Hight stream flow advisories in the middle of winter? Hmm… now where have we read that before?

While this story applies to the Terrace / Prince Rupert area, If you really want to find out how credible the UNBC / UVic Prince George climate change study is on increased stream flows during the winter for the Prince George area, you may want to look behind the scenes on why the City of PG wanted so badly to fund a dike system along lower river road.

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/eco_reserve/bednesti_er/climate_change_in_prince_george.pdf

The undisputed fact is almost every city is undertaking climate change mitigation measures to minimize the impacts of global warming. You may even find the City of Calgary (home to Big Oil Corporations) will be looking at climate change / global warming mitigation measures. Why would they want to go through the flooding impacts they had last year?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary-floods-spotlight-cities-costly-failure-to-plan-for-climate-change-1.1308429

Some examples:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/02/17/boston-preparing-for-higher-seas-more-flooding-from-climate-change/RJyczlbeDPUXx6wBjNDRsK/story.html

http://www.citywindsor.ca/residents/environment/environmental-master-plan/documents/windsor%20climate%20change%20adaptation%20plan.pdf

In the above City of Windsor’s executive summary, in their master plan, does that information look familiar to the UNBC / UVIC climate report for PG?

For those of you claiming the climate (winters) today are the same as they were 30 – 40 years ago, I have a question; If the climate is the same as it was 30-40 years ago, and there is no such thing as climate change / global warming, … then why are all these cities making plans to mitigate the effects of climate change / global warming?

That’s a lot of money and effort being wasted don’t you think? … sigh…

Kinda thought so but was hoping not…

“The undisputed fact is almost every city…”

That one little statement told me that someone has an agenda.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/insider-insights/articles/defining-the-january-thaw/19219/

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/january-thaw/

The dam spillway impacts the flow of water through the Nechako all times of the year, a release during a cold snap produces the ice jam situation we have had causing flooding in the area, that is why they raised the road and Stolz wanted to build a dike

“For those of you claiming the climate (winters) today are the same as they were 30 – 40 years ago, I have a question; If the climate is the same as it was 30-40 years ago, and there is no such thing as climate change / global warming” .. I think you are confusing the people who dispute the REASONS for climate change, NOT the fact that there is climate change. Who would dispute something that has been going on for 4 billion years? The climate hasn’t been changing or changed ONLY since humans have inhabited the earth. I think that is why we have had ice ages (more than one), mini ice ages (in the 1500s) and northern areas that once were like tropical rain forests. The climate changes all the time. But we puny humans are not the cause of climate change on this massive blue ball. If you think we can control the weather you are delusional.

What slinky said!

Huh states; “who would dispute something (climate change) that has been going on for 4 billion years?”

Under the “Reverse Warming Trend in Forecast”, January 13, 2014 1:22 pm Slinky states: “Note Jan has an average of 12.2 days above zero, and .16 days above 10 degrees. Rain and snow in the winter months is pretty normal around here.” No change since 2001.

Under the “Snow load, Coupled With Rain, Could Cause Trouble” story, January 12, 2014 8:49 pm seamut states; “So people how long have you lived in these parts? I have been here over 30 years and have seen this before. You really should check facts before typing. Just where do you get the idea January should be cold all the time?”

Apparently lots of people on this news blog dispute that the climate is changing Huh. Perhaps you should set them straight?

I dispute the fact that global warming is caused by humans and co2 emissions. Decaying plant matter accounts for more co2 than humans

People you are slowly getting it, climate changes and lots of evidence that it is cyclic.

I like this

““The common denominator of most environmental and climate science of the last 40 years is the determination to find a human cause for everything.”

It’s worse. Such elites as Maurice Strong who actually created the UN environmental organization that cooked up the IPCC, knew full well that the world is full of useful idiots who have no idea they are being manipulated. Lenin knew this and P.T. Barnum’s “..a sucker born every minute” is another iteration of the principle. These seemingly idealistic creations are really the work of deeply cynical and hateful few. The predisposed “useful” throngs, are vessels seeking fulfillment who plunge into the project.

