintegrated, basically," Copland said. The Arctic has been warming at twice the global rate for the last 30 years, due to a process known as Arctic amplification. But this year, temperatures in the polar region have been intense. The polar sea ice hit its lowest extent for July in 40 years. Record heat and wildfires have scorched Siberian Russia. Summer in the Canadian Arctic this year in particular has been 5 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average, Copland said. That has threatened smaller ice caps, which can melt quickly because they do not have the bulk that larger glaciers have to stay cold. As a glacier disappears, more bedrock is exposed, which then heats up and accelerates the melting process.
"This was the largest remaining intact ice shelf, and it's disintegrated, basically," Copland said. The Arctic has been warming at twice the global rate for the last 30 years, due to a process known as Arctic amplification. But this year, temperatures in the polar region have been intense. The polar sea ice hit its lowest extent for July in 40 years. Record heat and wildfires have scorched Siberian Russia. Summer in the Canadian Arctic this year in particular has been 5 degrees Celsius above the 30-year average, Copland said. That has threatened smaller ice caps, which can melt quickly because they do not have the bulk that larger glaciers have to stay cold. As a glacier disappears, more bedrock is exposed, which then heats up and accelerates the melting process.
People who have children (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:People who have children (Score:5, Interesting)
In the past decade my mother has gone from lamenting not having grandkids to expressing gratitude she doesn't have grandkids with the way the world is going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I also marvel at the fact that apparently the vast majority of other humans alive on this planet right now seem to not have the ability to think about things that far ahead, like
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have kids. I'm always curious what people with children think about their children and grandchildren living in a world that's in the middle of ecological collapse. I'm happy that I'll probably be gone before things get too ugly.
It's immensely frustrating that people keep voting for the assholes with the largest mouths instead of the candidates with the brains and experience. Those assholes along with their sympathizers, and their disinformation networks, and their narrow-minded conservatism increasingly based on science denial are running this world into the ground.
I can't believe humanity is so bad at this. It seems the majority of people want to be entertained rather than governed.
And I can't believe people like Rupert Murdoch,
Re: (Score:2)
Better to have lived and lost life than to have not lived at all.
Re: People who have children (Score:4, Informative)
They've been peddling, "decreasing artic ice" since Al Gore
There are two million square kilometers of open water in the Arctic that was a permanent icepack three decades ago.
In fact, there was an article a year or two ago about how the ice is increasing.
Not even Fox News says anything this stupid.
Re: People who have children (Score:2)
The climate changes, and has changed for a long time. That there once was more ice in certain parts, or that it is colder or warmer now than it was at some preferred time previously is mildly interesting, but the planet has been both much hotter AND much colder than it is today.
Climate Activists have picked a random point in our planets history and decided that is the right temperature, and will do whatever it takes to get the planet back to that temperature... but I'm curious, how did they pick their targe
Re: (Score:2)
Citations?
Re: (Score:2)
https://docs.google.com/spread... [google.com]
You'll need to do your own legwork.
It isn't his legwork it is YOURS. You made the claim it is not up to others to find evidence for you. You want your claim taken seriously back it up with evidence. A claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Re: People who have children (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupid conservatives have forgotten how to think. Just go to Fox or Breitbart and you'll find the one article that claims global warming isn't true whereas the thousands of articles affirming global warming are nowhere to be found. It's like someone saying Einstein was a liberal therefore his theories are all bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"we don't think that boys can magically become girls just by wishing it"
That's conservatives' biggest problem. They tend to think more in binary terms and never consider than a person's sexual identity could be anything other than 100% male or female. Global change is happening or it isn't. Something as simple as lighting a match causes the environment to change. No, it doesn't melt icebergs but its undeniable that the presence of people or otters, or ants or trees doesn't affect the environment around them
Re: (Score:2)
I think a better argument would be to say there IS global warming but its a good thing because it would free up more land for people to live, farm, strip mine, etc. i.e. Manifest destiny 2.0!
