Rime to move top Abby.
Cheers

Yes, I predict this weather pattern through out the winter. It will try to turn winter for a week, then turn back to fall weather. It will rain in every month through out the winter.

That’s what climate change has done to our winters!

At least we can breath this air not like last week

People: “That’s what climate change has done to our winters!”

You say that as if climate change is something new.

I love winter :)

According to aboriginal legend, the climate used to be much different in the 1600s.

If they had only wrote that stuff down…..

gus: how was it different? Warmer or colder?

It was colder – not only colder than now, but colder than many centuries before that.

Actually it was colder by 1C over the previous warm period between 900 and 1200AD. That is a significant difference.

Between 1580 to 1600, the west of North America had one of its longest and most severe droughts since then.

Think bigger! Environmental scientists have been using more than direct measurements to determine presence of climate change. These scientists have been using historic archives the world over, and specific to Canada, historic journals dating back to the 1600 – 1800s.

I am of course referring to the Northwest Fur Trading Company and the Hudson Bay Fur Trading Company journals. The Chief Factors heading these fur trading posts, across what would eventually become Canada, wrote daily entries in these journals that regularly included comments about the weather (and the severe winters).

Think bigger… environmental scientists have been using ancient art (egyptian, and even older) like cave drawings going back to near prehistoric times) to make determinations and draw conclusions about weather buy the types of animals included in that art.

Think bigger.. environmental scientist’s use of archaeological evidence is very common, digging down just one foot can put you 1,000 years into the past where they are able to determine the type of foliage and plants that were present back then, which gives indications as to the type of climate that was present.

I suggest you read “Archives and the Environmental Scientist” by A.J.W. Catchpole and D.W. Moodie.

Think BIGGER!!!

You are not thinking big enough.

Here is a run down of the many ways Paleoclimatologists determine past climates based on proxy indicators.

• study of rock isotopic ratios, ice core bubbles, deep sea sediments, etc.

• the study of tree rings

• study of plant types and prevalence from pollen found in sediments, ice, rocks, caves, etc.
====================================

BTW, the last time the earth was as warm as it is now was around 1,400 years ago.

Astounding, eh what …..

• study of lake varves

• study of coral bed rings

• study of fossils

• study of historical documents, paintings, evidence of civilizations, etc.

Huh?

For example, in Europe the years between 21 and 80 AD were likely warmer than the period 1971-2000.

source =
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130422101313.htm

From the above, the predictions for today

“Mostly sunny with northerly winds at 30 km/h gusting to 50. The temperature falling to zero by this afternoon.”

It is 9:30 pm and the temperature is hovering between 1 and 2C at the airport.

So much for short term weather reporting. :-)

How about the 1930’s. The sun after a period of high activity is entering a period of low activity. Going to get chilly.

Are you seamut or seamutt?

Ahhh… now we are on the right track. None of us are expert environmental scientists or climatologists, and it amazes me how many specialty areas of health, science, engineering, etc. there are out there, with each area having their own experts.

None of us would question a heart specialist if he/she were to tell us we were in danger of an acute myocardial infarction due to cholesterol build-up in our arteries. We may get a second opinion, but would generally believe those experts.

So why is it that some of us, with no more than a grade 12 education question the assertions experts in the field of environmental science, or climatology? To actually think that we know more about climate and environment than these scientists is nothing more than hubristic folly.

The dust bowl followed many years of more than normal rain. While there was a draught, the farming methods used made matters worse. Thus, the lack of precipitation was natural while the addition of man-made poor land management made matters worse.

Not that unusual, is it?

“So why is it that some of us, with no more than a grade 12 education question the assertions experts in the field of environmental science, or climatology”

Simple, like the scientists who study the functions of various systems of the human body and their integrated workings (Remember, doctors are not scientists, like engineers, foresters, etc., they merely apply what researchers tell them) paleoclimatologists have knowledge of WHAT happened, but fail to know exactly WHY it happened.

I think there is still no agreement of whether CO2 increases will decrease or increase the temperature of the earth.

BTW, whatever happened to the ozone layer scare?

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/snow-blizzards-early-winter-in-europe-uk-met-office-says-horror-winter-predictions-are-irresponsible/

People follow the money. Those promoting the AGW are making a lot of money promoting the scam. Gore, Suzuki, Mann, Hanson even weaver. Does that not make you wonder just a little bit? Then you take the many hundreds of billions university’s have sucked up and still no one has proof of CAGW let alone AGW. The general population is starting to see through the scam and people and institutions are running scared. Will be interesting to see if there will be fraud charges.

Here is a good read on cholesterol and climate sciencehttp://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/catalyst-says-consensus-wrong-on-cholesterol-but-unquestionable-on-climate/

I am not discounting the vast amount of knowledge, and experience gus, seamut, JB and a couple of others have
acquired in the area of climate science…but…

I have to go with 98% of climate scientists and the National Aeronautical Space Association (NASA) who assert that the world is warming and that warming is largely caused by human activity (anthropogenic).

