Coldest temp anomaly in the WORLD...here

[AlbertaFarmer5]

........maybe just an adversarial, contradictory, devil's advocate, no bullshit debater?

You can't pigeon hole us all in the same nest or maybe not even in the same coop.

Some fly left, some fly right, and there's afew who flew over the ****oo's nest!

I have always given him credit for playing the devil's advocate and making the rest of us consider our opinions and biases. But he really seems to believe some of the things he says.

I really appreciate a variety of viewpoints, especially those I don't agree with. But this just contradicts all science and common sense. I even recently posted a reputable university study indicating that Canada stands to drastically gain economically from potential global warming.

[farmaholic]

Conceding is humbling, it doesn't have to be humiliating.

Some people are better at defending their positions than others. More researched, not opinionated.

Name calling is childish.

I find there can be a pack mentality here at times.....everyone serves their purpose.

Grassfarmer is seldom off the mark, in my opinion. I don't agree with everything he says. Some of the stuff that "strikes a nerve" or eats at me the most might be the stuff I try to deny for any given reason.

There's lots of uncomfortable truths out there.

I could think of alot worse camps to be in than his!

It's ok to have a dissenting viewpoints. Do you guys wanting a quick thaw think I've lost my mind for making this statement, "The longer it(the snow) takes to "go away" in it's crystal form the better chance I get to "use it" in it's liquid form." We're all looking at things through a different set of eyes, opinions and circumstances.

Don't let Grassfarmer be a worm virus in your CPU(brain). Remember fellas, some parasites are "beneficial"...lol.

Take care and enjoy the Easter season. Travel safe too....

[grassfarmer]

I've tried very hard to have civil intellectual conversations with Grassfarmer on various topics, and avoided name calling, but there is no way that anyone who is being honest with themselves thinks western Canada is better off being colder. I'm having to agree with SF3, he is a troll.

Strange you would bring that up in this conversation. In response to the second last post addressed to me your comeback admitted you had misunderstood me and that I was in fact correct. You followed that up with another point of view which I again countered - civilly and intelligently asked and answered by both parties with no name calling involved. So now it's time to start name-calling, pick up your ball and go home?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Strange you would bring that up in this conversation. In response to the second last post addressed to me your comeback admitted you had misunderstood me and that I was in fact correct. You followed that up with another point of view which I again countered - civilly and intelligently asked and answered by both parties with no name calling involved. So now it's time to start name-calling, pick up your ball and go home?

I took your comment about drought out of context, that doesn't change the fact that plants need heat to grow. Our conversation was about our farms being better off with warmer vs. colder. All the evidence points to Canada benefiting from warming ( regardless of cause). Arguing against that is preposterous. Taking the contrary position to start a conversation is one thing, denying science and evidence is quite another.

[farmaholic]

If warmer means drier(which it may not necessarily mean)....a good part of the brown and dark brown soil zones may become grasshopper pasture. And the northern zones will benefit....until you go beyond the "developed" soil zones....the kind of climate and vegetation that retarded their development....they may not benefit from a warming trend especially in the nano nano time we're looking at.

I'm my opinion, neither a warming or cooling trend will serve everyone equally. There will be winners and losers, just like Mother Nature's weather moods deal out today.

[grassfarmer]

All the evidence points to Canada benefiting from warming ( regardless of cause). Arguing against that is preposterous.

"All" the evidence definitely does not point to Canada benefiting from warming. Look at this page from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada's website outlining opportunities and challenges.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/science-and-innovation/agricultural-practices/agriculture-and-climate/future-outlook/impact-of-climate-change-on-canadian-agriculture/?id=1329321987305


Another excellent article by a farmer and columnist on some U of M research predictions in addition to broader comments about farmer's acceptance of climate change predictions.

https://www.country-guide.ca/2015/04/08/canada-meets-climate-change/46410/

[fjlip]

Predictions, estimates, guesses, same bunch were 100% wrong in the 70's. Total lies and BS to know 30 years into the future. What if the sun is cooling? Those ARE facts seen today not 30 years away.