Steve McIntyre estimated:

“In my opinion, most climate scientists on the Team would have been high school teachers in an earlier generation – if they were lucky. Many/most of them have degrees from minor universities. It’s much easier to picture people like Briffa or Jones as high school teachers than as Oxford dons of a generation ago. Or as minor officials in a municipal government.”

Huh; Carpenter; you guys are making a lot of sense. I totally agree. The carbon tax is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on us.

When famous Citizen-columnist-lefties like Todd Whitcombe are questioning the ‘revenue neutrality’ of the carbon tax, you know it hasn’t lived up to its billing.

They should have kept the HST and ditched the carbon tax.

Half of the scientist that were originally on IPCC have recanted there finding. Some of them had to threaten legal action if there names were not taken off the list. They were not happy at the made up facts and lies

Funny Carpenter; We have not heard about half the scientists on the IPCC recanting in the news or from any credible source, so please state your source!

The winters now are nothing like they were 40 years ago…we never used to get these warm spells in the winter. When it got warm we all knew it was Springtime.

People the IPCC has been backing off on their COMPUTER MODEL PROJECTIONS big time since the models have not matched real world data.. You have to catch up. I have tried to point you to that updated information in the recent past. You seem to believe science does not change as information is updated.

Half was an exaggeration. From the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ. The scientist himself.

Climate change has been happening for billions of years. Even beyond most of our memories!

People#1 you sure have a twisted way of reading things. Rain in the winter is normal, in fact it has rained in the winter since I have been residing here from the late 70s. During the Mardi Gras mini golf in 1979 (1980?) we had rain, got all the costumes wet and a super hot day the next where it was tough to keep the costumes on.

Nothing to do with your climate change argument just a comment on your ‘never used to rain in winters in PG’ where in fact it is quite normal to get both snow and rain from Nov-March

So tell me where I ‘dispute something (climate change) that has been going on for 4 billion years?’

Taken from Icecap.us

TIME Magazine recently denounced skeptics in an article entitled, “Polar Vortex: Climate Change Could Be the Cause of Record Cold Weather.” Bryan Walsh wrote,

“But not only does the cold spell not disprove climate change, it may well be that global warming could be making the occasional bout of extreme cold weather in the U.S. even more likely. Right now much of the U.S. is in the grip of a polar vortex, which is pretty much what it sounds like: a whirlwind of extremely cold, extremely dense air that forms near the poles.”

That would be, perhaps, an understandable explanation if TIME Magazine and other assorted leftist, agenda-driven journals had not already made claims to the contrary. In 1974, TIME Magazine, the same magazine that blamed the cold on global warming, blamed the cold on “global cooling.” In a June 24th, 1974, article entitled, “Another Ice Age?” the magazine claimed,
“Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds -the so-called circumpolar vortex – that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world.”

It’s not just TIME that cherry-picks their explanations for the cold streak; with the emergences of ‘’green” technologies and the billions of dollars being made in the field of advancing environmentally-friendly products and services, it is undeniable that there remains a strong motive for many to ensure that “global warming” or “climate change” not only exists, but that it is a man-made problem.

The industries behind “green” technology do serious business. Gaining money from government grants and guilty liberals, companies that claim to produce products that are less harmful to the environment have a vested interest in the preservation of the idea that global warming exists.

In fact, Al Gore, the guru of the environmental hysterics, allows liberals to assuage their guilt by selling “carbon credits,” modern day indulgences that the hummer-driving liberal can buy to try and offset their carbon footprint. Of course, the biggest beneficiaries of the carbon credits are those selling these environmental pardons, including Al Gore himself.

As scientists work to try and discover the truth behind the divisive issue, the left maintains a policy of intimidation by routinely discrediting skeptics as modern-day heretics. “Consensus science” now dominates the discussion surrounding global warming just as “consensus science” once dominated the discussion surrounding whether the sun rotated the Earth.

When the Earth experiences higher-than-normal temperatures, without fail, the left proclaims it as a result of global warming. When the Earth experiences the exact opposite, a plunging of temperatures, the left warns us that such cold weather is the result of global warming. More tornadoes in a given year, less tornadoes in a given year, more hurricanes, less hurricanes, all thanks to global warming.

