Like it or not, climate change will change your farm, say two experts

[ajl]

I failed to ask him if he was able to access the original records, or if the only records available were the new and improved versions, adjusted and homogenized to fit the latest political agenda. I suspect it was the former.

The AlbertaClimateRecords.com website obviously contains a lot of homogenization. The gaps, both spatially and in time in the weather records are massive. I've tried to compile data to graph my own area from Environment Canada records, and there are entire decades missing, station moves, and closures, plus some highly suspect values. I needed to bounce between stations within a 100km radius to even come close to finding a complete record. Even today there are days with no data. The grid resolution on their site is generous considering the number of stations that exist, or ever existed. It is great information to have to get a general idea, but it indicates an accuracy that just isn't justified.

I have tried to do the same for Vegreville and the incomplete data due to the station moving 4 times is frustrating and these days in the 21 century missing data is constant. I was looking through old data to see if there ever was a season without a summer and harvest before. Best I could come up with was 1950. Spoke to an old timer yesterday and he said that this past year was the first that he left crop out in 55 years. Just farms a small patch as a hobby now.

[fjlip]

Try again, CC C02 is really tough to measure...

None of you people ever pasted a link to explain how are temps and C02 measured/calculated for the whole planet and how much margin of error, since no estimates are 100% accurate.

This popped up in news, and anyone with a brain can grasp that such measurements are very inaccurate, mostly WAG's, with thousands of places for errors to happen, extremely complex.

"While measurements like those at Mauna Loa can reveal how much carbon dioxide has ended up in the atmosphere, it doesn’t tell you what has been put in. Less than half of emissions actually remain in the air. The rest are absorbed by land and oceans, where the total stored carbon cannot be directly measured. Instead, humanity’s cumulative carbon dioxide contribution must be estimated in the same way as contemporary emissions: by accounting for energy use and changes in land use, and converting these figures into emissions stats.
Satellites using remote sensing to monitor carbon dioxide levels are already in operation but provide too sparse a picture to regularly track emissions across the globe. The European Space Agency is planning a new fleet for launch starting in 2025 that it expects will watch emissions unfold in unprecedented detail — resolving plumes of carbon dioxide just 2 kilometers across, while aiming to measure each location on Earth every three days. Together with ground-based observations and information from other agencies, these space missions will provide a far more current picture of emissions patterns.
A core question of climate science is how much the world warms for a given amount of carbon dioxide emitted. (And that’s notably ignoring other potent greenhouse gases such as methane, ozone and nitrous oxide, among others.)"

Water vapor the most influential greenhouse gas, as in cloudy days are warmer. And certainly measurements pre industrial age are even bigger WAGs!

https://www.knowablemagazine.org/art...rbon-footprint https://www.knowablemagazine.org/art...rbon-footprint

[blackpowder]

My god, I just wasted another 5 minutes of my life.

[bobofthenorth]

Both Hartman and Philips agree the climate has changed. The data backs that up.

SO F***ing what? Of course the climate has changed. Anyone who didn't wake up under a glacier this morning knows that.

The question is "Did we cause the climate to change?" And the only honest answer is "We don't know."