Global Warming WTF??

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Forget about Chuck - he is mentally dysfunctional - Big snow storm heading for Calgary and southern Alberta.

Yes, but we all know that this snow storm is not only much more likely but also much more intense due to global warming.

[chuckChuck]

I think you completely missed the context of your article from which I quoted. The premise being that the cost to the Canadian economy of the Carbon tax payed by Canadians would be offset by less economic damage due to climate change. I then posted a link from Stanford University predicting that Canada's economy stands to benefit massively from climate change. So by mitigating future climate change, we are actually lowering our own future economic ability to pay for said CO2 tax.

This context isn't about worldwide impacts, the article was about the effect on Canada's economy.

Interesting graphic. So you believe human caused climate change is real? Yes or No?

Di you notice that the 2 largest economies the USA and China will see a -36% and -42% GDP loss because of climate change?

Most of the worlds population live in countries that will see a decline in GDP.

So if the Stanford model is correct and a few northern countries will see increased GDP the overall world GDP will decline by 23%. Correct. Didn't you say there would be no cost to climate change?

In 2017 dollars that 23% would amount to around 30 trillion dollar cost of climate change by 2100.

Are you in agreement with this estimate?

So if we adopt new technology, conserve and use new renewable energy resources we will still gain a significant growth in our GDP. Because the projections for the cost of a carbon tax to the Canadian economy are very low.

So why are you so worried about the transition to a low carbon world when Canada will do very well by 2100?

Q and A from the study:
1. What does your study find?
We find that over the last fifty years, temperature has influenced the economic productivity of countries. For cold countries, warming up helps them perform better, up to a point. There is an optimal temperature at around 13C (55F) where economic performance peaks. Then warming above this temperature causes economic productivity to decline, with a rate that accelerates the hotter and hotter a country gets. We have known for some time that the fundamental building blocks of our economies, such as workers and crops, show their highest level of performance at moderate temperatures. We demonstrate that our results for the performance of much larger and more complex national economies is consistent with what we already know about the performance of their building blocks (e.g. workers and crops).
Based on these findings, we calculate how global warming is expected to affect economies around the
world. We find that climate change will reshape the global economy, causing a small number of cold countries to perform better and many temperate and hot countries to perform worse. On net, we project that the global economy will do much worse because of climate change, with global average incomes 23% lower in 2100 with climate change relative to without it. In addition, because some of the cooler richer countries are expected to benefit from warming and poorer tropical countries are hurt, global inequality is projected to get much worse due to climate change.

[fjlip]

The volcanoes at the moment belching smoke and ash around the earth, cancel any CO2 reductions for years. Any result can be achieved with MADE UP #'s facts. None can be PROVEN 50-100 years into the future. Remember in the 70's we were going into an ICEAGE?

" In addition, because some of the cooler richer countries are expected to benefit from warming and poorer tropical countries are hurt, global inequality is projected to get much worse due to climate change."


Great they can MOVE Then. Worry about our backyard, 35 million people can not save 7 billion.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Interesting graphic. So you believe human caused climate change is real? Yes or No?

Yes to human caused climate change on certain irrelevant scales and timeframes, No to Catastrophic

Di you notice that the 2 largest economies the USA and China will see a -36% and -42% GDP loss because of climate change?

Most of the worlds population live in countries that will see a decline in GDP.

When reading any of these projections remember GIGO, Are you familiar with the computing acronym GIGO? Garbage In = Garbage Out? All of these projections are based on the same flawed and fraudulent climate models which are now so far removed from measured temperatures to be completely irrelevant. But if you input garbage temperature projections into an economic or military model, you will get equivalent garbage data out of it. This report is no more evidence of catastrophic global warming and its consequences, than the snow storm on the east coast was. The Stanford model is not correct since it is based on the same junk science models which cannot predict temperature with anything close to useful accuracy.

So if the Stanford model is correct and a few northern countries will see increased GDP the overall world GDP will decline by 23%. Correct. Didn't you say there would be no cost to climate change?

In 2017 dollars that 23% would amount to around 30 trillion dollar cost of climate change by 2100.

Are you in agreement with this estimate?

No, see GIGO comment above. And as I pointed out in another thread arguing with DML, the evidence of negative consequences just isn't presenting itself 30+ years into this global warming scare.

So if we adopt new technology, conserve and use new renewable energy resources we will still gain a significant growth in our GDP. Because the projections for the cost of a carbon tax to the Canadian economy are very low.