However, having noticed this pattern of contradictory language, the left now seems to favor “climate change” as a means to encompass any slight variation in Earth’s conditions.

Global warming may be real and it may not be. If it does exist, we should try and discover if it is man-made or if it is a natural, cyclical pattern the Earth has seen long before man. However, we will never get to the bottom of the issue so long as the left attempts to maintain a stranglehold on the prevailing narrative. With the left hell-bent on tampering with the science behind Earth’s temperatures, the scientific method has been thoroughly contaminated.

So long as companies turn tremendous profits from selling products and services predicated on the notion that global warming is real, the “science” behind it will never be real science.
So long as researchers are dependent upon grants offered by those with a vested interest in proving the existence of man-made global warming, we will never be offered real, legitimately-obtained data extracted through the use of the scientific method.

So long as academia bullies and discredits the scientific heretics who dare to question the validity of the agenda-driven science, we will remain in the dark.

And until the left admits that the debate is far from “over,” we cannot have an honest discussion about global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever preferred term used to justify the increasingly-absurd, politically-charged narrative.

Talk about Climate change. Saw a small black Spider making his way up my exterior Basement wall this afternoon.Maybe he knows something I don’t

Ezra Levant has good piece on Fort Mcmurrey and those neanderthalls Neil young and Suzuki tonight.

The Sun News Network ? You pay extra for the Faux North News ?

In 1965 we got chinooks in this area, so what’s different than what happened today?
This week?
There is very little climate change.

seamut, I watched that piece on Fort Mac. I must have missed it, but did they show a picture of the aircraft that transported Young and Suzuki? I also heard that they had a helicopter tour of only what “they” wanted to see. Didn’t know that they had electric or hybrid helicopters yet!

I am so fed up with the likes of Suzuki and Young and their “Do as I say, not as I do” way of life! Young lives in California, the North American Mecca of automobile use, for crying out loud.

Think of how much less of a carbon foot print these clowns could have had, if they had just stayed home! I’m not sure about Neil Young, but in Suzuki’s case, he might have a problem deciding which of his 5 houses he should have stayed home in!

It’s ok for them to consume huge amounts of fossil fuel energy, but we’re supposed to walk to work??

15triman states; “And until the left admits that the debate is far from “over,” we cannot have an honest discussion about global warming, global cooling, climate change or whatever preferred term used to justify the increasingly-absurd, politically-charged narrative.”

Wow, I hope everyone realizes that science is about discovery and the pursuit of knowledge. It does not take sides politically. In fact, what doe politics even have to do with science?

Just he righty tights trying to politicize everything, including science and religion!

Hart Guy tonight’s episode.

People it is all about politics and money. Science was deep sixed a long time ago on climate research. You really have to keep up and expand your world and knowledge.

There is only one thing we need to do, to move away from an irreversibly warmer planet… stop voting for a global warming denying Conservative Party of canada.

Vote for any other party, just not Harper and his Conservatives. Doing this one thing will set canada on the right track and put us in step with the rest of the world.

Even Peru is doing more to help it’s poor AND lessen it’s effects on climate change… as Canadians we should truly be embarrassed, we can’t even meet our own self-imposed carbon reduction targets!

http://inhabitat.com/peru-solar-power-program-aims-to-give-electricity-to-the-countrys-2-million-poorest-citizens/

It’s all Harper’s fault … somehow.

Oh people what a closed mind.

You can argue climate change until you go insane.. To put things in perspective the whole northern hemisphere was once under 1km of ice and Prince George was a glacial lake. So yes climate change is happening but is man responsible for melting the 1km ice sheet 10 000 years ago?? Why is CO2 the enemy when there are more toxic gasses that we are pumping in the atmosphere?

It is a common Conservative theme, ignore global warming science, and if they can’t ignore the science, get rid of it. Works that way with environmental science for sure.

As this Harper Government moves away from science based polices and decisions, and towards ideological based policies and decision making, something has to be done about all that scientific research, data and facts that get in the way of ideological decisions making.