[chuckChuck]

Just so you know the Saskatchewan Governments opposition to a carbon tax does not mean they don't accept the science behind climate change. Take a look at the introduction to their recently released document. If you have a chance read the whole document.

http://publications.gov.sk.ca/documents/66/104890-2017%20Climate%20Change%20Strategy.pdf

Prairie Resilience:
A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy

Introduction
Saskatchewan people are pragmatic, resourceful, innovative.
Throughout our history, we have faced complex, challenging
problems imposed on us by geography and climate. Our
population spread over a vast land has taught us self- reliance
and resilience.
We’ve learned when we are faced with a challenge, it is up to us
to solve it.
Today, we face the global challenge of climate change, and
once again our province is motivated to develop an effective
response. Our industries are heavily dependent on fossil fuels
to produce energy, food, fertilizer, products and commodities
needed around the world.
It’s up to us to come up with made-in-Saskatchewan solutions
that encourage action to meet the challenges posed by
climate change.
When faced with a complex problem, there is a temptation
to reach for the simple, quick answer. Climate change is such
a problem.
We wholeheartedly support efforts to reduce greenhouse
gases. But those efforts must be effective and they must not
disadvantage one region of Canada more than another. A
federal carbon tax is ineffective and will impair Saskatchewan’s
ability to respond to climate change.
Our opposition to the federal government’s carbon tax should
not be seen as a reluctance to act. Rather, it is a recognition that
we must act, and act decisively, with all our economic strength.
For Saskatchewan, mitigation is not enough. Our agriculture
and resource-rich province must also focus on climate
adaptation and resilience in order to be effective.
A strong economy is one with the resilience and resources to
seek solutions and fund the innovations that we simply must
have to respond effectively to climate change.
We propose a broad and comprehensive approach, one that
connects the very real global problem of climate change to
the day-to-day priorities of people. An approach that sets out
actions people can see and be a part of. An approach that
allows Saskatchewan to continue to grow and prosper while
contributing to Canada’s efforts to address climate change.
Saskatchewan people and businesses have already begun
this monumental task. Their actions range from world-leading
innovation and technology development in agriculture
and power generation, to community and infrastructure
developments that continue to strengthen the resilience of
our economy and the integrity of our environment.
In this strategy, the Government of Saskatchewan builds upon
actions we have already taken and introduces measures to
strengthen our province and build resilience to climate change.
Our plan is bold, broad and made for Saskatchewan. It is the
best way for our province to harness our valuable resources
while contributing solutions to an issue that affects the
entire world.
Introduction
1
Prairie Resilience:
A Made-in-Saskatchewan Climate Change Strategy

[sumdumguy]

I don’t think anyone disputes the fact that climate changes, it is, it has and it will, we just dispute the fantasy that we are subject to some climate armageddon and that man can alter sun’s activity. Also the fact remains that we are carbon dependent for green growth, food production and life itself. McKenna says she has no time to listen to people who oppose her view, the block-head would rather sink this country. Thank God our neighbour to the south can see the light and refuse to fall prey to “the agenda”.

[chuckChuck]

The Saskatchewan government does not deny human caused climate change either!

The US is the only major country in the world who has said they would pull out of the Paris accord. Nicaragua signed on recently and Syria has not. Syria and the US our the only hold outs representing just 4.3% of the worlds population. Syria is certainly an example good leadership. Not! A failed state led by a man who uses chemical weapons on his own people! Hardly an example to the world for anything except a leader who is a despot.

And who is to say the next US government wont recommit? A large number of US States and cities are in agreement with Paris accord.

[macdon02]

So hypothetically speaking what would be the implications of the Columbia ice fields doubling or tripling in size? Or a new one forming in the path of the prevailing westerly winds?

[chuckChuck]

And as far as any idea that we are heading into another ice age here is the science that says it is unlikely.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Climate Myth...

We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?

Figure 1: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). The timing of warmer interglacials is highlighted in green; our current interglacial, the Holocene, is the one on the far right of the graph.

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

Basic rebuttal written by Anne-Marie Blackburn

[checking]

Feeding cows in winter - "a few degrees colder in winter doesn't make much difference". I guess these neighborly forbes stacked in gasfarmer's yard for two cents a pound have staying power in cattle guts. I always believed that cattle ate more in colder weather which should translate into a greater winter cost. Apparently not on one ranch.

Pharma, your wanting to hang onto snow cover longer only works if you can convince it to not skip the liquid part between solid and gas. You may be no further ahead hoping for a later spring.

[SASKFARMER3]

Chuck your back Wow were you gone on a vacation, (took a plane that uses aeroplane fuel, train uses fuel or car or bus or Maybe a bike).

Or were you going to Liberal Convention on how to keep stirring a useless pot on Carbon taxes etc?

Reality is BC is getting what it deserves, Keep hugging trees.

Ontario is Broke thanks to Green Generation.

California can just slide away.

Sask Keep Fighting Ottawa or Leave and Become a new State in the USA.

[farmaholic]

Pharma, your wanting to hang onto snow cover longer only works if you can convince it to not skip the liquid part between solid and gas. You may be no further ahead hoping for a later spring.

Damn that freeze drying...

Don't know what's worse, having it melt and hopefully soak in and be safely stored in the ground until the ****in hot low humidity howling winds suck it back out, or that freeze drying.

Maybe its time to start praying for rain.