Dont Call It Global Warming

[jazz]

Never argued with that, we are fortunate enough to live in the warming phase, on a couple of different time scales, all within an extended interglacial.

Oh I argue with that. There is nothing outside the realm of normal fluctuations of a volatile, chaotic and unbalanced system.

If the earth was warming, the hottest records would be happening now, not 100 yrs ago. The theory clearly states we will experience higher highs. Well no records in danger of being broken since this theory started. Hottest day on record is in Sask in the 1930s and only a handful of extreme temps recorded within the last 30 yrs. The records should be falling like dominoes.

I would like to hear climate theory explain this. And don't give me that 30 yr averages bunk again.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Oh I argue with that. There is nothing outside the realm of normal fluctuations of a volatile, chaotic and unbalanced system.

If the earth was warming, the hottest records would be happening now, not 100 yrs ago. The theory clearly states we will experience higher highs. Well no records in danger of being broken since this theory started. Hottest day on record is in Sask in the 1930s and only a handful of extreme temps recorded within the last 30 yrs. The records should be falling like dominoes.

I would like to hear climate theory explain this. And don't give me that 30 yr averages bunk again.

[ATTACH]5612[/ATTACH]

We were in a warming trend from the late 70's until recently. Also in a warming trend since the depths of the little ice age, not yet clear if the peak is behind us, or yet to come, all Within a long term cooling trend, with lower highs and lower lows for the past few thousand years.

[farming101]

It's not getting hotter, it's getting milder.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It's not getting hotter, it's getting milder.

Yes, by all measures. But climate improvement just doesn't scare the children very effectively.

[tweety]

Never argued with that, we are fortunate enough to live in the warming phase, on a couple of different time scales, all within an extended interglacial.

Do you have any response to the post I made regarding the NASA article and the not so unprecedented rate of warming? Or just change the subject?

Sure do. A million posts ago i said whether climate temps increasing are an issue is a socio-political concern, and are not mine. And that the only reason i was responding to the OP was that global climate was not increasing in temp - contrary to the actual data, and what was the difference between Climate and Weather. Let alone the ridiculously simple yet seemingly unexplainable in agriville what the definitions are for Climate and Weather.

You need to discuss with someone else about whether or not temp change is a problem.

[rumrocks]

Tweety step out of the safety zone of your data and tell me how much of an increase in temperature would, in your opinion, be beneficial to agriculture and remembering more people die from cold than from heat in the world every year.

[chuckChuck]

We all want warmer winter weather in much of Canada. There are some benefits to a warming climate and potentially positive changes to the prairie growing season.

But there is also a lot of potential for an increasing number of extreme weather events that cause large amounts property and crop losses. We have already experienced some of the increased number of extreme and persistent weather events in recent decades.

According to climate scientists there is a link between changes to the jet stream, weather extremes and climate change.

Regardless of what happens in Canada, climate change is affecting the entire planet in often different ways. I doubt that Australians will be happier with warmer and drier winters and hotter summers.

Some posters need to think beyond their own farm, region, country, and self interest to grasp the complexity of what climate change might mean. Because in a lot of places the impacts are much more likely to be negative

Ignoring and dismissing human caused climate science and calling it all a hoax or suggesting that it is going to be only positive is not going to make it go away.

[jazz]

Ignoring and dismissing human caused climate science and calling it all a hoax or suggesting that it is going to be only positive is not going to make it go away.

That's all nice conjecture and speculation, but until hardcore irrefutable evidence as predicted by that theory come true, its a non issue. Should be treated with about the same seriousness as an asteroid.

[tweety]

Tweety step out of the safety zone of your data and tell me how much of an increase in temperature would, in your opinion, be beneficial to agriculture and remembering more people die from cold than from heat in the world every year.

17 x more deaths to be exact!

Not a climatologist, so am unsure. The thing to keep in mind is, suppose temp goes up and you get more bud blasting EVERY year. Well that's bad.

