Alberta Climate Records

[furrowtickler]

https://changingclimate.ca/regional-perspectives/chapter/4-0/


Chapter 4
Prairie Provinces

This chapter discusses climate change impacts and approaches to adaptation across the three Prairies Provinces.


Climate change has both direct and indirect impacts on agriculture in the Prairie provinces, resulting in both risks and opportunities (Kulshreshtha and Wheaton, 2013). Changing precipitation, temperatures, carbon dioxide levels and other variables will affect the following: crop and pasture productivity, quality and nutrient cycling; weeds, insects and diseases; and livestock production and reproductive rates (Sudmeyer et al., 2016). Projected biophysical impacts include increased water scarcity, more frequent extreme precipitation events, shifting and variable precipitation patterns, longer growing seasons, increasing heat units (i.e., a measure of crop development in relation to temperature), and more frequent and intense droughts (e.g., Bonsal et al., 2019; Kulshreshtha and Wheaton, 2013).

Certain crop yields and hay productivity may increase in the near term in response to climate factors, such as longer growing seasons and increased heat units (see Box 4.3). However, high temperatures, droughts and more variable precipitation negatively affect crop yields, particularly for canola and wheat (Qian et al., 2018; Meng et al., 2017). Increased exposure to high temperatures (e.g., over 30°C), especially at critical times, may also reduce yields of corn, soybean, canola and wheat (Schauberger et al., 2017; Meng et al., 2017).

So we have one single year with more heat units than normal out of the last 5 and now all the “experts” can justify their existence lol

[dmlfarmer]

...Starvation levels of CO2 have been a major limiting factor in recent centuries....
I've put this challenge out before, find somewhere in the world, for some crop where production is declining not increasing to prove your theory.

And I will return the challenge to you. Show me one place where it has been proven that the cause of starvation were a direct result of "starvation levels of C02" as you claim" and not as the result of weather, government policy, disease, pests, or any other factor besides CO2 concentrations.

[furrowtickler]

What do greenhouses pump into them from healthy increased productivity...... CO2 right ?

[dmlfarmer]

What do greenhouses pump into them from healthy increased productivity...... CO2 right ?

your absolutely right. And in that green house temperatures are held constant and watering is increased to support the faster growth. So the question you should be asking is given it is proven that CO2 is a green house gas is if a higher temperature in nature will there be increased precipitation and will this increase (if any) be enough to offset the increased transpiration of plants. Followup question is what impact would higher temps have on weather patterns, winds, etc. Will trade winds patterns change resulting in more stationary blocks of hot or cold areas (sucking polar air further south in spring and falls for example) as have seen happen over the past decade? We live in a complex, dynamic world and change is complex. Chaos theory.

[furrowtickler]

CO2 may be a proven factor but it’s effect on global climate is way over exaggerated.
To believe that humans alone are causing climate change is very far from reality .
Did you watch that video ?
Yes reducing emissions is a good thing, but its being politicized and abused as a wealth transfer scheme from the wealthy middle class to others Meanwhile the billionaires and elite will carry on with massive emissions and huge carbon footprints unabated.

What percentage of the climate effects are actually truly from CO2 and / or from natural activity from the sun . When that answer is truly understood then maybe people will understand weather and climate patterns better and realize the sun is main driver by far , always has been , and it’s not a tiny percentage of our CO2 in the atmosphere.
I just think there needs to be a much more balanced look and what we can control and what is natural cycles . High levels of CO2 did not cause the great warming periods in history , it was the suns activity and volcanic activity both in warm periods and glaciated periods.
It’s being over looked in a dramatic fashion with the current CO2 blame game . And it’s about to cost us all dearly carbon tax’s will do nothing but increase living expenses from the vast majority while the extreme wealthy minority will be 100% unaffected .

[chuckChuck]

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/



The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the Sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the Sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity coupled with an increase in volcanic activity is thought to have helped trigger the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland cooled from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the Sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

If the warming were caused by a more active Sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gases are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

[farming101]

"More floods, blizzards, droughts expected as Sask. warms 3 times faster than the rest of the world: report"

https://saskatoon.ctvnews.ca/more-floods-blizzards-droughts-expected-as-sask-warms-3-times-faster-than-the-rest-of-the-world-report-1.5222442

"Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record"
From the article-"Earth's poles have warmed faster than anywhere else,....."

https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/antarctica-s-last-6-months-were-the-coldest-on-record-1.5618090

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS

[chuckChuck]

So the climate scientists are all wrong? That's your only thought? LOL

[farming101]

Why do scientists go on record as saying a certain location is warming faster than anywhere else?

[chuckChuck]

Because that's what the temperature record indicates.