Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think applies to most of the posters on this forum and how many minds have been changed.

Yes, that is what I meant, neither side has changed anyones mind. And I highly doubt that insulting the intelligence of the party one is trying to persuade is contributing to changing many minds either.

I think this also applies to most of the posters on this forum - it's not a "climate change" thing or a "leftist" thing it's the way the forum operates day to day. Accusing only "one side" of operating in this manner in itself is a demonstration of bias.

I won't speak for any other posters, but I try very hard to keep it respectable, fact bases and avoid personal attacks or insults. Yes, I call Chuck a socialist, but I expect that is a badge of honour he wears proudly, and I have called you a troll once. But just in one post on this thread, Chuck managed to use the words stupid, extremist nut case, lame, very weak, , all aimed at myself, also suggested that I don't know how to use the internet and a few other insults. It has been my experience that in any debate, when you have the facts on your side, you do not need to resort to such childish antics. If you follow any of Micheal Mann's work and court cases, he operates on the same premise as Chuck, that is why I state that professional ethics do not apply to climate change zealots. Personally, I hold professionals to a higher standard than a bunch of anonymous farmers on an internet forum. I do not know if Chuck is in any way a professional in the climate field, he certainly would give the impression that he is, but his demeanour is on par with the supposed professionals involved in the climate gate emails.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Stupid are your words. I will leave it up to readers to decide if it is true.

So are you prepared to call NOAA, NASA, and all the climate scientist working at various institutions around the world rubbish? If so, you are wasting everyone's time because you are a extremist nut case.

Where is all your evidence that what I post is wrong? Here are a couple recent examples of your lame, very weak responses. Neither of them contained any evidence that would counter the science of human caused global climate change.

1. Your rebuttal on the NOAA website that discussed the science on sea level rise, your response is below. It's almost as if you don't know how to use the internet. NOAA has lots of science on line about sea level rise. Do you need my help finding it or can do your own search? Just asking because its there to back up the NOAA website I posted.

Is NOAA making this up or are you wrong?

Response From Albertafarmer 5:

"Perhaps I am a poor reader, but I don't see any evidence, numbers or graphs quantifying sea level rise acceleration. Just a couple statements in the title and first paragraph, then the remainder is propaganda fluff, completely devoid of facts that in anyway substantiate the title"

I knew you could be counted on to prove my point, that you don't bother responding to anything that doesn't fit your agenda. Just like you didn't respond to that post about sea level rise acceleration, which you purported to use to prove SLR acceleration, I doubt you even read it, just read the alarmist title, then cut and paste, like the masses are expected to do.

2. You recently posted data from Lacombe weather station as presented by Murray Hartman.

So out of all the weather stations in the world are you trying to draw conclusions about global climate change from one station in central Alberta? Because most of the world is covered in oceans and Canada has many rural weather stations.

Do you think that Lacombe is representative of what is happening in Weyburn, Whitehorse, Ottawa, Halifax, or any where else on the planet? Because it is not.

I believe I posted that info in response to a question from Farmaholic, about climate trends, not to disprove global warming, or to draw any conclusions about the broader world, if I indicated so, please present that evidence.
In fact, I am surprised you take offence to that post, considering that it validates that climate change is real and quantifiable, at least in one region. A region which just happens to be close to my backyard, and hosts arguably the most productive land in Alberta, growing potatoes, corn, greenhouses, intensive livestock, field scale vegetables etc.
Since you obviously have much more time than I do( I say obviously, since you had time to research and quote from all of my previous posts while I was busy in a tractor all day), please do some original research and prove me wrong. Environment Canada has data for Weyburn, Whitehorse, Ottawa, Halifax, or any other rural weather station, and data on the rest of the planet is available elsewhere. Plot the same data that Murray did for the locations you listed, and see if any of those locations are becoming less conducive to agriculture due to climate change. I haven't done it, and truthfully, regardless how much climate change we endure, I doubt that Whitehorse is going to be an agricultural center any time soon. But I do look forward to viewing your work on the subject. I study everything I can find about climate, regardless of bias or source, since my livelihood and the entirety of my investments are dependant on it. If I had more time, I would plot other stations. I have tried to do it for my local stations, but found that the records have so many discontinuities and missing data that the results were almost meaningless.

