2) No. Warmer weather would be good for Canada. (2)
3) Yes. Most of the recent warming has happened in the Northern portion of the Northern Hemisphere (3). Most of that has happened in Greenland and Canada (3A).
4) Yes. "In Canada, practically three-in-five respondents say that global warming is a fact and is caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." -- (4)
5) Yes. Canadians are increasingly using land further North to farm (5).
6) Yes. Canadians have gone nuclear in a big way (6).
7) Mixed. Sea level has risen on Canada's East Coast, but dropped on her West Coast (7)
8) Yes. The K?ppen climate classification map of Canada would be much nicer if Canada warmed some more (8).
Edit @Jeff M:
Thank you for your thoughtful response. Denmark has a climate that is similar to some parts of Canada. The paper shows that sick people are more likely to die in cold weather than in warm weather, and unlike the studies on increased death rates during heat waves, the death rate does not correct after the bad weather goes away by having less people die for awhile, but actually continues awhile. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011...
Nevertheless, your point about it not being a smoking gun is apt. For healthy people, bad weather should not make much difference. However, at least in the Arctic, it seems that the cold weather has a way of wearing down one's health. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010...
I would be the first to admit that the cold might not be the problem. http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles...
It could be a lack of UV protection. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20...
As best we know (although what is known is limited), warm would be good for the health of Canadians.
As for Sea Level, I think you misunderstood my map. (7) It did not deal with tide gauges, and thus, there are no individual stations. Instead, it was for the entire record of satellite altimetry. Thus, the measurements were mapped continuously according to color:
Yellow or Red = sea level rise
Blue = sea level drop
The Canadian West Coast is blue, and the East is yellow.
Your tide gauges return spotty information, and are for longer periods of time. The satellites have only been doing altimetry since 1993. The isostatic adjustment is only relevant if you want to calculate how much more water (volume) there is in the ocean than before. If you are worried about how a change in sea level is affecting the coast line, the isostatic adjustment should be left out.
Edit @CR:
I am not sure why you are complaining about pine bark beatles and wild fires here. Connections between these phenonmena and Warming are tenuous. Both have a long history of being problems for well over a century in Canada, and are natural problems that anticeded warming. The main cause of the sudden increased problems with these (though I am not sure that there has been any increase in wild fires lately) is that lodge pole pines have been exclusively planted over large areas. This idiotic system of forest management is supposed to increase the number of these trees for harvest, and increase the efficiency of the harvest, but actually makes it easier for disease, insects, and fire to devastate the crop. Yes, the recent increase in these problems are anthropogenic, http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20073...
but show me some valid evidence that this has anything to do with warming. Did you know that the same species of lodge pole pines that grow in Canada also grow in California and Colorado? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lodgepole_P...
70 meters sea level rise?! At the current rate, that should take only 24 millennia. I expect an ice age long before then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Ag...
There was an article that came out a few years back *by accident* from the government saying that global warming was fake.
I had also listened to a seminar about a month ago where a weather "expert" said there is no global warming. We are slightly hurting the environment by our emissions, but nothing like they tell us we are. The last summer (2012) was also record hot because we had a rare occurrence where two volcanoes erupted at the exact same time. All the ash, etc, threw off the balance in our atmosphere, which caused it to be a lot warmer than normal.
We also go in cycles. A 30 year cycle, then it goes into 40 years, then back to 30 years, etc. The 30 year cycle has a usual set pattern and same goes for the 40 year. I believe she said we're only a few years into the 40 year cycle. So we could have higher temperatures for the next, let's say, 36 years, and then when we go into the 30 year cycle, we might go back to a lower temperature and weather pattern.
Source(s):
personal experience at seminar.
I would agree with all of NWJacks statements except 2. Both of the links he posted in the ones I call into question either do not support, are cherry picked, or do not have anything to do with what eh states. The first being "Warm weather will be good for Canada" then takes a study done in Denmark concerning respiratory, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular mortality in Copenhagen. This has nothing to do with a changing climate but instead deals with the effects weather has on the human body. A changing climate deals with changing weather patterns, a changing water cycle, and the spatial effects of long term change. None of which was covered in the link.
The second deals with his statement concerning sea levels. http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrend...
I think perhaps he has his directions switched. The link he provided has nothing to do with the statement he made. You can't just eyeball a worldwide graph and come to a conclusion. You need real data as shown in the map posted above with each station. I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that you need to look closer. You may need to take longer time intervals to discern a trend. You need to include isostatic adjustment. You need to include a whole lot of other things as well.
Portland
Your sea level rise map is of sea level rise up to now. What I would find to be of interest would be a map showing sea level rise risk, showing areas less than 70m above sea level.
As a result of global warming, Canada has already experienced problems with the pine bark beetle. Slave Lake, Alberta was devastated by a wild fire and Nordegg has been threatende by a similar fire this year. As far as any health benefits of a warm climate, people could move to places like Florida, as long as it is not under water.
<70 meters sea level rise?! At the current rate, that should take only 24 millennia.>
If sea level rise continues at the current rate. That's what we call a big IF. Are you willing to risk hundreds of millions of lives on such an IF.
Yes.
Official statement on the Environment Canada website:
"The Government of Canada supports an aggressive approach to climate change that achieves real environmental and economic benefits for all Canadians."
Canada does support global warming! get your facts straight, it seems that Americans don't know much about anything!!!
In what sense? Do you mean the phenomenon of global warming or the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming
Your use of the word "support" is not appropriate. No one supports GW but Canada like all nations has policies and strategies for dealing with the effects of GW as they happen
The government still believes in it. But they won't protect it financially. They withheld their funds from Kyoto. Good move.