Can’t have environmental and Department of Fisheries & Oceans (DFO) scientific data dictating where, or if a pipeline should go.

Answer: destroy all DFO scientific research and data!

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/photos/yahoo-canada-news-editorial-cartoon-january-2014-1388678885-slideshow/editorial-cartoon-for-january-13-2014-by-gareth-lind-photo-1389622626575.html

People#1, I read your most recent post regarding Peru and I must admit that I am unable to make the connection between Peru assisting it’s poorest citizens AND Peru reducing it’s effects on climate change!

What I gleaned from the story was that Peru wishes to provide it’s poorest people with the ability to access electric lighting. These people, as the story indicates, lack even basic access to the power grid.

These people don’t have computers, electric appliances, air conditioners and the like. They don’t even have a simple light bulb! Rather than taking large and expensive measures to connect each home to the existing grid, Peru has chosen to instead put a simple solar panel on the roof of each of these impoverished domiciles in order to provide a basic light bulb!

This solution is relatively simple. Put a solar panel on the roof, run a wire down into the house, connect it to a battery and then connect a light bulb to the battery. Voila, the home now has a light bulb to use at night, instead of an oil lamp! Many of us already utilize something like this on the roof of our cabns and RV’s. In most cases, you can’t run a tv, air conditioner, or stove, but at least you are not sitting in the dark! Simple!

It seems like the global warming zealots will grasp at anything in their attempt to justify their position. I don’t believe for a second that Peru’s concern was for the environment. Rather, I suspect that Peru’s only concern was to provide a basic simple light bulb to their poorest people, instead of having them sit in the dark! I also suspect that their choice of solar panels had more to do with the ability to provide this basic service as quickly as possible and to as many as possible.

Global warming zealots fail to mention the amount of energy that is utilized to mine and produce the necessary raw materials required to produce the solar panels, the electrical wire, the batteries and even the lightbulbs! I wonder if Peru will be installing LED bulbs?

Global warming zealots also fail to mention the amount of energy that will be consumed producing these items, never mind the massive amounts of fossil fuels that will be consumed manufacturing these items, then shipping them to each and every single installation location. I suspect that this program will consume at least as much energy as what Al Gore, David Suzuki and Neil Young consume each year heating their numerous homes and flying all around the globe!

Once each of these impoverished families has a basic light bulb, I am sure that they will then, like all of us want more! More energy so that they can have a stove, a fridge, an air conditioner! Giving these poor people a light bulb will undoubtedly result in an increased demand from these people for more of the modern conveniences of the life that more affluent peoples enjoy. It seems possible to me that some global warming zealots would prefer to leave these poor people without electricity for fear that this program will lead to demands for more and more, which will result in higher consumption of consumer goods and energy. This program, from a global warming point of view might fly in the face of all that the Greens are hoping to accomplish!

You have posted this link as you feel that it suggests that Peru is doing this to lessen it’s impact on climate change. I suspect that it has little to do with climate change and more to do with getting poor people out of the dark!

Some people will hijack any story or any action to forward their agenda, but that’s just my opinion!

Hart Guy states: “This solution is relatively simple. Put a solar panel on the roof, run a wire down into the house, connect it to a battery and then connect a light bulb to the battery. Voila, the home now has a light bulb to use at night, instead of an oil lamp!”

Dude, you do realize that your quoted statement is exactly my point? Not only will Solar Panels off-set more expensive Oil / Kerosene lamp oil, it is also produces no GHG emissions.

Here let me help you understand, I am posting a research link on exactly this same subject, solar panel verse other forms of lighting energy in third world countries. Don’t bother reading all of the report, as I believe most of it is over your head. Rather concentrate figure 10 on page 12 of the following report titled: “Technical and Economic Performance Analysis of Kerosene Lamps and Alternative Approaches to Illumination in Developing Countries”

http://evanmills.lbl.gov/pubs/pdf/offgrid-lighting.pdf

Umm.. you do realize looking at the chart, that solar powered lighting is “zero” in CO2 emissions compared to over 250 kilograms emissions for a pressurized kerosene lamp (mantle).

