Why is it So Cold Right Now? (Polar Vortex)

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

More indictment by insinuation? What "real story?" Do tell please, or refrain from continuing to libel the guy.

Oh ffs. I have said (6? times now) that I have no issues with Dr Spencer's research, or his integrity as a scientist. That's the "real story".

Cut the above out and save it somewhere, ok?

I've just been holding a mirror up to newhaul (and you apparently) about the silly word games he often plays with his "have you stopped beating your wife? yes/no" questions.

It's reeeeally annoying, isn't it?

Now maybe you have a clue about what it's like to constantly hear twaddle like:

• MMGWC
• it's all a grant money boondoggle
• soshulist conspiraceh!
• generic response to posted links: "bah. scientific publication X / institute Y / government dept Z is part of the MMGWC conspiracy and has an agenda"
• Al Gore is geting rich off climate change
• OAC said the world will end in 12 years
• etc

Could this have something to do with the news sources one pays the most attention to?

This isn't the UN, it's daycare for bored boaters. Still, we can all do better, no?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

here goes
The first link goes to a NASA site that just says it with no data to back it up ( links don't work)
2) the NOAA site I find suspect due to false data points.
( see graphic on Africa )https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/produc...a/africa.shtml

How can they get surface temperatures when there are no stations ?

The third is a Pdf file with the same issues as the second one.

Here is the graphic from the UAH and a link to the actual monthly data from 1979 to present.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v...cdc_lt_6.0.txt

You might find this interesting.. it is a file you can download which will open in google earth. It shows the grid used for the CRUTEM4 temperature data and if you click on that grid, it will show all the stations in that grid. While this is different than the NASA/NOAA info because it is from the UK, my guess is there is some overlap on stations.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/crutem/ge/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

As Robert & I've previously pointed out, Spencer/UAH doesn't have any unique data - they all use the same input data.

I understand that both UAH & RSS (only two, right?) use the same input data derived from the same satellites, and only the methodology they use to produce their respective temp data differs. And as I have previously pointed out, I read the abstract, intro & conclusion sections of the critique you guys provided, and then asked both of you whether the critique discredited or debunked the UAH v6 dataset, or merely amounted to the scientific critique that normally follows from the introduction of any such new version of a scientific work. As you recall, there was much critique -- including from Spencer -- from a newly corrected version of one of the terrestrial datasets. The original version produced temps very much in line with the lower UAH temps, but the corrected version produced warmer temps more in line with the other terrestrial datasets which are, in turn, more consistent with mainstream opinion that higher temps are caused more by human vs. natural forces. Legitimate scientific criticism & divergent expert opinion is different from convincing evidence that one or the other has been discredited or debunked.

What Spencer/UAH has, is his own unique interpretation of that data, which has been extensively critiqued, by others.
It seems to come down to a matter of opinion, with Spencer/UAH being the outlier.

I don't understand how you can make a conclusory statement that the UAH data is the "outlier" when it so closely matches up with the RSS data? I don't know if it always has, but it looked that way from the graphs recently posted. If you mean the UAH data shows the lowest temps of all the datasets, then that is correct. But if that's the standard for disregarding it, then we'd also have to disregard whichever terrestrial dataset shows the highest temps, would we not?

I've said again & again that I lack any sort of science background for interpreting and offering opinions on primary scientific works, so I welcome any corrections to how I've presented the above. But my understanding from previous threads is that the integrity/credibility of the UAH dataset is "accepted" within the overall climate science community, but is often absent when we see temp data presented by official agencies, along with advocates in these threads. Without a valid scientific reason for disregarding this dataset, it's difficult to conclude that the omissions are not the result of mere bias if not partisanship, neither of which are obviously relevant to climate science.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't understand how you can make a conclusory statement that the UAH data is the "outlier" when it so closely matches up with the RSS data? I don't know if it always has, but it looked that way from the graphs recently posted. If you mean the UAH data shows the lowest temps of all the datasets, then that is correct. But if that's the standard for disregarding it, then we'd also have to disregard whichever terrestrial dataset shows the highest temps, would we not?

I have provided lots of articles on the UAH dataset. Here is another..

