Dont Call It Global Warming

[sumdumguy]

It’s a travesty that Regina buckled to the nutcases. Both sides should have been presented, but no just the whackos can spew. I don’t want my tax dollars wasted on leftist propaganda pedlars.

[burnt]

Our survivors will some day look back on our time and say "How could they have been so stupid?"

"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous, planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison." Richard Lindzen, atmospheric physicist.

A few names will be mentioned as examples of this deliberate madness -Al Gore, Climate Barbie, aka Catherine McKenna, Chinook DiCaprio, chuck Chuck...

More:

https://www.azquotes.com/author/30824-Richard_Lindzen https://www.azquotes.com/author/30824-Richard_Lindzen

[tweety]

Youre the one who keeps bringing it up ?

This started out as defining what the difference is between climate and weather. So stop with the "old man in his underwear telling the kids to get of his lawn" comments.

Unfortunately the definitions are too simple for many here to understand.

[farming101]

Les Henry is a soil scientist and obviously a human caused climate change denier or sympathizer.

He has never published a peer reviewed climate change paper and never will.

It's not possible to draw conclusions about global climate change from one weather station on the prairies and he should know that as a scientist.

When they do soil science do they use Swift Current soils to draw conclusions about all the prairie soil types let alone global soils? LOL

Now lets hear what a climate scientist says that tells a different story than Henry spun:
https://www.producer.com/2020/02/data-from-sask-tells-compelling-climate-story/ https://www.producer.com/2020/02/data-from-sask-tells-compelling-climate-story/

Data from Sask. tells compelling climate story

When Virginia Wittrock speaks to farmers about climate trends in Saskatchewan, she tries to avoid the phrase “climate change.”

The words are politically charged and can get in the way of rational discussions about the climate.

Instead, Wittrock prefers to let her data tell the story — data that’s been collected daily over the last 55 years at the Saskatchewan Research Council’s (SRC) Climate Reference Station in Saskatoon.

So what does the data say? Is Saskatoon’s climate different than it was 55 years ago?

Without a doubt, says Wittrock, a research scientist and climatologist who’s been working at the SRC for the past 31 years.

“Our winters are definitely getting warmer, our summer night-time temperatures are definitely getting warmer and summer precipitation seems to be getting more variable,” she says.

The average frost-free growing period is also getting longer.

In fact, SRC trendline data suggests the average frost-free growing period in Saskatoon has increased to nearly 140 days currently, up from about 106 days in the mid-1960s.

Wittrock describes the SRC’s climate reference station (CRS) as one of the most comprehensive weather data collection sites in the country.

It measures temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, wind speed, soil temperature, surface temperature, barometric pressure, humidity and snow cover several times a day at pre-determined intervals.

Over 55 years, it has generated a massive amount of data.

For example, SRC data suggests that average winter temperatures — both average highs and average lows — are increasing.

The trendline for average winter minimum temperatures has increased to about -16 C currently from nearly -22 C 55 years ago.

Over the same period, trendlines suggest that the average number of days each year with temperatures below -35 C has decreased to zero currently, down from nine previously, and that the average number of days annually with temperatures below -30 C has decreased to approximately 2.5 currently, down from 25 a year in the mid-1960s.

The trend toward warmer winters will continue in the coming decades and will result in new pest- and disease-related challenges, Wittrock says.

She points to the expansion of the tick populations throughout the province’s farming region as evidence that insect species are becoming more adept at surviving the Saskatchewan winter.

“The insects are going to overwinter a lot easier. We’re already seeing that,” she says.

The length of the frost-free growing season in Saskatoon is also increasing, and growing degree days during the growing season show a steadily upward-rising trendline.

Based on her data, cumulative growing degree days between May 1 and Sept. 30 have increased, on average, to nearly 1,700 currently from less than 1,500 in the mid-1960s, a trendline increase of roughly 13 percent.

That suggests that in the future, Saskatchewan farmers may be inclined to grow different crops that require more heat units, such as corn and soybeans.

Wittrock cautions however that annual and seasonal variabilities, both in temperature and precipitation, will continue to frustrate such efforts.