Actually, it was a no brainer choice, going with an agency that has sent man to the moon and back on multiple occasions! :-)

oops, that would be administration not association.

If I were some of you, I would go to their website and set them straight about their misconceptions on climate change. Here let me help you:

http://climate.nasa.gov

People#1, obviously you are extremely concerned about global warming. I’m wondering if you have taken the time or made any effort to contact our illustrious and highly regarded David Suzuki, highly regarded by some, but not all, including me!

David Suzuki and others like him (think Al Gore) are multimillionaires living the multimillionaire lifestyle. They own several homes, 4 in the case of Mr. Suzuki). They consume huge amounts of energy to power and heat their homes. They also enjoy jet travel to many destinations around the globe, going to places that most of us will never have the opportunity to visit. I’m sure that all of this travel consumes a huge amount of energy.

I would be more than willing to compare my personal carbon footprint to that of David Suzuki or Al Gore! I’d be willing to bet an entire year of my meager earnings to a year of their meager(?) earnings that I have the smaller carbon footprint!

People#1, if you haven’t already figured it out, my point is that you might be more successful in your fight to end global warming if you were to focus your energy on getting David Suzuki and Al Gore to reduce their carbon footprints!

Just a thought!!

By the way, you seem to always be on this site and always with something to say. Do you operate your computer (made out of fossil fuel products) on electrical power generated with solar power or are you pedaling a stationary bike to generate the power that you need to operate your compute and troll this site??

Seamut or seamutt …. everything in this world is a scam ….

you know which is the biggest one in my mind?

Religion!!!

Yet there are a lot of people who are helped by religion as well as a lot of people hurt by it.

I am not the one to try to change that. People believe many things. That is because people have the capacity to believe.

Some people get rich, others do not. It is the way of the world.

Time to move on.

As far as Suzuki goes, you have to remember that he has some very successful TV shows that had/have absolutely nothing to do with Global Warming.
=======================================

Here is the kind of stuff that made Al Gore “rich” again after failing to get elected as president.

“Gore has leveraged his connections to make investments in technology and media that paid off.

“Earlier this year, he exercised options on 59,000 shares of the Apple stock he received for serving on the company’s board since 2003. Those shares, Bloomberg reports, are part of the 101,358 Apple options and restricted stock shares Gore had acquired, coming to a gross value of more than $45.6 million.

“When Current TV, the network Gore helped found, was sold to Al-Jazeera in January, the former vice president made an estimated $100 million.”

These people have other lives.

Gores fortune has many relationships with his promoting the scam as does Weaver. Follow the money. Gus you seem competent in web searching, look for the ties same with you peaple#1. No one I repeat no one has proof c02 is causing temp. rise.

That idea 98% of scientists believe was debunked long ago. That was a cherry picked survey. What about the 31,000 physicists that signed a petition against CAGW. That 98% was only 47 scientist I believe.

Peaple #1 don’t call me names instead try to refute this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

Hart Guy states; “People#1, if you haven’t already figured it out, my point is that you might be more successful in your fight to end global warming if you were to focus your energy on getting David Suzuki and Al Gore to reduce their carbon footprints!”

Wow…now why would I want to get these two people to reduce their carbon footprint when that footprint equal less than 1 second of Alberta Tar Sands emissions?

The Alberta Tar Sands is the largest project emitter of GHG on the planet. Question: Do you think limiting the expansion of the Tar Sands would have a “measurable” effect on global warming? Regardless of whether you answer yes or no, changing the traveling habits of one or two people would not significantly global warming on a planetary scale… the idea that it would is ridiculous!

http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/climate

Rather, the most significant way the average Canadian can reduce climate change and global warming is by not voting for the Conservative Party of Canada in the next election. Stop voting for a political party that does not even believe our planet is warming!

Gore wants to save the world at 100,000$ a speach. Suzuki wants to save the world at something like $40,000 a speach plus young pretty girl body guards. Oh they also resist debate.

Yep they live a rich 1st class lifestyle along with ignorant rich greenie Hollywood stars and wish to deny the rest of us their lifestyle if capable. Does anyone see any of these two faced people giving up their lifestyle to so call save the world. How about spending their fortunes to buy less fortunate people efficient heating systems or more efficient cars that they rave about.

So peaple#1 just how much GHG does the oil sands emit compared to total world wide ghg, natural and anthropogenic?

How much CO2 is natural, how much man made?

Will you answer or ignore?

Oh here is how green money is used to fight climate change, as if climate has never changed before evil manhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/27/long-green/#more-96352

“No one I repeat no one has proof c02 is causing temp. rise”

Difficult to prove. They are theories like most everything else.

No one has proof that the PM knew about the rogue senators either.

If we can’t even prove that, we are really not very good a proving anything, are we?