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...LI-D-16-0768.1

I think there are several reasons to consider the UAH data an outlier.. First is as far as I have been able to determine it has not been peer reviewed. Next, it doesn't seem to correlate that closely to other groups using the same dataset. Yes the most often quoted is RSS, but I believe there is a Japanese group as well. Finally each group that puts together datasets are suppose to post all the data as well as the underlying computer programs used to generate it. I was able to find the code and flow charts for previous UAH models but not version 6.
As for the scientific reasons, I have been able to find a disagreement on how clouds and precipitation should be factored in and the dirual effects from the above paper. The attached graph shows RSS vs NOAA, which seems to track pretty well, and I have previously provided RSS vs UAH. Also attached is the graph of the latest RSS and UAH compared to balloon data. As you can see the UAH data in not in line with the balloon data which should be an apples to apples comparison.
As for the non-scientific side, I'm pretty skeptical when I see somebody who has stated they know the answer before they do the work (God is controlling the climate and it is just fine) and then their work is consistent with that premise and inconsistent with other scientific work.

The only reason I keep bringing up the UAH dataset issue is because Newhaul says it is sole source of data for his view the world is cooling. There are tons of other data that he and other skeptics are ignoring, most of it pretty consistent with each other.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I have provided lots of articles on the UAH dataset. Here is another..

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...LI-D-16-0768.1

I think there are several reasons to consider the UAH data an outlier.. First is as far as I have been able to determine it has not been peer reviewed. Next, it doesn't seem to correlate that closely to other groups using the same dataset. Yes the most often quoted is RSS, but I believe there is a Japanese group as well. Finally each group that puts together datasets are suppose to post all the data as well as the underlying computer programs used to generate it. I was able to find the code and flow charts for previous UAH models but not version 6.
As for the scientific reasons, I have been able to find a disagreement on how clouds and precipitation should be factored in and the dirual effects from the above paper. The attached graph shows RSS vs NOAA, which seems to track pretty well, and I have previously provided RSS vs UAH. Also attached is the graph of the latest RSS and UAH compared to balloon data. As you can see the UAH data in not in line with the balloon data which should be an apples to apples comparison.
As for the non-scientific side, I'm pretty skeptical when I see somebody who has stated they know the answer before they do the work (God is controlling the climate and it is just fine) and then their work is consistent with that premise and inconsistent with other scientific work.

The only reason I keep bringing up the UAH dataset issue is because Newhaul says it is sole source of data for his view the world is cooling. There are tons of other data that he and other skeptics are ignoring, most of it pretty consistent with each other.

really a big difference all of the satellite graphs are within .12℃
What do you consider a major difference. ( btw they all show the cooling of the last few years at the same rate even)

please explain how you determined that the data has / has not been peer reviewed?
Are you a specialist in the field?


It has already been shown and proven that terrestrial data is unreliable and is easily manipulated.

Do your own googling .


You really don't like the fact that all of the other models are based on the models Spencer developed.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

I have provided lots of articles on the UAH dataset. Here is another..

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...LI-D-16-0768.1

I think there are several reasons to consider the UAH data an outlier.. First is as far as I have been able to determine it has not been peer reviewed. Next, it doesn't seem to correlate that closely to other groups using the same dataset. Yes the most often quoted is RSS, but I believe there is a Japanese group as well. Finally each group that puts together datasets are suppose to post all the data as well as the underlying computer programs used to generate it. I was able to find the code and flow charts for previous UAH models but not version 6.
As for the scientific reasons, I have been able to find a disagreement on how clouds and precipitation should be factored in and the dirual effects from the above paper. The attached graph shows RSS vs NOAA, which seems to track pretty well, and I have previously provided RSS vs UAH. Also attached is the graph of the latest RSS and UAH compared to balloon data. As you can see the UAH data in not in line with the balloon data which should be an apples to apples comparison.
As for the non-scientific side, I'm pretty skeptical when I see somebody who has stated they know the answer before they do the work (God is controlling the climate and it is just fine) and then their work is consistent with that premise and inconsistent with other scientific work.

The only reason I keep bringing up the UAH dataset issue is because Newhaul says it is sole source of data for his view the world is cooling. There are tons of other data that he and other skeptics are ignoring, most of it pretty consistent with each other.

