• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Heat dome moves toward Alberta after shattering temperature records in B.C., N.W.T.

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
GHG and everything else that determines temperature.



It's not out of control. The warming trend is two centuries old, and modest.

There is no emergency and most of the factors are beyond our control; adaptation must serve. People care more about their environment when they live prosperous, comfortable lives; prosperous, comfortable lives are easier when energy is abundant and inexpensive.
NASA seems to disagree with the idea that this has happened slowly over 2 centuries. Looks to me like it’s happened rapidly since ~1970
NASA Global Temperature link
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
And what happened in the 30's with the locust plagues and dust bowl differed from today's weather how??? They really don't know what caused it then and they really don't know what is causing it know. But attributing it to a 150 ppm CO2 increase is simplistic at best if not pure speculation based upon a GIGO(maybe) computer programme.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,652
Points
910
And what happened in the 30's with the locust plagues and dust bowl differed from today's weather how??? They really don't know what caused it then and they really don't know what is causing it know. But attributing it to a 150 ppm CO2 increase is simplistic at best if not pure speculation based upon a GIGO(maybe) computer programme.
The dust bowl was caused by drought and poor farming practices. Farmers tilled the soil destroying the prairie grass that held that soil in place. The soil dried out under the heat and the wind blew the dust everywhere - as far as NYC.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
NASA seems to disagree with the idea that this has happened slowly over 2 centuries

Those data do not represent two centuries. (And note that the zero point for any "anomaly" is arbitrary; there is no particular reason to favour any point, nor is there - or is there likely to be - an explanation of what an optimum zero point should be.) The warming trend we currently are in started after the abnormally low temperatures experienced around the turn of the 19th century.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
They really don't know what caused it then and they really don't know what is causing it know. But attributing it to a 150 ppm CO2 increase is simplistic at best if not pure speculation based upon a GIGO(maybe) computer programme.
That’s just not true. Scientists know what’s causing it, it’s humans. It’s just inconvenient.
NASA Global Warming
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
702
Points
940
Unpopular opinion: global warming is not man made,it is human accelerated though to an extent. We have to factor in as well that the Ozone layer has been healing considerably in the past 20 years which has shifted global wind patterns. There are more natural factors at play then human ones in climate change.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
I agree that humans cause CO2 to increase. I agree that increased CO2 contributes to increased heat retention. I disagree that it is the only piece in play. Contemporary climate science theory is weak. One day I expect it will be in the first chapter of textbooks occupying the same place as geocentricity, phlogiston, and luminiferous ether.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
Those data do not represent two centuries. (And note that the zero point for any "anomaly" is arbitrary; there is no particular reason to favour any point, nor is there - or is there likely to be - an explanation of what an optimum zero point should be.) The warming trend we currently are in started after the abnormally low temperatures experienced around the turn of the 19th century.
Apparently there isn’t sufficient data to predict a global temperature prior to 1880
NASA why does the chart start at 1880
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
I agree that humans cause CO2 to increase. I agree that increased CO2 contributes to increased heat retention. I disagree that it is the only piece in play. Contemporary climate science theory is weak. One day I expect it will be in the first chapter of textbooks occupying the same place as geocentricity, phlogiston, and luminiferous ether.
The human element the only part we can control. You would rather we give up because a volcano put something into the atmosphere?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
Clearly you don't get one of the points. There aren't enough data, let alone one set good enough on which to base policy decisions. The NASA data you cling to aren't truth written on stone tablets.

Sure, we can mitigate what is under our control. But everything has an opportunity cost. I'm past debating what might do some good and just to stop circling around fly shit in pepper will stipulate in advance that almost anything might do some good; the important discussion is what it costs and what we miss being able to do by spending on any particular thing. We can expend a great deal of resources to little effect and end up making things worse when people compensate for what they were denied. In Canada, for example, we could make it difficult to heat homes with natural gas and see a sudden proliferation of fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. As the plumes of smoke rise into the air, will we think we have improved matters?
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,236
Points
1,010
Clearly you don't get one of the points. There aren't enough data, let alone one set good enough on which to base policy decisions. The NASA data you cling to aren't truth written on stone tablets.

Sure, we can mitigate what is under our control. But everything has an opportunity cost. I'm past debating what might do some good and just to stop circling around fly shit in pepper will stipulate in advance that almost anything might do some good; the important discussion is what it costs and what we miss being able to do by spending on any particular thing. We can expend a great deal of resources to little effect and end up making things worse when people compensate for what they were denied. In Canada, for example, we could make it difficult to heat homes with natural gas and see a sudden proliferation of fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. As the plumes of smoke rise into the air, will we think we have improved matters?
I was posted to a Base down east in the early 2000's. We had a controlled burn program every summer that enabled trg. One of my jobs was to meet with and explain the program to a completely cynical group who lived in a local village. They constantly bitched about the effects of the smoke on their quality of life, and how it was contributing to the pollution.