In fact, statistical evidence already suggests that Saskatoon is experiencing greater weather variability, and that extreme weather events are occurring more frequently than they have in the past.

The spring of 2019 was the driest spring ever recorded at the climate reference station, she says.

“We’ve also noticed more extreme summer time rain events — both floods and droughts — that are incredibly hard to forecast,” she adds.

Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics....

The article referred to by CC has a chart showing that in 2002 there were at least 120 frost free days.
Well we had 99 frost free days here in 2002. Saskatoon area. Lesson is have your farm close to Circle Drive. Less frost there.
2004: Chart says over 130 frost free days. Our wheat was all feed. Went anywhere from 17-35. Flax, entire crop snowed under. Canola 13-24. Some burnt in the spring. 122 frost free days.
Shrug.....Poor farmers I guess

[samhill]

55 years ago means sfa. Try maybe over 155 or better yet 200. I’m over 70 years old and have seen mild, hot, really hot and really cold and wouldn’t call it indicative of anything but climate variation. My Dad saw a lot more of that also.

[Oliver88]

Interesting times.

[furrowtickler]

How’s the last two harvests gone ??? What were the past two years GDD’s ??????
Answer.... crop in field and massively decreased corn and soybean yields .
*** chuck , just go north east of here and talk to farmers , results don’t lie , stats do

[AlbertaFarmer5]

This started out as defining what the difference is between climate and weather. So stop with the "old man in his underwear telling the kids to get of his lawn" comments.

Unfortunately the definitions are too simple for many here to understand.

I admitted I was having difficulty with the definitions, and with your help, I was just starting to get it figured out. Weather= short term, climate= long term, it was all making sense, I could see the error in my ways, and then you went and brought up a single days temperature, at a single station(weather) in Antarctica, which as a continent has been in a steady to slightly cooling trend for decades(climate). Yet you used this event to justify your stance on climate, so now I am back to being as confused as ever about the definitions, can you please start over at the beginning again, I promise to pay more attention this time.

[tweety]

I admitted I was having difficulty with the definitions, and with your help, I was just starting to get it figured out. Weather= short term, climate= long term, it was all making sense, I could see the error in my ways, and then you went and brought up a single days temperature, at a single station(weather) in Antarctica, which as a continent has been in a steady to slightly cooling trend for decades(climate). Yet you used this event to justify your stance on climate, so now I am back to being as confused as ever about the definitions, can you please start over at the beginning again, I promise to pay more attention this time.

Well not exactly, that was the hottest temp it ever got to. Averages increase (climate) when records are broken to the positive.

if cold temps were breaking the record consistently, then climate would decrease based on the 30 year. So it wasn't that it was just a one day temp - which it was - it was that it pushes the trend - which is climate - averages up in this case. That is the significance of that day.

You can gleam a lot of early trend data analytics by following the maxima and minima of curves. Especially with supercomputers today.

Once again, not saying its good or bad, man made or not - will leave that up to you guys to argue. Just that there is 2 numbers, average rising temperature (climate) and rapid CO2 increase remarkably over last 100 years. Whereas weather is useful to know if you need an umbrella tomorrow, climate is useful to know if you need to build a seawall.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Well not exactly, that was the hottest temp it ever got to. Averages increase (climate) when records are broken to the positive.

if cold temps were breaking the record consistently, then climate would decrease based on the 30 year. So it wasn't that it was just a one day temp - which it was - it was that it pushes the trend - which is climate - averages up in this case. That is the significance of that day.

You can gleam a lot of early trend data analytics by following the maxima and minima of curves. Especially with supercomputers today.

Once again, not saying its good or bad, man made or not - will leave that up to you guys to argue. Just that there is 2 numbers, average rising temperature (climate) and rapid CO2 increase remarkably over last 100 years. Whereas weather is useful to know if you need an umbrella tomorrow, climate is useful to know if you need to build a seawall.

OK, so a single temperature in a single location is indicative of the trend for the next 30 years.
So I am now getting really concerned about the trend that Furrowtickler keeps bringing up, of cold wet, snowy falls here in western Canada.

