Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Simonsays

where was Calgary again, and why is that location not cherry picked?

Here is the correct chart for 1950
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...95013?products[]=map-land-sfc-mntp&products[]=map-blended-mntp&products[]=map-prcp&products[]=map-percentile-mntp&products[]=map-percentile-prcp&products[]=map-prcp-percent
It doesn't look like cherry picking to me looks more like the entire north was cold that year.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

You do realize my comment was in response to Stu's assertion.



That is well within the time frame of the Vostok ice cores.

The last time atmospheric CO2 was at 400 parts per million was during the ancient Pliocene Era, three to five million years ago.

True as long as you rely just on ice core data and assume that the gas composition in bubbles can be related to a short period of time (bear in mind that air migrates and mixed through the firn layer for up to hundreds of years before being locked in).

If you look at plant stomata, you get a very different picture (which is probably why you hear so little about it).

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

* * *

Already asked Exile, but since you bring it up also, I'll ask you too, "How many Californian rivers are dam-free?"

Sorry for missing your question Jim, but I assumed it was a rhetorical one intended to make the point that all of the rivers in Cali. have dams on them. That should't be a surprise to anyone, but not sure how that pertains to the lack of additional needed water storage and run-off capture, much of which is attributable to what many believe is overzealous environmentalism.

I think the one who needs to read some California history is you. And maybe also work on your expository skills. The only ridiculous points being made are by you in calling 60 years or 500 years 'always', and suggesting climate change is caused by megafauna flatulence.

And there's no need to distort or misquote my point. The climate of California is variable now and has been for a long time. if you want to educate yourself, here's a re-link to a paper about recent variations: http://cepsym.org/Sympro2009/Malamud-Roam.pdf (hint: you might find the answer to your facetiously silly question there)

I'm sure an enquiring mind like yours can find many more relevant works with a little effort...

Science is rarely 'settled'; as more information is gathered and tested, paradigms change. Hence, now (most of us) believe the earth is an oblate spheroid that circles the sun (not so 450 or so years ago), that life forms are not fixed, but change over time (not so roughly 150 years ago, except by the illiterate and ungrateful half of Americans [and others] who don't understand evolution), that Newtonian gravity isn't relevant at the quantum level (roughly 100 years ago), and that the climate is not constant and is changed at a variable rate by a large variety of factors (150 years ago to now). Doesn't mean the 'old science' was bad, just that it wasn't complete...

I know you were primarily responding to Ken here.

My knowledge of S. Cali. history pretty much starts & ends with Richard Henry Dana's Two Years Before The Mast. As the book describes the 1840's anyway, there weren't many humans around except for some missionaries, traders, and indigenous people, and the climate was arid much like it is today with few native water sources. My understanding is that with so much population build-up since then, most of the water has had to be transported in from elsewhere as the population grew (like Las Vegas). The problem now is growing populations, extended drought, and in the minds of many, wasteful water policies.

In other words, I'm not seeing a very credible link to CC, nor do I understand how the current water problems in these areas relate to climate conditions from 100's or 1000's of years ago. It seems like the issue is more about 20th & 21st century human impacts, and how best to meet them without expending unnecessary amounts of water resources to do it.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Here is the correct chart for 1950
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-p...95013?products[]=map-land-sfc-mntp&products[]=map-blended-mntp&products[]=map-prcp&products[]=map-percentile-mntp&products[]=map-percentile-prcp&products[]=map-prcp-percent
It doesn't look like cherry picking to me looks more like the entire north was cold that year.

More to the point. Here's the charts for 1900,1910,1920,1930,1940, 1950 and 1960:











Spot the odd one out. There's only one with large blue dots all over Canada. And then tell me why 1950 is not a cherry picked for the start year on their alarmist report. And it's quite obvious from those charts that my two locations are not cherry picked or anomalous. They are in fact representative of the whole of Canada.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I like it.



All good questions. Wish I had all good answers . I'm pretty sure we'll haul for the winter. I don't think there are any liveaboards in Lewisporte, but I could be wrong. But we'll likely haul.

Now, what we will do over the winter is still a work in progress. Since our boat is our only home, we might try and rent a cheap, small cabin on The Rock, and winter nearby. Or we might do what we're doing this winter, which is to drive south via motorcycles (or car if we keep it ... don't really know).

I've also thought about house/pet sitting. Or maybe one of you fine folks who sail in warmer winter climes will need a boat sitter . Who knows...

The fun part of this life is, I really have no idea what I'm doing most of the time. All I can say for sure is that I'm driving to Big Bend today. Beyond that, all bets are off.

Ah, I love Big Bend. I'm usually there at least once/year riding motorcycles myself. Just don't expect a whole lot of internet access!

You threw me off being a full-time live aboard in the Toronto area (as I understand it), and assumed that meant living aboard through the Toronto winter. Too cold for me, but hats off to ya.

Couldn't agree more with your comments about the lifestyle.

"My future starts when I wake up every morning." -- Miles Davis

[StuM]

Heck, let's even take a look at the years around 1950:








Yep, pick just about ANY year before or around the cherry picked 1950 as a start point and that alarming Canadian warming disappears.

It's the same old story - the more you look into just about any alarmist claim, the more you realise how much spin is being applied, how much data is being distorted and how much we are being lied to by the same group of people.