So why are you so worried about the transition to a low carbon world when Canada will do very well by 2100?

See my context comment above, paying a tax to stop warming which would otherwise have a beneficial result to our economy is penalizing ourselves doubly. Making the obvious leap of faith that there was a connection between the tax and the climate.

Q and A from the study:
1. What does your study find?
We find that over the last fifty years, temperature has influenced the economic productivity of countries. For cold countries, warming up helps them perform better, up to a point. There is an optimal temperature at around 13C (55F) where economic performance peaks. Then warming above this temperature causes economic productivity to decline, with a rate that accelerates the hotter and hotter a country gets. We have known for some time that the fundamental building blocks of our economies, such as workers and crops, show their highest level of performance at moderate temperatures. We demonstrate that our results for the performance of much larger and more complex national economies is consistent with what we already know about the performance of their building blocks (e.g. workers and crops).
Based on these findings, we calculate how global warming is expected to affect economies around the
world. We find that climate change will reshape the global economy, causing a small number of cold countries to perform better and many temperate and hot countries to perform worse. On net, we project that the global economy will do much worse because of climate change, with global average incomes 23% lower in 2100 with climate change relative to without it. In addition, because some of the cooler richer countries are expected to benefit from warming and poorer tropical countries are hurt, global inequality is projected to get much worse due to climate change.

[chuckChuck]

So the Stanford study that you posted that shows Canada will benefit from global warming and the majority of the world will see declines in GDP is not credible because the science that shows greenhouse gas emissions have risen along with global temperatures is not accurate?

Where is the credible scientific evidence that is the case?

Alberta 5 you presented the Stanford study as evidence but now you don't find it credible? Get your story straight. LOL

In any case we know many people on Agriville don't believe in the science of climate change. Most are content to look out the window at cold winter day and say it is not happening. So it is kind of pointless to discuss it when this is the level of debate.

What is important is that the decision makers in Canada and 194 countries do believe in the science. Otherwise they would not support the Paris climate agreement.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Once again, Context is important here. I chose that study because it is not by a "denier " so that you couldn't brush it off. If climate really does change as much as Claimed, Then this report will likely be very accurate. But if and when that assumption is wrong, the entire report becomes irrelevant. However, if their assumptions are correct, Canada has more to lose by fighting climate change then we do with the status quo. Yet you keep advocating that we punish ourselves with a tax on CO2 In spite of overwhelming evidence that It is not in our best interests

[Blaithin]

but we had 2 or 3 of the coldest harvests that we have had the 3 years prior . anyways as the scientists on here tell me , thats just weather , same as the 35 degrees we had this harvest . can't have it both ways ?
i don't think anyone on here disputes that man is giving the earth a hard time , thats a given. but saying a stupid carbon tax that will put canada at a disadvantage while india and china build more coal fired generators , is beyond stupid! and shutting down perfectly good coal fired generators here before alternatives are found is even stupider. paying money into trudeaus play fund and calling it a carbon tax is the problem . i and probably most on here are all for cleaning up pollution , air and environmental . thats not what this carbon tax bullshit is about . proof is all around you when you see millions of lights left on 24-7 in the cities , a $7M ARTIFICIAL ice arena in between the parliament buildings and the rideau canal(longest ice skating area in the world) that trudeau couldn't use because it was too COLD!!!! trudeau taking largest party ever to paris accord? make no mistake , none of these so called activists give a shit about any of it . i guess they have never heard of WEBEX , none of these bullshit holiday free for alls are necessary in this digital age , at our expense. meanwhile farmers have been doing their part , def systems, zero till , efficiencies in most aspects of farming . make no mistake , the only meatheads are the sheeple that are buying this hook, line and sinker ? nearly every farmer i know are very environmentally friendly , too bad we couldn't say the same about our city cousins . the waste in the cities blows my mind . we don't even leave our yard lights on , other than when we are working at night in the yard . when you fly over a city , that is criminal , seeing the entire city , buildings and all , lit up like daylight .

I think you've hit the nail fairly close on the head here.

These are two distinct issues.