It's "better" in that it's "slightly less than complete and total bullshit". Global warming isn't going to increase arable land. It may however make more mineral deposits accessible.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing to farm. No topsoil. We depend on nitrogen fixation as well. Can you feed 4x the population that existed prior to nitrogen fixation while we lose arable land and aren't gaining any substantial amount from this?
I mean, it'd be nice if those glaciers hadn't scraped away the topsoil. Farming is a mining activity: in the soil and the atmosphere, for nutrients, water, nitrogen, and sunlight. Will you wait hundreds of years for the bedrock to weather and produce viable soil? Or will you use prison
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that the polar bear population was considered to be increasing until 2015, and then suddenly it was declining. This is despite active counts, including by transponder and native hunters using IR dye markers. Yes, that something politically unpalatable can suddenly have a swing in fortune is reality. You can always look at all the researchers who suddenly lost their federal funding over the last 5 years when they started publishing research showing that the populations are still increasing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prior to the Liberal's coming into power here in Canada, that the ice was increasing was considered scientific fact.
Considered a "scientific fact" by who?
By 2015, millions of square kilometers of permanent ice were already gone.
This can be clearly seen in satellite photos.
These photos are available from several different agencies and countries.
It is doubtful they were all complicit in the "Chinese hoax".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The feds since CPC left majority status, has been to shred and obfuscate global warming information at a level that has never been seen before.
The only way to outdo what the Harper years did to climate research in Canada would be to enlist Rick & Morty to destroy evidence in all parallel universes as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but they haven't been peddling this ice shelf collapsing. How brain dead do you have to be not to see the writing on the walls?
Re: People who have children (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, there was an article a year or two ago about how the ice is increasing.
Be careful with this one... some places claim ice is increasing, but what they mean is it has spread across a bigger area of land. Even while that happens, ice thickness can decrease, meaning despite the increased land area of the ice, there's still an overall huge reduction in ice.
Go back and find that article and figure out which kind they're talking about. Overall, the Earth has lost lots and lots of ice.
Re: People who have children (Score:5, Informative)
Debunked [snopes.com], with citations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Is that because last time there was a story on Polar Bears dying out, I pointed out that this was patently false on the face of it and they're doing better that ever, something you can find out with a single google search. At which point a large amount of people literally refused to do the search, and refused to click on links that were provided to them in that thread.
>The one thing I'll say is that you can't suddenly change one variable in an ecosystem and expect everything to be hunky dory.
We have seve
Re: (Score:2)
The last time climate changed this suddenly, homo sapiens did not exist. When it did happen, almost everything on Earth died and took millions of years to recover. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] So hey, yeah, if you can hold your breath for a few million years, then you've got nothing to worry about.
. Definitionally having more life on the planet than ever is the opposite of "ecological collapse".
Re: People who have children (Score:2)
So we are going to avoid the next ice age by driving battery-powered cars and adjusting our thermostats? Do you not see how that sounds to those of us that don't pray at the alter of the failed Presidential candidate with his elaborate PPT documentary?
Re: (Score:2)
>Ecology is not a quantity of life. It's the complex interaction of different kinds of life.
And the more life there is, the more interactions there are between each individual life. Your statement is self-contradictory.
I don't know how to further explain that 1000 of one type of thing is different than 1000 different types of things. I'm not skilled in pre-elementary education.
Re: (Score:2)
>I don't know how to further explain that 1000 of one type of thing is different than 1000 different types of things. I'm not skilled in pre-elementary education.
You're equally unskilled in all other aspects of understanding, which is a pre-requisite of educating in most places. Though perhaps not where you live.
Because what you're failing to comprehend that as old goes extinct, new evolves. Now you have demonstrated utter ignorance of how evolution works above, so this is utterly unsurprising.
So let me
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. In millions of years, there will be new species. Nobody has said anything otherwise. This discussion is about climate change impacting HUMAN BEINGS. Evolution isn't going to suddenly fix things in a few decades. We are living through a time of accelerated species die-offs. Yes, new species will arise, as always, but in the meantime, human beings are going to live through some awful, awful time
Re: (Score:2)
>This discussion is about climate change impacting HUMAN BEINGS.