If temp goes up and we don't get frost - a good thing. No matter what happens in our lifetime it won't matter, it isn't changing that fast to cause you to grow nothing but corn and soybeans in the next 5 years.

The worrisome part of a few degrees up would be more flower damage, but we still would have winter, and frost (weather vs climate). So realistically a couple degrees on climate? But not sure how that affects weather swings mins maxes. Those are really hard questions.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

17 x more deaths to be exact!

Not a climatologist, so am unsure. The thing to keep in mind is, suppose temp goes up and you get more bud blasting EVERY year. Well that's bad.

If temp goes up and we don't get frost - a good thing. No matter what happens in our lifetime it won't matter, it isn't changing that fast to cause you to grow nothing but corn and soybeans in the next 5 years.

The worrisome part of a few degrees up would be more flower damage, but we still would have winter, and frost (weather vs climate). So realistically a couple degrees on climate? But not sure how that affects weather swings mins maxes. Those are really hard questions.

Except the warming (so far) is coming at night and in the winter. While summer time max temps have been moderating.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

But there is also a lot of potential for an increasing number of extreme weather events that cause large amounts property and crop losses. We have already experienced some of the increased number of extreme and persistent weather events in recent decades.

According to climate scientists there is a link between changes to the jet stream, weather extremes and climate change.

I've been successfully ignoring your repetitive nonsense lately, but I need to call you out on this unsubstantiated claim.

You have lost the right to continue to claim that there is a link between the changing jet stream and persistent weather patterns or extremes. I offered to help you to prove your assertion a couple of months ago, and you declined. And with no other evidence available that this is having any discernible effect on our weather patterns, or is in any way unprecedented, repeating it in every thread is unconscionable.

[fjlip]

"But there is also a lot of potential for an increasing number of extreme weather events that cause large amounts property and crop losses. We have already experienced some of the increased number of extreme and persistent weather events in recent decades."

No proof of that, potential/guess/forecast/estimate/they believe...ya right. Been extremes for ever and are NOT increasing.

[tweety]

Well that comes back to weather and climate. After 30 years of extremes, that is the new climate.

Saw a program on the ginkgo tree - which is millions of years old. They put some in tents and cranked up the C02. Examined the leaves and saw way less stomata (the little cells that take in CO2 ) in the leaf structure. So they grabbed some fossils from millions of years ago and found the stomata matched the predicted CO2 levels which has been as high as a sustained 2000 ppm.

Once the non renewables are all burned up, half a century or something, everything will be just fine.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Once the non renewables are all burned up, half a century or something, everything will be just fine.

Except everything won't be just fine. Given the short residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, Levels Will end up back in the preindustrial era lows, Then resume their decline.

I am I strong advocate for rationing our scarce fossil fuels, In order to maintain the most optimal level for the longest period of time possible. Not blowing the entirety of these precious reserves in a couple of generations, then have to try to find a way to liberate CO2 from other sources, all without the benefit of fossil fuel energy to power the energy intensive process.

Farmers should be especially concerned about the end of fossil fuels, Where are we going to get our sulfur fertilizer from?

Yet these Genuine issues get absolutely no media attention or research money.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Sure do. A million posts ago i said whether climate temps increasing are an issue is a socio-political concern, and are not mine. And that the only reason i was responding to the OP was that global climate was not increasing in temp - contrary to the actual data, and what was the difference between Climate and Weather. Let alone the ridiculously simple yet seemingly unexplainable in agriville what the definitions are for Climate and Weather.

You need to discuss with someone else about whether or not temp change is a problem.

And then you proceeded to use a single weather event ( one days temperture in one location in Antarctica), and explained how that is proof that of a warming climate to show us the difference between weather and climate.

You also falsely overstated the claimed global warming by more than double, and you falsely claimed that the rate of warming is unprecedented, even when faced with the evidence against both. I think we can be excused for being confused. I suspect that your motives are much more noble than Chuck et al, but your understanding of the underlying science, and ability to rationalize media talking points are somewhat lacking.