I'm sure you must be a fan of Gavin Schmidt's work, he is one of the chief architects of global warming and most public of climate scientists, he has this to say about climate records in Antarctica:

It's hard to draw much conclusion from a single temperature record, cautions Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Last year Antarctica also logged a record cold temperature, he notes.

So obviously, you are smarter than him.

Perhaps you should stick with commentary on Agriculture issues, where you show a lot of wisdom, however unpopular the truth often is when you point it out. But when you stray off into the climate morass, and your failed attempts to defend your position, you are quickly lowering your credibility to Chuck levels, which is a shame, because unlike Chuck, you have a lot of good ideas to share.

[tweety]

OK, so a single temperature in a single location is indicative of the trend for the next 30 years.
So I am now getting really concerned about the trend that Furrowtickler keeps bringing up, of cold wet, snowy falls here in western Canada.

I'm sure you must be a fan of Gavin Schmidt's work, he is one of the chief architects of global warming and most public of climate scientists, he has this to say about climate records in Antarctica:


So obviously, you are smarter than him.

Perhaps you should stick with commentary on Agriculture issues, where you show a lot of wisdom, however unpopular the truth often is when you point it out. But when you stray off into the climate morass, and your failed attempts to defend your position, you are quickly lowering your credibility to Chuck levels, which is a shame, because unlike Chuck, you have a lot of good ideas to share.

Woe! Slow down. You just can't get past the religious notion you are either a believer in global warming and crazy or you're a denier and crazy. Catholic and Protestant.

The data with record lows in Antarctica hints its CLIMATE may be cooling, won't know for 30 more years
the record highs in Arctic shows its CLIMATE may be warming, won't know for sure for 30 years.

Again, not so hard to understand. They are just temperature readings - you know - a thermometer - they been around for a lot of years, water boils at 100 c. and freezes at zero. Easy to calibrate.

Leave the meaningless emotional socio-politcal BS out of this discussion. Is that possible?

AF5, We know a few things. Temps have warmed a couple degrees last hundred years which means the CLIMATE for the planet is warming. A relatively steady CO2 has been around a long time, the last 100 years have shown it to go from 300 to 412 ppm. We know since the 1800's that several gasses trap heat. It's why earth is warm and the moon is cold even though they are the same distance from the sun.

Yes or no?

[tweety]

The CLIMATE data for Canada is showing it is getting warmer. Climate TEMPERATURE CHANGE is positive. Not happy, sad, bad, scary.....

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/climate-trends-variability/trends-variations/spring-2019-bulletin.html https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/climate-change/science-research-data/climate-trends-variability/trends-variations/spring-2019-bulletin.html

The WEATHER today says it will be minus 2 and lows minus 6 tonight.

[chuckChuck]

As I pointed out before neither Swift Current nor Saskatoon or any single weather station data or the prairie region are sufficient to draw conclusions about human caused climate change on a global scale.

One of the primary reasons is because the oceans are absorbing most of the global warming.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content

Change over time

The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat without a large increase in temperature. This tremendous ability to store and release heat over long periods of time gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system.

Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are preventing heat radiated from Earth’s surface from escaping into space as freely as it used to; most of the excess heat is being stored in the upper ocean. As a result, upper ocean heat content has increased significantly over the past two decades.
More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.

[helmach]

We know since the 1800's that several gasses trap heat. It's why earth is warm and the moon is cold even though they are the same distance from the sun.

Yes or no?

Temps on the moon can be extreamly high like in excess of 100 degrees C in the daytime

also the surface at night can drop as low as -160 degrees C

Why do you ask is the reason for the huge variation in tempature?

Simple, the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE to hold in heat at night or prevent heat from reaching the surface during day time cycles.

[tweety]

Temps on the moon can be extreamly high like in excess of 100 degrees C in the daytime

also the surface at night can drop as low as -160 degrees C

Why do you ask is the reason for the huge variation in tempature?

Simple, the moon has NO ATMOSPHERE to hold in heat at night or prevent heat from reaching the surface during day time cycles.

I ask yes or no for the whole paragraph. Should i have kept it even simpler?