OK, I've just hacked my way through the above article, as I have tried my best to do with most if not all of the other ones you & Gord have provided, and that present scientific critique of the UAH dataset. As always, I invite any and all corrections to my admittedly non-expert interpretations. I have my own biases, as we all do, over the politics of the AGW issue, but that doesn't mean any of us are incapable of more objectively assessing the current state of the science.

As best I can gather, the main thrust of this latest article, written by the RSS scientists (Mears & Wentz), is to explain and defend the latest RSS dataset, namely v4. It notes prior consistencies between previous versions of RSS and UAH, but points out that RSS v4 shows more warming and UAH v6 shows less (compared with both dataset's previous versions), thereby creating more of a disparity. According to the graph provided in the article (copied below), that disparity (globally) is now 0.05K/decade, or 0.174K (RSS) minus 0.124K (UAH). The older versions of each dataset produced a smaller disparity, but notably showed more warming from the UAH dataset, with a disparity of 0.021K/decade (0.155K UAH minus 0.134K RSS). Please double-check my math. (I didn't consider the stats from the tropical version so as not to introduce more variables). Newhaul says all of the sat data is within 0.12ºC so you may want to double-check that one too. Either way, it seems fair to say that they are close, with all of them subject to an ongoing, healthy critique -- i.e. formal or informal peer review -- that is the hallmark of good science. They also both seem to track along a similar trend line, and both trend similar to the terrestrial data (I think), albeit with lower temps. I still haven't seen a graph directing comparing sat vs. terrestrial temps, so won't comment further.

The Wiki on the UAH dataset provides a decent summary of some of the more significant corrections that have been made over the years (mostly to orbital degradation of the satellites), corrections that I'm sure Spencer & Christy welcomed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAH_sa...rature_dataset

This is the sort of critiquing that makes all of the datasets more accurate, and shouldn't be misconstrued by 3rd-party sources to automatically mean that a dataset has been discredited, "debunked," or is an "outlier" when otherwise not justified by the primary science. Respectfully, I think you guys might be leaping to conclusions on this.

I depart from my friend Newhaul in so far as he dismisses the terrestrial data as unreliable. I don't do so because I'm certain it is reliable, but because I don't know, believe I have no way of properly judging it, and so must accept it as scientific fact. I'm certainly aware of the vagaries inherent in relying on thousands of weather stations on land and at sea, aware of the (controversial) corrections that have been made, and certainly understand the mistrust that's arisen from all the politics. But that doesn't lead me, personally, to a conclusion that the terrestrial data should therefore be dismissed any more than the UAH data should be as you suggest.

Spencer's religious beliefs and his association with Heartland raise legitimate questions of a potential conflict of interest, but what I would agree may be an appearance of a conflict is hardly dispositive without at least some evidence of an actual one. The mere fact that his UAH data seems so closely in line with RSS data (for a number of years now) belies a conclusion that an actual conflict exists. As does Spencer's complete transparency (his website says v6 is available for download) of all the input data, his methodology, along with extensive disclosures on his website of his religious beliefs, connection to the Cornwall Declaration, and association with Heartland. So while I would agree that your skepticism of Spencer on these grounds is not without cause, the fact that you are also not equally skeptical of scientists on the other side who have emphatic left-leaning political views suggests a bias on your part that has little to do with the actual science. Along the same lines, I have to question any layman's objectivity when I see consistent reliance on secondary sources such as skepticalscience, but equally consistent dismissiveness of sources such as whatsupwiththat. I can't say whether one is more credible than the other, but I can say that they're both biased.

As for the claimed lack of formal peer review of UAH v6, I simply don't know. You're suggesting this renders it less credible, but as far as we know it could be that the political bias of the mainstream science community is making it difficult to get it done. There has been plenty of evidence that well known skeptics in the science community have been ostracized, incl. in the form of testimony before Congress. Has RSS v4 been peer reviewed? If so, then you might want to ask why one would be and the other not when they both rely on the same input data, and whatever differences in methodology have resulted in similar outcomes.

