Climate Change and Canada

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Noone has been even close to being a climate change denier in recent discussions. Your little outburst here is the closest thing I have seen in quite a while in fact with regards to putting some blinders on in the face of actual scientific discussion...

I'd you were under the impression that solar radiance was constant and has little to no effect on terrestrial climate then you will need to study up on that as well.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...an_sunclimate/

I am sorry this topic of discussion is far more scientifically complex than you had initially assumed it was, but I warned you about that a few pages ago.

Solar activity is "not" the only factor in climate, atmospheric concentrations of the various gasses are still hugely important, neither factor can, or should be ignored and must be understood to both be important variables in overall climate.

Sorry but it's not that cut and dry. SkydivePilot came on and basically blamed global warming entirely on solar radiation because the Russians (Putin and his oil oligarchy) claim that's all it is. Then others chime in to support him in the big circle jerk of doubt about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere.

What exasperates me is how so many on here pretend to be interested in science and evidence and yet at every opportunity they quote pseudo scientific studies and research that contradicts the vast majority of evidence. It's pretty clear at this point that many on here seem to only listen to the voices that support their own conservative, contrarian viewpoint that requires zero effort from them in the fight to counter climate change. It's easy, familiar, and reinforces their current lifestyle while in no way threatening the status quo.

[Infrequent Poster]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Sorry but it's not that cut and dry. SkydivePilot came on and basically blamed global warming entirely on solar radiation because the Russians (Putin and his oil oligarchy) claim that's all it is. Then others chime in to support him in the big circle jerk of doubt about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere.

What exasperates me is how so many on here pretend to be interested in science and evidence and yet at every opportunity they quote pseudo scientific studies and research that contradicts the vast majority of evidence. It's pretty clear at this point that many on here seem to only listen to the voices that support their own conservative, contrarian viewpoint that requires zero effort from them in the fight to counter climate change. It's easy, familiar, and reinforces their current lifestyle while in no way threatening the status quo.

Dont take this the wrong way, but you need to take a look in the mirror. In my opinion.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by koops65

After all the reading I have done on the subject, it seems Canada is one of the best places to be on the planet, more moisture, more warmth, longer growing season, and all that... If things go badly for the Earth, and the climate spirals out of control, we might find ourselves here in Canada under increasingly severe attempts by millions of environmental refugees from all over the world to immigrate whether we like it or not. But I'd rather things not get that bad...

There might be pressure to accept them, but I'd assume they're be much more likely to migrate to places like northern Europe and Russia.

Well, maybe we'd get Americans from the southern states..

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well, maybe we'd get Americans from the southern states..

Please, no, anything but that!

[Tropics]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Then others chime in to support him in the big circle jerk of doubt about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere.

About the only place that occurred was in your imagination. The reality is most people are in complete agreement that CO2 in an important factor in climate. That said it would be incorrect to suggest it is the only factor and avoid all mention of other variables that can also have an effect on climate.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Go to the 59 minute and listen to 1hr 6 minutes.
These two men have an important message regarding climate change and the current dogma. Check you bais at the door and just listen

Video Link

[eemy]

It's kind of an issue of not seeing the forest for the trees. Who the fuck cares whether there are other factors influencing climate change? There is one factor we as human beings directly control and that is dumping massive quantities of green house gases into the atmosphere. The reason we care isn't because we're sentimental and worry about little sparrows and trees, it's because it will suck for pretty much everyone of us. It's pretty much inevitable now that we've left a worse place for our children and that we are guaranteeing a worse future for them. How's that for a legacy?

[O-tacular]

Thought this merited a re-post on this thread.

Originally Posted by Procrastinational

Not sure why I bother... But you've asked these questions as if they are rhetorical. They are not.



In a nutshell, climate scientists break climate forcing into components. They can separate natural and anthropogenic components, and run models with and without the anthropogenic component. This basically tells them what the climate would have done in the absence of human interference, and also how much of the recent warming can be attributed to humans.




About 11,700 years ago.
http://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html



The sun is the biggest single driver of our climate. However, recent solar activity has been exceptionally low, while temperatures remain exceptionally high. Clearly there are other relevant factors.




Within reason (up to a degree or maybe a degree and a half), probably. However, current population distributions are based on the historic climate, so there will be a lot of displaced people.



The 30's and 40's globally were quite warm because of an extremely positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation. In other words, natural variation. In fact, 1944 was the hottest year on record globally until 1980.

The dust bowl was a combination of natural variation and very poor agricultural practices.


There's not much of a trend globally.

A lot of the studies I've read suggest fewer, but stronger storms. That is also expected for midlatitude cyclones.