The report further states: “Figure 10 presents the annual carbon- dioxide emissions for the various systems shown in Table 2. When compared to a typical grid-connected incandescent lamp, the solar-powered systems save approximately 80 kilograms CO2 per year per light source. (Many homes have more than one light source, 3 or 4 on average) When compared to kerosene hurricane lanterns, the solar-powered systems save 30 to 250 kg CO2/year, depending on the type of lantern.9”

Hart Guy, but this study shows that what a developing country Peru is doing, is saving money for over 2 million impoverished citizens and reducing GHG emissions substantially!

Hart guy you must have noticed by now these people, rabid warmers, are hopeless; unwilling to open their minds to a new thought or idea and quite content to believe they know it all without once ever really listening to the other side.

It was the same with plate tectonics. There was quite a rabid and vicious consensus in the scientific community that dispelled plate tectonic theory which evaporated over night when the satellite era proved the theory. Today satellites show no warming for 17 years 4 months.

It’s all about money and politics. Notice how we do not seem to get any so called climate scientists from the uni jumping in here. They know which side their bread is buttered. Integraty, not.

How much CO2 emission is giving off in the making of said solar panels people#1? I agree humans should pollute less but that won’t stop global warming.

Posted by: People#1 on January 13 2014 8:57 PM Wow, I hope everyone realizes that science is about discovery and the pursuit of knowledge. It does not take sides politically. In fact, what doe politics even have to do with science?
——————-

Wait a second – are you argueing against your own argument? The IPCC is all about the politics of change, that is why it was set up. It is even called the ‘Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. You can’t have multiple government involved without politics.

By the way never did answer my question on where I “dispute something (climate change) that has been going on for 4 billion years?” by correcting you on your ‘it never rains in Prince George in the winter but it will this year’ prediction?

Can’t argue with science!

http://www.ipcc.ch/news_and_events/docs/ar5/press_release_ar5_wgi_en.pdf

People the IPCC is a political organization only mandated to pull together anything that supports CAGW and ignore any natural causes of GW. I have been trying to get you to broaden your horizons but you seem to refuse for some reason. maybe your income depends on this Mann is cooking the world.

Anyhow I will try again. You really should read Donna laframbois blog to learn about the IPCC. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/

If you don’t it will just prove how narrow minded you are.

Hey I followed the warming cult when it started then my inquisitive mind realized something did not add up and I went looking for more information and wow did I find it.

People#1, my comments were to suggest that nowhere in your linked article did I read that Peru’s motivation was to reduce Green House Gas emissions!

Rather, many Peruvian’s live in poverty, without any access to even basic modern day conveniences such as electricity and the use of a lightbulb! As the terrain in much of Peru is mountainous and/or jungle covered, access to many parts of the country is difficult. I don’t believe for a moment that Peru’s motivation to use solar panels was driven by a burning desire to reduce Green House Gas emmissions. Rather, I believe that it was an economic and rational decision that was made in order to provide basic electricity (a light bulb) to as many of it’s impoverished people as quickly as possible. As I said above, installing a solar panel, battery and lightbulb can be done quickly in even the most remote of places. Far easier and less expensive than running transmission lines, transformers, etc in mountainous and jungle covered areas! That, in my opinion, was the rational behind the decision to use solar panels. It had little, if anything to do with reducing Green House Gas emissions.

You have posted your original link to support your eco-freak ideology! As I said, some people will hijack any situation to use it to their advantage.

If, and I say if, Peru’s motivation was to reduce Green House Gases as you suggest, then please explain why it has just been announced that “Peru ignores UN calls to suspend Amazon gas expansion”!

That just shot down your “Peru is trying to save the planet” arguement now, didn’t it!!

Since you are so fond of using massive amounts of electricity on your two computers to search the web for articles that suit your purpose, I have taken the liberty of posting the recent link regarding Peru’s gas expansion! Enjoy!!

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2014/jan/13/peru-amazon-forest-gas-expansion-un

Hart Guy; I posted the facts! When the Peruvian government replaces one (1) on kerosene / oil lamp per household with solar power, the CO2 savings will be 80 kg per year. As the study suggested, most households will have 3 or 4 kerosene lamps for a CO2 savings of up to 250 kg of CO2 per year.