None of this goes to the ultimate question of whether some of the predicted threats from AGW are valid, to what extent are they human caused, and how we should best try to offset them and/or adapt. But it does speak to what I see as a lack of honest, objective laymen discussion of the state of the current science. In the long run, I don't see how detractors can be brought onboard by ignoring or dismissing established datasets without adequate scientific justification. In short, the UAH and other sat-based evidence should be explained, not dismissed.

[newhaul]

Ok a bit back to the original basis for this thread the polar vortex and it's effect here at my marina last night this has not happened for several years ( iirc the last time was winter 08-09)
and yes its just weather
Taken at the top of the ramp to the docks .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

really a big difference all of the satellite graphs are within .12℃
What do you consider a major difference. ( btw they all show the cooling of the last few years at the same rate even)

please explain how you determined that the data has / has not been peer reviewed?
Are you a specialist in the field?


It has already been shown and proven that terrestrial data is unreliable and is easily manipulated.

Do your own googling .


You really don't like the fact that all of the other models are based on the models Spencer developed.

Sigh... the lack of peer review on rev 6 of the model is from Spencer's own website...

The following is meant to provide a general introduction to the new processing steps in Version 6, emphasizing departures from past practices, and not to provide exhaustive detail. It will likely be close to two years before a peer reviewed paper with greater detail gets published in a scientific journal.
Plus I haven't found it elsewhere. If you know of a review, please share.

There is a cooling trend following the El Nino years. As I have pointed out before things are pretty consistent if you drop the El Nino and La Nina years.

I'm not sure the other satellite temperature data is generated by Spencer's and Christy's code. Here is Spencer's own assessment of their code..
Finally, much of the previous software has been a hodgepodge of code snippets written by different scientists, run in stepwise fashion during every monthly update, some of it over 25 years old, and we wanted a single programmer to write a unified, streamlined code (approx. 9,000 lines of FORTRAN) that could be run in one execution if possible.
I doubt anybody is using it based that that description.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Sigh... the lack of peer review on rev 6 of the model is from Spencer's own website...

The following is meant to provide a general introduction to the new processing steps in Version 6, emphasizing departures from past practices, and not to provide exhaustive detail. It will likely be close to two years before a peer reviewed paper with greater detail gets published in a scientific journal.
Plus I haven't found it elsewhere. If you know of a review, please share.

There is a cooling trend following the El Nino years. As I have pointed out before things are pretty consistent if you drop the El Nino and La Nina years.

I'm not sure the other satellite temperature data is generated by Spencer's and Christy's code. Here is Spencer's own assessment of their code..
Finally, much of the previous software has been a hodgepodge of code snippets written by different scientists, run in stepwise fashion during every monthly update, some of it over 25 years old, and we wanted a single programmer to write a unified, streamlined code (approx. 9,000 lines of FORTRAN) that could be run in one execution if possible.
I doubt anybody is using it based that that description.

the funniest part to me about all of your writing here is you are arguing about something we both see is the same . Both show the same cooling trend both are and were consistently .12℃(approx) appear from the rise to the fall and if you remove the El Nino and la nina signatures we are still cooling .

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Exile

None of this goes to the ultimate question of whether some of the predicted threats from AGW are valid, to what extent are they human caused, and how we should best try to offset them and/or adapt. But it does speak to what I see as a lack of honest, objective laymen discussion of the state of the current science. In the long run, I don't see how detractors can be brought onboard by ignoring or dismissing established datasets without adequate scientific justification. In short, the UAH and other sat-based evidence should be explained, not dismissed.

Thank you for your well written post.

I have been a participant in this climate discussion on this forum for a relatively short period of time ( a month). In that time, I have tried to refer to where I get my information from (rather than make it up) and most times it peer reviewed scientific papers. My goal has been to try to get folks to understand the science behind climate change which has been known for more than 100 years. I was amazed in a previous thread on how skeptics of climate change actually didn't understand how a literal greenhouse got warm inside (sorry I used a car on a warm day, but the principles are the same). or to make a statement that because CO2 is only .04% of the total atmosphere it couldn't have an effect (99% of the atmosphere is inert to IR). How can people participate in this discussion without the understanding the first principles of the science.. no this isn't some theory by grant grubbing scientists, this is our current understanding of physics.