Models being wrong is not the same as no warming. We obviously don't understand everything about the climate, and there are probably some variables we aren't taking into account. However more recently updated models accurately predict the slowdown/pause in warming.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Sorry but it's not that cut and dry. SkydivePilot came on and basically blamed global warming entirely on solar radiation because the Russians (Putin and his oil oligarchy) claim that's all it is. Then others chime in to support him in the big circle jerk of doubt about the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere.

What exasperates me is how so many on here pretend to be interested in science and evidence and yet at every opportunity they quote pseudo scientific studies and research that contradicts the vast majority of evidence. It's pretty clear at this point that many on here seem to only listen to the voices that support their own conservative, contrarian viewpoint that requires zero effort from them in the fight to counter climate change. It's easy, familiar, and reinforces their current lifestyle while in no way threatening the status quo.

No, no. Climate Change is a combination of many influences; however, we must not ignore the micro/meso/macro/meta scale influences of the sun - with regards to time and solar activity.

It would be so much easier to talk about this stuff over a beer.

[SkydivePilot]

Originally Posted by Tropics

Politicians generally have very little real knowledge of the actual science behind the talking points. Most of what they say is simply them parroting the things that a so called "expert" or two has told them. That is a big problem as most of the scientists who go out of their way to sit on the shoulder of a politician and whisper in their ear normally have their own agenda.

It would be nice if our politicians knew enough to think critically about what is said to them on this topic, but most of them have very little clue and are thus forced to have blind faith in what is told to them. Then they themselves parrot the information to the masses and a very bad cycle is created.

EXACTLY!!! Hear, hear.

[jawagord]

http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploa...imateCycle.pdf
It's the same cycle every summit

[Glacier]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

Thought this merited a re-post on this thread.

I notice that the natural vs. temperature graph stops 10 years ago. They do this because temperature and natural causes doesn't add up over the past 10 years.

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by Glacier

I notice that the natural vs. temperature graph stops 10 years ago. They do this because temperature and natural causes doesn't add up over the past 10 years.

Here's one that's more recently updated to somewhere around 2012. (How do I resize this?)

[lio45]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Please, no, anything but that!

I realize you guys are kidding, but surely you have noticed that what you are forecasting (i.e. people moving out of present day Miami to escape the climate of today's Miami by choosing to relocate into the Philly/Baltimore of today) isn't happening at all, if anything, it's the opposite what we're seeing.

Migration patterns within the US show that people right now generally prefer Miami (i.e. Alabama by the end of this century) to Philly (i.e. Montreal by the end of this century), not the other way around.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by lio45

I realize you guys are kidding, but surely you have noticed that what you are forecasting (i.e. people moving out of present day Miami to escape the climate of today's Miami by choosing to relocate into the Philly/Baltimore of today) isn't happening at all, if anything, it's the opposite what we're seeing.

Migration patterns within the US show that people right now generally prefer Miami (i.e. Alabama by the end of this century) to Philly (i.e. Montreal by the end of this century), not the other way around.

As the subheadline on this story about Miami reads, "the problem is the city is run by climate change deniers."

Honestly, pointing to Miami as some kind of example of what prudent and logical people are doing about climate change is pretty crazy.

[lio45]

You didn't understand what I was saying, which is, if the weather in Miami (approximately the warmest we can expect the currently Köppen Cfa Deep South to get by the end of the current century) is unpleasant enough at the moment to drive people away and into more agreeable climates like Philly, then why don't we see it in the migration patterns?

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by lio45

You didn't understand what I was saying, which is, if the weather in Miami (approximately the warmest we can expect the currently Köppen Cfa Deep South to get by the end of the current century) is unpleasant enough at the moment to drive people away and into more agreeable climates like Philly, then why don't we see it in the migration patterns?

WUWT has a funny article on how long it will take for Toronto's climate to become like Baltimore's, sorry hogtowners looks like you'll still be taking those winter vacations to Florida for a long while.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/2...opical-canada/

[Procrastinational]

Originally Posted by jawagord

WUWT has a funny article on how long it will take for Toronto's climate to become like Baltimore's, sorry hogtowners looks like you'll still be taking those winter vacations to Florida for a long while.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/2...opical-canada/

If anyone is curious as to what the models say about their city's weather...
This is a great site. http://climatewna.com/climatena_map/

You can click just about anywhere in North America, and it will give you present and historic climate normals, and it will give you output from three different models, for different emissions scenarios, for 2025, 2055, and 2085.

The CNRM-CN5 model seems to be the most realistic of the three. According to that one, under a high emission scenario, by 2085, Toronto will have a borderline humid subtropical climate.
By the Koppen criteria it will (no month with an average temperature below 0), but by the more modern Trewartha classification it will fall just short (7 months with a mean temp above 10, when 8 is required). Windsor on the other hand, will meet both criteria by 2085.

[Black Star]

Delete

[Migs]

Remain calm, the earth will heal itself.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe...service=mobile