Not as far as I can tell, judging by the topic talking about Arctic, the region least populated by humans of all due to its extreme hostility to human life. But I accept this change in topic, because this is a superbly interesting subject for me personally. Let's talk.
I'm going to open this with an extremely provocative claim. This should give you enough ammunition for your opening salvo.
If you are to go to Japan, and ask people at any large
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Planet is the greenest is has ever been since we got first pictures of it from space.
That is a hilarious denialist response as if a climate scientist mentioned something that was from satellite records the response would be that this is too brief a record to be relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
>That is a hilarious denialist response as if a climate scientist mentioned something that was from satellite records the response would be that this is too brief a record to be relevant.
What exactly am I "denying"?
And on your claim, I'm yet to find a sane person who has looked at the data that would claim that this planet has less life on it that it had half a century ago rather than more. It's what those of us that root their understanding of the world in science call a "well established scientific fac
Re: (Score:2)
And on your claim, I'm yet to find a sane person who has looked at the data that would claim that this planet has less life on it that it had half a century ago rather than more.
Where is your source for it being more? Most of the life on the planet is bacteria, including deep in rocks. The issue for humans is more the ability of the earth to provide the ability to sustain human life in the style to which we have become accustomed. You aren't going to find very many experts on ecosystems who are going to tell you anything other than there has been a diminution on the long term capabilities of the earth to support this. You are picking a very narrow metric of limited value and trumpe
Re: (Score:2)
>Where is your source for it being more?
Besides things already listed in the thread? The fact that global warmings are period of increase of viability for life on this planet, because there's more energy available for them and the fact that most life on this planet is water-based, which becomes far less viable when temperatures go outside thermal range where water is a liquid.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, OK. Yeah. sure [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I recommend reading the wikipedia article you just linked, rather than just googling "ongoing extinction event" without even reading how long it has lasted and what started it.
Hint: our worry is global warming of recent time, due to industrialization. Which is the exact opposite of Holocene extinction, which was started by lack of energy in the system due to last Ice Age wiping out remains of megafauna that managed to outlive surface megafauna in the oceans due to time lag in impact of surface freezing over
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll make one last attempt before giving up on you, as you appear to be a typical "wikipedia expert" that cites things that he read about on wikipedia without actually knowing any relevant details.
Essentially, peak Dunning-Kruger.
"Green from space" refers to chlorophyll-based life forms such as plants occupying sufficient uninterrupted surface area as to be visible from space. This gives us a good idea of total surface occupied by chlorophyll-based life forms, as they require sunlight to function and as suc
Re: (Score:2)
They'll be thankful for the fact that currently largely unlivable areas in the Arctic become far more suitable for human habitation?
Because what the Earth really needs right now is even more humans... :-(
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you aware that sole function of life on this planet is to increase in number until maximum potential is reached and passed? And then enter the sine function, where there's more of specific species than can be supported at the moment, at which point there's a significant mass death event, which brings total numbers to under what can be supported, which is followed by another expansion.
This is how essentially all life on this planet functions as far as we know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Life obviously has a purpose, as this purpose is universal to all life. That is to propagate itself into the future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>Life cannot 'have a purpose' as life is an assemblage of biochemical processes.
I'm not here to debate pseudoscientific nonsense that comes out of postmodernism, where you pretend that breaking down word to individual pieces of meaning is the same thing as totality described by that word.
Purpose of life on this planet is to propagate itself into the future. We can observe this in all life on this planet, across hundreds of millions of years of history.
Re: (Score:2)
Purpose of life on this planet is to propagate itself into the future.
There has been rust on earth for billions of years. Does creation of rust have some sort of intrinsic purpose? Just because a process happens does not mean it has a purpose, it just means it happens. I really despair as to why you have difficulty with such an incredibly simple concept.
Re: People who have children (Score:2)
The OP was talking about populations shifting, neither increasing nor decreasing populations were mentioned in the post.
Re: (Score:3)
The ground under the "frozen wastes of glaciers" is solid rock. Melt them and those areas are not going to "allow for a great variety of life" for the next 10,000 years or so. Go visit Glacier National Park or Huaraz in the Cordillera Blanc of Peru. Go to northern Ontario, which only 9,000 years ago was under the retreating glaciers. Ninety centuries later the area is still mostly granite with a thin cap of topsoil in places.