I know that your position is that basic science is clear, but that actual amount of effect on the environment is up for debate and that you feel that before we resort to costly remedies, we should wait until the effects are better known.

The problem is as we waiting for more data, CO2 is going into the environment and I'm not aware of any known technology to get it back out on a massive scale except reforestation. In my personal life, I know steps to reduce CO2 are possible. I have enough solar panels on my house so that I'm a net producer of energy even after charging my electric car on a daily basis. Both my solar panels and car (Volt) had costs offset by government subsidies, which I think help people make better choices. My solar panels achieve financial break-even after 4 years. My boat has enough solar to to keep things running on sunny days, but yes I still fly in airplanes, and I still use diesel and gas fossil fuels (just less).

As for the data on temperature, I have learned a lot chasing Newhaul and other skeptics posts down to facts. I have learned that most of the CO2 to date is actually going into the oceans and most of the energy absorbed by the environment is going into the oceans as well. I have also learned that coal burning has actually retarded some of the warming effects due to aerosols emitted. So we are not yet actually seeing the full effects from the CO2 to date. But as the oceans warm, that CO2 will be released and as ice and snow melt the planet will warm even faster.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...LI-D-17-0552.1

So I'm glad you are reading the science and learning more. I wish more would do so. It is easy path to dismiss things without actually understanding (sorry Newhaul, I don't accept your cooling theory without some actual facts).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

(sorry Newhaul, I don't accept your cooling theory without some actual facts).

I have posted the facts complete where applicable and possible with peer reviewed data.

Will you agree that all of the models show the same cooling over the past few years?

Approx .5℃ cooling over the past now almost 4 years.

The cooling is a combination of factors.
1) solar output . Tsi.
2) cosmic rays
3) increased volcanic activity ( due to cosmic ray increases. )
4) increased albedo due to cloud nucleation

Let me know any questions and when I get to home I will post the papers ( I believe I have posted several already)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Thank you for your well written post.

I have been a participant in this climate discussion on this forum for a relatively short period of time ( a month). In that time, I have tried to refer to where I get my information from (rather than make it up) and most times it peer reviewed scientific papers. My goal has been to try to get folks to understand the science behind climate change which has been known for more than 100 years. I was amazed in a previous thread on how skeptics of climate change actually didn't understand how a literal greenhouse got warm inside (sorry I used a car on a warm day, but the principles are the same). or to make a statement that because CO2 is only .04% of the total atmosphere it couldn't have an effect (99% of the atmosphere is inert to IR). How can people participate in this discussion without the understanding the first principles of the science.. no this isn't some theory by grant grubbing scientists, this is our current understanding of physics.

People of all sorts of scientific & non-scientific backgrounds can participate in these discussions because it's predominantly a sailing forum! These threads attract a lot of different people for a variety of reasons, and they have make no pretense of being threads which cater to and attract actual scientists in the field. Having said that, there are a number of people with obvious techy backgrounds, and some who have devoted a lot of time & energy trying to learn climate science. But my sense is that these threads are mostly about politics, not climate science, with laymen using their often incomplete knowledge of the science to suit their personal partisanship.

I don't question the validity of the peer reviewed science you've posted, only whether it represents sufficiently settled science to justify policy decisions. The problem is not with grant grubbing scientists, but with the entire field devoted to finding answers solely to the underlying theory that GW is predominantly human caused, and will soon accelerate to our detriment. That's understandable given all the attention the issue is getting, but it has foreclosed an equivalent amount of research into testing the theory many skeptics hold that we've underestimated natural causes. In fact, according to excerpts I previously posted from an interview with Spencer himself, he doesn't believe any research is being done to test that theory. And the media is similarly one-sided, in part because advancing the story that the planet is in peril is far more alluring than the notion that the planet is simply in a natural warming cycle that we can do little about. My sense is what we're hearing & reading from most sources of information are one-sided, and I believe this is at variance with where the actual science is at.

I know that your position is that basic science is clear, but that actual amount of effect on the environment is up for debate and that you feel that before we resort to costly remedies, we should wait until the effects are better known.