Or, continue with the personal attacks on anyone who dares to disagree with the narrative that you present. I'm sure that will win over far more converts than civil discussion and evidence based responses.

[burnt]

AF5, you have a lot of patience with trolls like chucky.

I could never see the point in discussing the merits of a lie.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

AF5, you have a lot of patience with trolls like chucky.

I could never see the point in discussing the merits of a lie.

I actually enjoy debating the subject with Grassfrmer, dml, Mustard, (my apologies if I've missed any others), but with chuck, it is about as much fun as beating your head against the wall, and less productive.

[burnt]

Using less energy is good investment if it increases your profit and reduces negative effects.

I am interested in solar. But efficiency of the panels keep rising and prices per watt keep falling. And as you know there are endless investments on a farm. Figuring out what to invest in and when is always a challenge.

As I have said the transition to cleaner forms of energy is well underway but it will take a long time. Its not going to happen over night. Sask Power is making investments on our behalf already.

What have you done to lower your carbon footprint?

There was a saying in the former Soviet Union that the Communist is like a radish, red on the outside but white underneath. The were programmed to spout regurgitated Marxist dogmas in public, but knew by observation and repetitive experience (sound scientific principles, no less) that it was an unsustainable, failed ideology.

History proved them right, but it was an extremely costly failure in so many dimensions.

The beauty of chucky's reply here shows that he betrays himself to be a capitalist at heart - he likes the green ideology, but not at a cost to himself.

Thanks chucky boy, for exposing yourself as a hypocrite once again. By your own admission, no less.

Hopefully, one day soon you will find the courage to stand up like a man and distance yourself from the green lie.

[sumdumguy]

Hopefully, one day soon you will find the courage to stand up like a man and distance yourself from the green lie.[/QUOTE]

Not gonna happen. He too is paid to regurgitate this crap on this site. You think he is too dense to see the light - ‘scientists’ grease the hand that feeds them? When their fraudulent propaganda is exposed for what it is, they will change the name from global warming to climate change, as if climate change is something new and different. His paid announcements come from ‘Looney Bin Times’.

[mustardman]

If you want to Use the Big Furnace in the Sky (The Sun) to your Advantage then be smart how you do it.

I can't believe how many people in the country have built houses with West Facing Windows
The sun burns in as it setting so you put Tinfoil in the windows to stop it. Wow Wtf !!

The windows Should be South facing with a proper overhang for your Latitude
You get Free heat in the winter (passive Solar)

The heat stays Out as Sun sets in West and you don't look like a dork in the 21 century,Who just figured which direction the sun travels

Using good Insulation andVapour barrier with high eff natural gas furnace and a 1400 ft house costs $400 per YEAR to heat (yes that's per year!) we have done this for 29 years

Next investment is ground mount solar

[mustardman]

The Idea behind carbon pricing is to Use Market forces to Affect your consumer Habits.
If you Believe in Markets then you know how that works

I always thought cons were in favour of market forces. Apparently not

There is no govt that has Carbon tax on farm fuel. Will we pay higher for some inputs, yes probably
Will it reduce ghg emissions ,contrary to what sask party says, yes it does

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The Idea behind carbon pricing is to Use Market forces to Affect your consumer Habits.
If you Believe in Markets then you know how that works

I always thought cons were in favour of market forces. Apparently not

There is no govt that has Carbon tax on farm fuel. Will we pay higher for some inputs, yes probably
Will it reduce ghg emissions ,contrary to what sask party says, yes it does

Have you seen the latest Emissions stats for BC? They are going up in spite of a large carbon tax.

I've said it before, I'm all in favor of a non-renewable fuels tax, For all the right reasons. But only when all of our competition is equally burdened with the same tax .

[chuckChuck]

I am still waiting for some one to post several peer reviewed climate science papers or links that show that human caused global warming is not happening. It hasn't happened yet and mostly what I get in response is a few selective "facts", political views and excuses why the science is biased or wrong.