Even more important (to humans anyway) is the melt water that will be missing.
Re: (Score:2)
>The ground under the "frozen wastes of glaciers" is solid rock.
In places where this is true, this is because of progression of last ice age, where soil was displaced and pushed by progressing glaciers toward south. As they retreat, it's inevitable that soil will begin returning. We can observe advanced stages of this process across places like Nordics today, where some of the oldest subterranean rock formations on the planet are now covered by arable, if relatively poor quality soils.
As the old saying g
Re: (Score:2)
demonstrates lack of comprehension globality of global warming
I'm quite unable to comprehend what that was supposed to to say.
small handful of negative impacts
Educating someone so sadly misinformed and obviously ignorant of the vast bulk of the information on the topic is beyond the scope of anything that I'm willing to bother with.
BTW, do you know what Antarctica would look like without ice? Of course you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an "of" missing in that one. Correct sentence is:
>demonstrates lack of comprehension of globality of global warming
The point I'm making is that at any given point across the planetary body of this planet, there are regions that have a negative impact and a positive impact from climate change. I list them in my opener, for example Australia is a clear cut example of massive net negative of global warming. There was a small series of excellent studies on this a year ago or so, which tried to analyz
Re: (Score:2)
They'll be thankful for the fact that currently largely unlivable areas in the Arctic become far more suitable for human habitation?
That's one of the most stupid, short-sighted things I've ever heard anyone say on the subject.
AAAH! The floor is LAVA!!!1!!
Great, our heating bill will be next to nothing this winter!
Re: (Score:2)
Global warming makes planet's surface lava, or even hot enough to not be able to walk on it? Really now?
Re: (Score:2)
So, a few points... it will take decades to hundreds of years, even with warming, for arctic regions to become liveable as there is no infrastructure there and it's hard to build it when permafrost is melting. Further, this does not mean net space for habitation as the poles are up the pointy end of the earth (keeping it simple so you can understand) where there is less land. In fact right at the top there isn't any at all! But if it gets hotter around the middle
Re: (Score:2)
>it will take decades to hundreds of years, even with warming, for arctic regions to become liveable as there is no infrastructure there and it's hard to build it when permafrost is melting.
I'm glad we agree that it's a matter of centuries at the very least, and more likely at least millenia for large scale changes in ecosystem. But the change is ongoing, and when ecosystem utilization by our species is fairly high, even minor changes allow for significant benefits. A good example here is a point I made
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>A reduction in permafrost is not a net benefit if the other negative effects outweigh this. It's not a very hard concept to grasp.
Agreed. Luckily the "if" factor returns "false" for reasons outlined above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other people have addressed the other crazy inaccuracies/lies/misunderstandings in your post. Just one I want to address here:
It's why we call CO2 greenhouse gas. We increase its portion of total air in greenhouses to reach close to optimal efficiency of chlorophyll cells in plants. From current ~400ppm to at least 1200ppm and preferably around 1500ppm. Which is a lot closer to what we used to have when those cells evolved than current stage which is recovery from ice age period.
??? Greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases because they allow visible light to pass through, warming the ground, but they trap the infrared that's radiated from the ground after it's warmed from the visible light. This similar to how an actual greenhouse works, letting visible light in for plants, but trapping heat so plants can survive in colder weather. Normal greenhouses are
Re: (Score:2)
>Greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases because they allow visible light to pass through, warming the ground, but they trap the infrared that's radiated from the ground after it's warmed from the visible light.
Have you ever been to, or operated any industrial greenhouse?
>Normal greenhouses are not sealed environments and don't significantly concentrate CO2.
That's a no. I see.
Obviously you haven't been to an industrial greenhouse either. If you really think they are sealed environment then there actually is no way for you to visit an industrial greenhouse (i.e. it would be sealed so you wouldn't be able to enter it). Since people are allowed to enter and exit greenhouses I would have to say that they aren't sealed environment and since they aren't sealed environments it would be hard for them to concentrate CO2. It would be kind of silly to build a sealed environment greenhouse
Re: (Score:2)
>Obviously you haven't been to an industrial greenhouse either.