Not just the effects, but how much of those effects are caused by humans or not. If humans are not responsible to a significant degree, then they are powerless to effect any sort of remedy. But there's an obvious political component to the entire debate which most of the scientists themselves did not create. And much of this centers around a hatred for fossil fuels, and even contempt for the capitalist economic system. These tend towards emotional responses, have only arisen in relatively recent times, fail to appreciate the benefits of fossil fuels on standards of living and mitigation of poverty, and are generally only shared by more affluent, left-leaning people in the so-called First World. So it seems impossible to discuss only the environmental/scientific issue without partisan debate. Just look at the text of the recently introduced "Green New Deal." Whether one approves or not, the fringe nature of the social & economic issues will only serve to turn people away from the CC issues embedded therein.

The problem is as we waiting for more data, CO2 is going into the environment and I'm not aware of any known technology to get it back out on a massive scale except reforestation. In my personal life, I know steps to reduce CO2 are possible. I have enough solar panels on my house so that I'm a net producer of energy even after charging my electric car on a daily basis. Both my solar panels and car (Volt) had costs offset by government subsidies, which I think help people make better choices. My solar panels achieve financial break-even after 4 years. My boat has enough solar to to keep things running on sunny days, but yes I still fly in airplanes, and I still use diesel and gas fossil fuels (just less).

I don't need to agree with your opinions on the science to appreciate someone who follows up his beliefs with concrete actions. There are some on these threads who excuse their lack of personal action, claiming that societal changes through govt policy are the only remedy. If CC is as serious a threat as you and these others believe, then it will require both govt policy and individual initiative.

As for the data on temperature, I have learned a lot chasing Newhaul and other skeptics posts down to facts. I have learned that most of the CO2 to date is actually going into the oceans and most of the energy absorbed by the environment is going into the oceans as well. I have also learned that coal burning has actually retarded some of the warming effects due to aerosols emitted. So we are not yet actually seeing the full effects from the CO2 to date. But as the oceans warm, that CO2 will be released and as ice and snow melt the planet will warm even faster.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...LI-D-17-0552.1

Yup, civil debate is often the best way to motivate oneself to learn. Otherwise we are just preaching to our respective choirs, and that only plays into our biases.

So I'm glad you are reading the science and learning more. I wish more would do so. It is easy path to dismiss things without actually understanding (sorry Newhaul, I don't accept your cooling theory without some actual facts).

I have certainly learned a lot about the science, but I don't think my overall views have changed much. I remain suspicious of political motives that want to advance what I believe would be disastrous social & economic policies whose harm would far outweigh the effects of additional warming. I don't doubt that AGW is real and that humans are contributing to it. I concede that the weight of the scientific evidence suggests the human role is significant and should be curtailed. But weight alone is not dispositive in science, especially when contrary but equally valid views have, imo anyway, been suppressed.

[Sand crab]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Will you agree that all of the models show the same cooling over the past few years?

Approx .5℃ cooling over the past now almost 4 years.

The cooling is a combination of factors.
1) solar output . Tsi.
2) cosmic rays
3) increased volcanic activity ( due to cosmic ray increases. )
4) increased albedo due to cloud nucleation

Rob, Nope can't agree. Your cooling trend is only .17° C and because 2016 was the hottest on record the cooling trend has only occurred for 2 years.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs...l-temperature/


Your points 1 thru 5 are smoke and mirrors. Most likely the cooling trend was because the last 2 years were not El Nino years. But this year may buck that trend.



"The forecast for coming years points to more of the same. The UK’s Met Office predicts that 2019 will likely be even warmer than 2018, at least in part driven by a developing El Niño event, which nearly always bump global temperatures up. But scientists stress that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary factor pushing temperatures higher both in past decades and into the future."
https://www.nationalgeographic.com.a...a-declare.aspx


And like the link above says "The last 5 years were the hottest on record".
And interestingly the oceans are the warmest they have ever been. Now there's a trend.

[GordMay]

Environment Canada releases the Top 10 weather stories of 2018.
From B.C. fires to flooding in New Brunswick, no region was spared from extreme events.