You seem to be a bit confused, no matter what the motivation of the Peruvian government, the CO2 saving will still be there when they replace kerosene lamps with solar panels for over 2 million of their poorest people!

So this is what Peru is doing for it’s poor people, which will also have a direct reduction in their CO2 emissions… what is Canada doing???

Answer: Nothing, nada, zip, zilch!! This Harper Government has made Canada an international embarrassment when it comes to carbon emission reductions.

I am not a eco-freak, just stating facts that none of you seem to be able to refute, as usual.

Hart Guy; just to show you I am not an eco-freak, care to go another round on the subject of unions? Yeah, I thought not ;-)

People here about the cold weather in Peru. Did yo see my last post. Must have hit a nerve, I am being ignored. Happens when one can’t counter the fact.

Did you know coal fired generation just keeps climbing globally since wind and solar is not working out so well.

People#1, you seem completely unable to comprehend what I am saying!

I believe that Peru’s decision to install solar panels had nothing to do with a desire to reduce Green House Gas emissions! I believe that it was an economic and rational decision that would provide basic electicity to as many as possible as quickly as possible. If this decision will also reduce the amount of oil consumed, so be it, but that was not the motivation behind the decision!

No comment from you regarding the link that I provided? Why not?? Surely a know-it-all like you must have some response! Your silence is rather embarrassing!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/california-solar-energy-doubled_n_4570432.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-24/wal-mart-now-has-more-solar-than-38-u-s-states-drink-.html

These two links are just a small sample of how progressive the US is when it comes to implementing clean green solar power initiatives.

Here in Canada we have a Big Oil & Gas run government that refuses to look at clean green energy options, they rightfully fear less demand for their fossil fuel products.

Clean green energy is the future, and fossil fuels will become history, it simply does not matter who posts what on this discussion board. 50 years from now we will see who is on the right side of history, my bet is on clean, green renewable energy.

People#1, funny how you completely ignore any questions that are contradictory to your opinion. You still haven’t answered my question, but you seldom do!

Your comments are a complete waste of valuable electrical energy!!

Have to go to work now, but I’ll be sure to check back for your attack on me!

Solar panels…hmm

To make 1 sq meter of pv solar panel you expel between 75kg and 315kg of co2 into the air per active year of its lifespan.

Assuming 1 panel per house, best case scenario if there are 3 oil lamps expelling 250kg of co2 the replacement could be less 75 to 315kg of co2 or best case scenario saving 175kg of co2 per year to worst case expelling 65kg more per year. Middle ground is saving 100kg co2 per year per house less the manufacture of the batteries – AND also assumes that they stop using the oil lamps altogether.

What it boils down to is saying 250kg per year in less co2 per household is a nice ‘warm and fuzzy’ thing but not the reality of the situation. More than likely as HartGuy suggested a savings in running transmission lines and transformers to each dwelling.

These guys go over the other nasty stuff used in making a solar panels http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=30242

Or how about this article from Yale environmental studies on NF3 http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2085 which has the headline “How do you respond to news that it (your solar panel) was manufactured with a chemical that is 17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide as a cause of global warming?”

Hart Guy states; “I believe that Peru’s decision to install solar panels had nothing to do with a desire to reduce Green House Gas emissions! “

I counter your statement with the following evidence:

“Peru outlined voluntary targets to reduce net deforestation to zero by 2021 and increase renewable energy to at least 33% of the total energy use by 2020. Deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon is about 47% of Peru’s emissions, with agriculture accounting for 19% and energy consumption accounting for 21% of their emissions. We look forward to more details emerging on the steps that they are taking to meet these objectives.”

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jschmidt/developing_countries_outlined.htm

Aren’t you tired of being wrong all the time Hart Guy? I suggest you “tap-out” on this subject… you are in way over your head ;-)

Speaking of weird weather, I am thinking about going for walks for exercise, does anyone know any stores that are selling gum boots (rubber boots) in the middle of winter?

I need to dress for the spring weather we are having, and those puddles are huge!