The great Harper deniers versus he great senator deniers.

This debate is endless and, as far as I am concerned it does not matter. All we know is that the temperature of the world has been rising faster lately than for many centuries.

So what if it has not been rising for this year or 5 years or even 10 years. That does not show a trend yet.

weather forecast for the past overnight.

“Clear with fog patches overnight. Winds north 20 km/h, then diminishing overnight. Here’s where the pumpkin comes in: Low minus 12.”

Currently -4C …. has not gotten anywhere near -12C

Sky is clear as a bell from where I am in the bowl.

So much for accurate weather predictions in the Central Plateau of BC.

Forecast was for -8 tonight on weather network since at least 8pm last night. We are currently at -6 by the little weather guy on my screen. My thermostat (electronic inside/outside) shows -5.5 but the sensor is 2 meters from my outside wall so could be a little bit off. Degrees are Celcius.

Forecast for tonight is -7 and a high of 2 for this afternoon

Meteorologists are notorious for being wrong, good thing they aren’t climate scientists

Climate is continually changing.

If it is changing to the point that it will affect the daily weather, then we need to:

1. be prepared for that …. that is the first and most important thing as far as I am concerned.

2. figure out why it is changing. If it can be proven that we are causing it, then we should do something about that as well.

As far as what we spend money on.

We are going to be forced to spend money on providing a community storm water system based on the amount of precipitation onto our properties.

The City cannot prove how much of that water that falls onto my property hits the City system before it percolates into the ground.

Probably the most important indicator of what that might be is the type of “soil” that a house sits on. In the bowl area, most houses sit pretty close to gravel and other porous materials. In the case of CH, pineview. etc. most sit on clay and they have their own cracking and flooded basements to deal with.

So, another scam!!!

The world is full of scams ….. and many of the scammers are not aware they are scamming.

Got news. If they do no know what they are talking about and just believe in what they are talking about, they are actually not scamming!!

I use the weather network. It shows -5C at the airport now …. so could still be dropping.

Is someone who campaigns on the notion that he/she can save 10% in spending at City Hall scamming us to get elected on that platform. Or are they just stupid enough to actually believe that he/she will be able to do that?

Who are the tax reduction deniers? Who are the skeptics?

Let us call a scam a scam when we know it is one.

“Global GHG emissions due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70% between 1970 and 2004 (Figure SPM.3).[5] {2.1}

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000. {2.1}

Global atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years. {2.2}

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379ppm) and CH4 (1774ppb) in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO2 concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH4 concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. CH4 growth rates have declined since the early 1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being nearly constant during this period. The increase in N2O concentration is primarily due to agriculture. {2.2}

There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.[6] {2.2}”

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

Incidentally, the IPCC report quoted above was the 2007 report. The “very high confidence” that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been on of warming.” was at 92% in 2007.

After a further six (6) years of study, this year’s ICCP report raises the confidence to 95%. So the ICCP is even more confident than in 2007 that human activities since 1750 has been one of warming.

People#1, in all of your usual lengthy, you failed to answer my question:

Do you operate your computer (made out of fossil fuel products) on electrical power generated with solar power or are you pedaling a stationary bike to generate the power that you need to operate your compute and troll this site??

While I’m at it, perhaps you can let us know if you drive a fossil fuel powered vehicle and do you burn fossil fuel in your home furnace?

Sounds a bit hypocritical to me! Blah, Blah, Blah, self appointed expert on everything!

Oops, People #1, should read “in all of your usual lengthy diatribe, you failed to answer my question:

Oops, People #1, should read “in all of your usual lengthy diatribe, you failed to answer my question:

In my previous post, I stated what the average Canadian can do to help stop global warming. Stop voting for a BIG OIL puppet government.

I did not say stop using computers, stop driving Internal Combustion Engines (ICEs). Just take one step at a time, voting in a responsible government that will set us on a course where we gradually move away from fossil fuel reliance and towards a more environmentally friendly and sustainable future is a huge start.

People: “I stated what the average Canadian can do to help stop global warming. Stop voting for a BIG OIL puppet government.”

You say that as if any other government would somehow change the tide of climate change, which has been going on as long as the earth has been here.

Let’s be honest, your statement above is about your general obsession and hatred of all things Harper, and has nothing to do with climate change or global warming, or whatever you want to call it.

No matter what you say, any other government would recognize that the earth is getting warmer, any other government would walk more in step with the majority of other countries and re-join the Kyoto Protocol.

Any other government would at least meet it’s own GHG emission targets and not missing them by 20%. I could go on and on, but the evidence is overwhelmingly against the current government. Our current government is dragging us back to the fossil age, a place with no future for our children and their children.

See you later “conspiracy theorist” JohnneyBelt.

The Kyoto protocol was a joke and Canada did well by getting out of it. It would have ended up being a massive tax grab (and who doesn’t love MORE taxes?) and the climate would have kept on changing regardless.