“... Weather changes in Canada are happening abruptly not subtly, rapidly not gradually. As Canadians continue to experience more and more extreme weather, intense month-long heat waves, suffocating smoke and haze from wildfires, and extreme flooding will simply be the norm mere decades from now. Events that were once rare or unusual for our grandparents are now more commonplace, while we all become more vulnerable due to extreme weather. As the Top Ten Weather Stories of 2018 bear out, Canadians must become more resilient—not only for what lies ahead but also for the variations in climate, which are already here.
This year featured extreme and impactful weather events that caused costly damage across the country...”

1. Record wildfires and smoky skies
9. Record cold start to a long winter

More ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...ries/2018.html

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

Thank you for your well written post.

I have been a participant in this climate discussion on this forum for a relatively short period of time ( a month). In that time, I have tried to refer to where I get my information from (rather than make it up) and most times it peer reviewed scientific papers. My goal has been to try to get folks to understand the science behind climate change which has been known for more than 100 years. I was amazed in a previous thread on how skeptics of climate change actually didn't understand how a literal greenhouse got warm inside (sorry I used a car on a warm day, but the principles are the same). or to make a statement that because CO2 is only .04% of the total atmosphere it couldn't have an effect (99% of the atmosphere is inert to IR). How can people participate in this discussion without the understanding the first principles of the science.. no this isn't some theory by grant grubbing scientists, this is our current understanding of physics.

I know that your position is that basic science is clear, but that actual amount of effect on the environment is up for debate and that you feel that before we resort to costly remedies, we should wait until the effects are better known.

The problem is as we waiting for more data, CO2 is going into the environment and I'm not aware of any known technology to get it back out on a massive scale except reforestation. In my personal life, I know steps to reduce CO2 are possible. I have enough solar panels on my house so that I'm a net producer of energy even after charging my electric car on a daily basis. Both my solar panels and car (Volt) had costs offset by government subsidies, which I think help people make better choices. My solar panels achieve financial break-even after 4 years. My boat has enough solar to to keep things running on sunny days, but yes I still fly in airplanes, and I still use diesel and gas fossil fuels (just less).

As for the data on temperature, I have learned a lot chasing Newhaul and other skeptics posts down to facts. I have learned that most of the CO2 to date is actually going into the oceans and most of the energy absorbed by the environment is going into the oceans as well. I have also learned that coal burning has actually retarded some of the warming effects due to aerosols emitted. So we are not yet actually seeing the full effects from the CO2 to date. But as the oceans warm, that CO2 will be released and as ice and snow melt the planet will warm even faster.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/ful...LI-D-17-0552.1

So I'm glad you are reading the science and learning more. I wish more would do so. It is easy path to dismiss things without actually understanding (sorry Newhaul, I don't accept your cooling theory without some actual facts).

Not to harp on the car glass / greenhouse thing, but it is the lack of ventilation and paint pigment that has the greatest effect on interior heat. Do feel free to post peer reviewed studies that dispute this.

And, just to be technical, the atmosphere can contain in excess of 4% of gases that absorb various bands of ir. Ironically, this occurs most often in tropical climates that also have A) more direct sunlight and B) the deepest trophosphere. And yet, heat extremes rarely, if ever, exceed those from higher latitude dry temperate regions. Weird or what?

Originally Posted by GordMay

Environment Canada releases the Top 10 weather stories of 2018.
From B.C. fires to flooding in New Brunswick, no region was spared from extreme events.

“... Weather changes in Canada are happening abruptly not subtly, rapidly not gradually. As Canadians continue to experience more and more extreme weather, intense month-long heat waves, suffocating smoke and haze from wildfires, and extreme flooding will simply be the norm mere decades from now. Events that were once rare or unusual for our grandparents are now more commonplace, while we all become more vulnerable due to extreme weather. As the Top Ten Weather Stories of 2018 bear out, Canadians must become more resilient—not only for what lies ahead but also for the variations in climate, which are already here.
This year featured extreme and impactful weather events that caused costly damage across the country...”

1. Record wildfires and smoky skies
9. Record cold start to a long winter

More ➥ https://www.canada.ca/en/environment...ries/2018.html

How's Siberia doing?