I literally spent my teenage summers working for local farmer here in Finland. This included working in his greenhouse. I have both theoretical and practical knowledge on the subject.
>If you really think they are sealed environment
They're not "sealed" as in habitat in space. But they do in fact have seals, both for reasons of stability of gas mixture and thermal isolation. They're just not hermetic, because they don't have to be. There's n
Re: (Score:2)
Ok. So it seems that what we have here is a situation where a little knowledge is dangerous. You have worked in greenhouses where they actually do raise CO2 levels to help the plants grow, and you've come to believe that's the reason that greenhouses exist. That is not the case though. The purpose of greenhouses is to grow crops for an extended or year-round growing season. Greenhouses have existed for about 2000 years if not longer. I can assure you that the ancients were not building greenhouses in order
Re: (Score:2)
>So it seems that what we have here is a situation where a little knowledge is dangerous.
Yes. The only problem here is that instead of comprehending that this is talking about yourself, you chose to project your failings on me. I don't even know why this became a point of contention, when the discussion was about the simple fact that CO2 concentration optimal for growing chlorophyll based life forms on this planet is much higher than what we have in our atmosphere today. Something we do as a matter of ro
Re: (Score:2)
Especially if there's any meaningful overall habitat destruction to ever actually occur in the Tropics. We've been promised that by current year, it would be mostly barren scorched desert though, so those predictions also ended up being pretty much the opposite of reality, where it's greener than ever in tropics. Likely because increase in CO2 is actually addressing one of the biggest limiting factors in tropical agriculture, photosynthesis efficiency. Chlorophyll cells evolved during much higher CO2 content in the air, and are evolutionarily relatively poorly optimized for current atmosphere.
I'm so glad you are here to inform us of the fallacy of rain-forest destruction. I guess these are all just deep fake videos of the opposite happening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://youtu.be/sqiyP5Xv_PM [youtu.be]
https://world.time.com/timelap... [time.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Notice how you focused on a small region where human expansion is at its greatest in known history and trees are taken down to make room for agriculture.
While ignoring a many times larger greening of Asian continent which is occurring at the same time.
This is exactly what I'm calling out when I note that most of the catastrophists in the green lobby today appear to deny the globality of global warming for ideological reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're an illiterate science denier.
FAKE! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Methan Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (Score:5, Informative)
If this news gives you a bad day, let me worsen that for you with the Methan Clathrate Gun Hypothesis [wikipedia.org]. If any sizable portion of that is true, humanity is screwed on an epic scale and polar ice melting is only the start.
This all sucks, big time.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not just a hypothesis. It's being observed in progress. Your linked articles' citations have plenty to show; here's another one.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/th... [carbonbrief.org]
Nothing less than an all-out effort now will prevent an ecosystem collapse. This poisoned, polluted, and degraded planet has been deprived of much of its natural resilience, in the face of a change more sudden than anything but the larger meteor strikes and the worst volcanic activity. Once too many species go extinct, the whole system st
Pics or it didn't happen (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I fail to see
A common problem and why the world is in such a bad state.
... but (Score:2)
you insensitive clod, I liked that ice shelf!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dead polar bears. Changes in climate in the rest of North America and Northern Eurasia. Increased world temperatures with follow on effects, including warm climate diseases (mosquitoes like warm climates). All it will take is for the U.S. climate to enter a long drought phase and the U.S. can kiss their farming sector goodbye. MAGA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you mean the 51st state?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But in the finest imperial tradition, we would need to redraw and gerrymander the borders to ensure that people who hate^H^H^H^Hare too polite to each other all lived in the same province, without the least regard for existing borders and agreements.
Re: So? (Score:2)
Don't worry, we've already done that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
you mean the 51st state?
You mean "America Junior"
Re: (Score:2)
it's not post apocalyptic theorycraft without a US annexation of Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
... and it's not post apocalyptic if it's The Simpsons
Re: (Score:2)
and Americans will all want to live in Canada...