Any claims that the we are headed back into an ice age are bunk because the temperature records don't support it and the glaciers in Canada are still shrinking along with the arctic ice mass. See NOAA link below:

https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card
"Arctic shows no sign of returning to reliably frozen region of recent past decades

Despite relatively cool summer temperatures, observations in 2017 continue to indicate that the Arctic environmental system has reached a 'new normal', characterized by long-term losses in the extent and thickness of the sea ice cover, the extent and duration of the winter snow cover and the mass of ice in the Greenland Ice Sheet and Arctic glaciers, and warming sea surface and permafrost temperatures."

Here is a link to NASA that lays out the evidence: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I'm just not sure why so many of you don't realize what the implications are of rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, and significant changes in weather patterns will have for agriculture and the global economy.

Fortunately almost every government in Canada and around the world regardless of their political stripe accepts the science and is making plans for adaptation and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Including Trumps USA, NOAA and NASA.

Steven Harper even signed a G7 agreement that Canada would stop using fossil fuels by the year 2100.

But on Agriville we have a a small group of climate change deniers who are unable to produce any credible peer reviewed science to backup their claims.

When your only argument against the science that shows humans are causing unprecedented climate change is political arguments and conspiracy theories, then you might as well give up because you have lost the debate.

[chuckChuck]

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/graphic-global-warming-from-1880-to-2017/

Earth’s global surface temperatures in 2017 were the second warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to an analysis by NASA.

Continuing the planet’s long-term warming trend, globally averaged temperatures in 2017 were 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.90 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. That is second only to global temperatures in 2016. Last year was the third consecutive year in which temperatures were more than 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) above late nineteenth-century levels.

NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from 6,300 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations.

These raw measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heating effects that could skew the conclusions. These calculations produce the global average temperature deviations from the baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

The full 2017 surface temperature data set and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation are available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.

GISS is a laboratory within the Earth Sciences Division of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. The laboratory is affiliated with Columbia University’s Earth Institute and School of Engineering and Applied Science in New York.

NASA uses the unique vantage point of space to better understand Earth as an interconnected system. The agency also uses airborne and ground-based monitoring, and develops new ways to observe and study Earth with long-term data records and computer analysis tools to better see how our planet is changing. NASA shares this knowledge with the global community and works with institutions in the United States and around the world that contribute to understanding and protecting our home planet.
Credit

NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio. Data provided by Robert B. Schmunk (NASA/GSFC GISS).

[chuckChuck]

So for those of you who don't like my cut and paste. I will just say evidence from NASA shows that global warming is occurring. If you don't believe me or NASA show us the scientific evidence that dispute NASA's science.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Speaking of losing the debate, have you seen recent polls on the publics level of concern about climate change, recent election results, a precipitous drop in government subsidies and grants for the climate change industry, the collapse of green energy installation, a shift in the focus of climate related papers, and the desperate tactics of the last few true believers such as yourself?

And don't worry, I don't expect a response which in any way addresses any of these issues, as usual.

[chuckChuck]

Have you seen the latest Emissions stats for BC? They are going up in spite of a large carbon tax.

I've said it before, I'm all in favor of a non-renewable fuels tax, For all the right reasons. But only when all of our competition is equally burdened with the same tax .

Population growth could account for increasing carbon emissions. Per capita what was the growth in BC? What would the rise in emissions be without the carbon tax?

So energy costs in the USA are generally lower because of lower fuel taxes already. There are numerous factors that affect competitiveness with the FX exchange rate being very important. It is almost impossible for us to have the same costs as anywhere else in the world. How are we surviving when we are already have significant advantages and disadvantages. Fuel costs and taxes are only a small part of a bigger picture.

[chuckChuck]

Speaking of losing the debate, have you seen recent polls on the publics level of concern about climate change, recent election results, a precipitous drop in government subsidies and grants for the climate change industry, the collapse of green energy installation, a shift in the focus of climate related papers, and the desperate tactics of the last few true believers such as yourself?

And don't worry, I don't expect a response which in any way addresses any of these issues, as usual.

Are you talking about Ontario? That might be true in Ontario but to make a generalized statement like that is meaningless. The world is a big place and you didn't put your statement into any context.

We all know the winds of politics change and governments come and go. So you need to look at the big picture and not only focus on Lacombe's weather records or Ontario's politics.

Saskatchewan under a Conservative government is still building wind mills and solar plants. 50% renewables by 2030 is the plan. That doesn't seem to fit with your argument.