I was taken aside by the Base Environmental Officer, who lived in the village, and given the data he had amassed. Most of the villagers had a wood-burning stove, and ran it constantly from Nov thru Mar. Based on his assessment, the village was generating about 1000 times more pollution annually than we at the Base did during our controlled burn. But it was useless to bring this up to them, they were strong in their convictions, and righteous in their cause.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,416
Points
1,060
I was posted to a Base down east in the early 2000's. We had a controlled burn program every summer that enabled trg. One of my jobs was to meet with and explain the program to a completely cynical group who lived in a local village. They constantly bitched about the effects of the smoke on their quality of life, and how it was contributing to the pollution.

I was taken aside by the Base Environmental Officer, who lived in the village, and given the data he had amassed. Most of the villagers had a wood-burning stove, and ran it constantly from Nov thru Mar. Based on his assessment, the village was generating about 1000 times more pollution annually than we at the Base did during our controlled burn. But it was useless to bring this up to them, they were strong in their convictions, and righteous in their cause.

You have just described much of the Okanagan. In the winter time I expected it to be sunny but, with the wood burning stoves and evaporation from the lakes it was always cloudy and overcast.

After the huge fires in 2003 that nearly consumed Kelowna, they finally were able to change alot of that.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
Clearly you don't get one of the points. There aren't enough data, let alone one set good enough on which to base policy decisions. The NASA data you cling to aren't truth written on stone tablets.

Sure, we can mitigate what is under our control. But everything has an opportunity cost. I'm past debating what might do some good and just to stop circling around fly shit in pepper will stipulate in advance that almost anything might do some good; the important discussion is what it costs and what we miss being able to do by spending on any particular thing. We can expend a great deal of resources to little effect and end up making things worse when people compensate for what they were denied. In Canada, for example, we could make it difficult to heat homes with natural gas and see a sudden proliferation of fireplaces and wood-burning stoves. As the plumes of smoke rise into the air, will we think we have improved matters?
Do you have any legitimate references to back this up? Maybe a more reliable source than NASA?
If I understand correctly, your hypothesis is that 95% of the world’s scientists- people with credentials who study this for a living- are incorrect and we just need to do nothing for 59 more years and see what happens? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,236
Points
1,010
Do you have any legitimate references to back this up? Maybe a more reliable source than NASA?
If I understand correctly, your hypothesis is that 95% of the world’s scientists- people with credentials who study this for a living- are incorrect and we just need to do nothing for 59 more years and see what happens? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
You are missing his point. Blinded by the light.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
Do you have any legitimate references to back this up? Maybe a more reliable source than NASA?
If I understand correctly, your hypothesis is that 95% of the world’s scientists- people with credentials who study this for a living- are incorrect and we just need to do nothing for 59 more years and see what happens? Do you have anything at all to back this up?
you have definitely swallowed the koolaid. If you can, name a single significant prediction made by any of the climate group that has actually come to pass. And the 95% of all scientists is probably the biggest lie being told.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
you have definitely swallowed the koolaid. If you can, name a single significant prediction made by any of the climate group that has actually come to pass. And the 95% of all scientists is probably the biggest lie being told.
Do you have a source for that? This isn’t Fox News, you can’t just spew stuff and expect me to believe it.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
960
Points
910
Do you have any legitimate references to back this up?

What points are you finding difficult to follow or accept?

"95% of scientists" - what is that supposed to mean? To which "9x% of scientists agree..." claim are you referring?
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
586
Points
910
What points are you finding difficult to follow or accept?

"95% of scientists" - what is that supposed to mean? To which "9x% of scientists agree..." claim are you referring?
It’s not 95%. It’s more 97-98%. As determined by a credible, published source.


Climate change is real. It’s time people accept it and stop burying their heads hoping they won’t have to change behaviours. My opinion is that people are reticent to accept climate change for selfish reasons (don’t want to give up their luxuries). The Earth will survive climate change regardless. The human race? Probably not.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
Do you have a source for that? This isn’t Fox News, you can’t just spew stuff and expect me to believe it.
Here is a quick summation courtesy of WUWT. It is not the most unbiased source I will admit but each item is verifiable by identifying the original prediction and looking up the current statistic. And one more thing, the polar bears are alive and doing just fine. Global Warming 33 Year Birthday a Celebration of Failures
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
151
Points
610
Here is a quick summation courtesy of WUWT. It is not the most unbiased source I will admit but each item is verifiable by identifying the original prediction and looking up the current statistic. And one more thing, the polar bears are alive and doing just fine. Global Warming 33 Year Birthday a Celebration of Failures
Their whole premise is that the whole thing is a farce because the global temperature has ‘only’ risen 0.5 degrees since 1988. The whole idea is ridiculous.
 
Top