Some Americans are welcome. To be welcome -- no guns, --multiculturists (Americans need to understand one Latin language), be tolerant, and be an asset to the country. You do not need to be a genius, but you do need to be willing to work and have or support a family. As a comment. Most Americans who come to Canada, first as a visit, and perhaps for a job, or who bring their family with them, never want to return home. They do need to tolerate Canadian winters. Many will return to the USA on retirement, j
Re: So? (Score:2)
Some Americans are welcome. To be welcome -- no guns, --multiculturists (Americans need to understand one Latin language), be tolerant, and be an asset to the country. You do not need to be a genius, but you do need to be willing to work and have or support a family.
Funny, when Trump floated the idea that immigrants speak English and not have to rely on our social services, he was called racist and xenophobic, I guess when a Canadian makes the same suggestion it's appropriate and enlightened.
Huh.
Re: So? (Score:2)
Are you so sure about that "dead polar bear" claim?
According to the most authoritative scientific assessments, the polar bear does not face imminent extinction, and the widespread belief that it does now stands in the way of more nuanced communication about the dramatic effects of climate change in the Arctic.
Source: https://www.arctictoday.com/na... [arctictoday.com]
Or, how about this, from the World Wildlife Fund WWF:
Although most of the world's 19 populations have returned to healthy numbers, there are differences between them. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures.
Source: https://arcticwwf.org/species/... [arcticwwf.org]
Re:So? (Score:5, Informative)
It also redirects traffic that would had gone to ports that were already been setup, so those areas will have an economic decline. This also puts the Russian Navy much closer to America. This Ice Shelf was also an important component in regulating the Weather, So to expect more variances in weather and more disasters then we have experienced before, which hit the economy as well. As the climate changes species will migrate to different areas, in which they would work as invasive species, which can eat crops, or carry diseases that the area has little to no protection. Last year My Father (A big climate denier) got ill from a Tick bite that had a virus that wasn't native to the area. He spent a week in the hospital and took them a long time to find the illness, as such a virus until recently only affected areas 200 miles south.
With Climate Change for every Win they are 2 losses.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better for capitalism, it increases the chances of war a countries stake dubious claims over ice free passages.
Re: (Score:2)
This is good news for capitalism, means faster shipping. I fail to see even the slightest downside to what will surely be a huge economic boom for Canada's impovrished north.
And as a bonus, a lot of annoying Hollywood stars and venture-capital satraps will be preoccupied with establishing new beach homes farther inland. They may have to stay out of politics this year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One main obstacle stands in the way of Canada expanding its farmland, farmers and officials say: a potential lack of water.
“Canada could benefit more than most from climate change, but it hinges on its ability to manage its water resources,” said Hank Venema, a researcher with the Winnipeg-based International Institute for Sustainable Development.
Canada’s prairies, home to about 80 percent of its farmland, were devastated by the same long-term “Dust Bowl” drought that hit the United States in the 1930s, leading to farm failures and huge losses of topsoil.
It’s a problem that could repeat itself as temperatures warm, leading to faster water losses, Venema warned.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that but as Canada gains some new farmland the current farmland further south becomes less usable do to over heating and water shortages of their own.
Re: (Score:3)
“Other countries are going to be affected (by climate change) much worse than we are,” he said. “It’s not a really happy picture overall.”
You should consider reading the entire article. It's not discussing a net increase in farmland across the globe. It's discussing farmland potentially increasing in Canada, that will make up for loss of farmland due to climate change. Overall, the planet will continue to lose agriculture producti
Re: (Score:2)
You should Google what a "desert" is.
And in terms of that article, did you even finish reading the title? The title of the article is: "Climate change to create farmland in the north, but at environmental costs, study reveals".
Climate change is not a net positive for human beings. I have never seen any research that indicates anything of the sort. I assume that if you get an arm cut off, you'll say, "Well, at least
Re: Remember there's also a positive side... (Score:2)
Every hot zone is not a desert, nor is every hot zone a rainforest - the deciding factor seems to be humidity.