When will the alarmist camp followers start to come to their senses?

[newhaul]

Stu I knew if I posted a beginning link you would run with it I just can't post the pictures from my WiFi connect like you can .

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

Heck, let's even take a look at the years around 1950:








Yep, pick just about ANY year before or around the cherry picked 1950 as a start point and that alarming Canadian warming disappears.

It's the same old story - the more you look into just about any alarmist claim, the more you realise how much spin is being applied, how much data is being distorted and how much we are being lied to by the same group of people.

When will the alarmist camp followers start to come to their senses?

^^^ This.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

Yep, pick just about ANY year before or around the cherry picked 1950 as a start point and that alarming Canadian warming disappears.

It's the same old story - the more you look into just about any alarmist claim, the more you realise how much spin is being applied, how much data is being distorted and how much we are being lied to by the same group of people.

When will the alarmist camp followers start to come to their senses?

It's absolutely confounding. And hard to believe it's not scrutinized to any credible degree. At a minimum in trying to demonstrate an avg. long-term trend, why not immediately throw out any significant anomalous years -- unduly cool or warm -- in performing your analysis? Reminds me of the recent quote from the Calif. Water Resources Board that claimed a negative impact from CC now, but in the very next sentence claimed CC could have a "potential" impact on weather events. Huh??

I suppose CC is nebulous enough that it can't be proven or disproven, convenient in that it blames mankind and its dominant socio-economic system, and appealing because its bogeyman is the fossil fuel industry who everyone loves to hate. Should CC be ultimately debunked, ya gotta wonder what the (next) narrative might be.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

It's absolutely confounding. And hard to believe it's not scrutinized to any credible degree. At a minimum in trying to demonstrate an avg. long-term trend, why not immediately throw out any significant anomalous years -- unduly cool or warm -- in performing your analysis? Reminds me of the recent quote from the Calif. Water Resources Board that claimed a negative impact from CC now, but in the very next sentence claimed CC could have a "potential" impact on weather events. Huh??

This case gets worse. Lets look at the end year they chose as well.
The report is dated 2014. It quotes the (IPCC 2013) and says it is "based primarily on literature published up to the end of 2012". So why did they stop at 2010 rather than 2011?





Couldn't possibly be because it was much warmer than 2008,2009 and 2011!

So they start with an extremely anomalous cold year and end with an extremely anomalous end warm year.

Yep, no cherry picking here, move right along.

[StuM]

Just to recap (or educate for those who are not familiar with it).
ENSO (EL Niño = Southern Oscillation) is a irregular periodic oscillation of pressures, winds, temperatures in the equatorial Pacific which has a profound effect on global temperatures. El Niño events lead to warmer temperatures and La Niña conditions lead to cooler temperatures. There is a lag of about 6 months between peak conditions and subsequent peak warming/cooling. So how do 1950 and 2010 shape up in this regard?

1950 - cool La Niña year, 2010 - warm El Niño year.

Yep, no cherry picking here, move right along.

[Reefmagnet]

You know, in the early days of the global warming scare, I was a believer. Then things just started not adding up. The stuff you've dug up is just such an example. My reasoning? If AGW was such a big threat, science is settled, 97% consensus deal then why the heck does this kind of continuous exaggeration and manipulation occur? I noticed this also just the other day when I followed some links from the "Everywhere is warming faster than everywhere else" link that this is propaganda of the highest order.

On another note, I visited my favourite weather forum today that I don't visit very often and discovered their climate change sub forum was shut down in 2013 due to name calling and perhaps even worse and the like. Seems cruisers are the best to debate this subject after all!

[StuM]

> If AGW was such a big threat, science is settled, 97% consensus deal then why the heck does this kind of continuous exaggeration and manipulation occur?

Exactly, that's where my skepticism came from too. With a background in physics, geology and applied mathematics too many of the claims just didn't ring true so I started examining them forensically. The more I found looked, the more skeptical I became. The "warming of Canada" is just another in a litany of such abuses.

[StuM]

OK, yet more distortions in this saga:

Jack quoted the report: "average temperatures over land increasing by 1.5°C
between 1950 and 2010 (Figure 1). This rate of warming is about double the global average reported over the same time period by Hartmann et al., (2013).

It turns out that Hartman et al,, (2013) is WG1, Chap 2 of IPCC 2013.
There is a lot of information in that Sect, but the closest in relevance is Table 2.4 which gives decadal global land surface temperatures for four different data sets for the period 1951-2012 including error ranges
So they are not "over the same time period". And we've already seen what a difference just one year makes to the start/end temperatures and the consequent linear trend.


But let's accept their exaggerated trend at face value.
Converting Hartman et al's decadal trends to a 60 year period, we get rises of anywhere between 0.828°C and 1.638°C .

So calling 1.5°C "nearly double" is a real stretch, they have to take the very bottom of the plausible range to get anywhere close to that. Taking the median of those data sets, the rise over their cherry picked start/end dates is only about 36% greater than the quoted global figure.

And if I were a cherry picker, I'd point out that if you take the upper end then Canada has warmed less than the rest of the world. But I'm not, so I won't )

[newhaul]

Iceland. At be loosing a glacier but its not man or cc that is doing it just like what is happening elsewhere
Bárdarbunga volcano (Central Iceland) - activity news /