1. Human's impact effecting the Earth in various ways.

2. Potential ways to mitigate said effects.

Many people seem to think vehemently denying we have any effect on the planet/climate is the appropriate method. But I really don't see how this can be denied. Especially in agriculture where we make our livings manipulating the environment to gain a profit. It's naive to think all the manipulations result in only positive and good things. Now it's hard to prove anything from prehistoric times but there's numerous mass extinctions on various continents that are closely linked with the arrival of Homo sapiens in those areas. Coincidence? If we can cause mass extinctions with spears and atlatls then why not climate issues with gasses? Is one easier to believe simply because you can more easily see it happening while the other tends to be invisible fumes?

If you deny the fact that climate change happens, I think you're a moron. If you deny humans have any impact on it, I think you're being obtuse. End of first issue.

But the second issue, that's all going to come down to perspective and individual opinion.

What should be done to lessen our impact and maybe even improve it? Right now the global consensus seems to be that a Carbon Tax is the best approach. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like all things it has it's pros and cons and like all political legislation, there's room for improvement in it. Would it be nicer for us if the government gave out grants or rebates for people to sequester carbon and lower greenhouse gases? Absolutely! But we should all know that governments prefer to make money via taxation than give it away.

There's various ways we can help the environment: Recycling, planting trees, low energy bulbs and appliances, don't litter, etc. A carbon tax is just another potential tool. If people don't like it, that's fine, but maybe think of ulterior methods instead of straight up denying theres even an issue. Or playing the blame game. "Well China isn't doing anything so why should we." That just sounds like an elementary school student LOL

Say you don't like the idea of a carbon tax. Say you don't think it will work or be as effective as other methods. That's all fine. But backing it up with "Because climate change doesn't exist/because humans don't impact climate" is not an acceptable reason to me.

[seldomseen]

Think back to the beginning of all this global warming bull. I think I remember predictions that because of global warming the world was going to face mass starvation by now. What do we have instead? The world is awash in grain! There is hardly reason to plant a crop this year.

[Guest]

I think you've hit the nail fairly close on the head here.

These are two distinct issues.

1. Human's impact effecting the Earth in various ways.

2. Potential ways to mitigate said effects.

Many people seem to think vehemently denying we have any effect on the planet/climate is the appropriate method. But I really don't see how this can be denied. Especially in agriculture where we make our livings manipulating the environment to gain a profit. It's naive to think all the manipulations result in only positive and good things. Now it's hard to prove anything from prehistoric times but there's numerous mass extinctions on various continents that are closely linked with the arrival of Homo sapiens in those areas. Coincidence? If we can cause mass extinctions with spears and atlatls then why not climate issues with gasses? Is one easier to believe simply because you can more easily see it happening while the other tends to be invisible fumes?

If you deny the fact that climate change happens, I think you're a moron. If you deny humans have any impact on it, I think you're being obtuse. End of first issue.

But the second issue, that's all going to come down to perspective and individual opinion.

What should be done to lessen our impact and maybe even improve it? Right now the global consensus seems to be that a Carbon Tax is the best approach. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like all things it has it's pros and cons and like all political legislation, there's room for improvement in it. Would it be nicer for us if the government gave out grants or rebates for people to sequester carbon and lower greenhouse gases? Absolutely! But we should all know that governments prefer to make money via taxation than give it away.

There's various ways we can help the environment: Recycling, planting trees, low energy bulbs and appliances, don't litter, etc. A carbon tax is just another potential tool. If people don't like it, that's fine, but maybe think of ulterior methods instead of straight up denying theres even an issue. Or playing the blame game. "Well China isn't doing anything so why should we." That just sounds like an elementary school student LOL

Say you don't like the idea of a carbon tax. Say you don't think it will work or be as effective as other methods. That's all fine. But backing it up with "Because climate change doesn't exist/because humans don't impact climate" is not an acceptable reason to me.

if we didn't have climate change , you would be under a glacier . keep buying all your clothes that are made in China or India , almost everything we buy now . they need to clean their act up , but it's full steam ahead . one day you will wake up and nothing will be going on here , some people don't realize that things still have to get done . thanks but I will stay in the moron camp , doesn't matter to me . like seldom said , we should all have burnt up by now , according to the "global warming experts" and for what it's worth , farmers do more for the earth. than people that sit on their ass and preach, while they are jet setting around the world

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Think back to the beginning of all this global warming bull. I think I remember predictions that because of global warming the world was going to face mass starvation by now. What do we have instead? The world is awash in grain! There is hardly reason to plant a crop this year.

Very good point. At some point this debate has to go from being based solely on theoretical future projections to present day evidence based science. 30, even 40 years have elapsed since the early dire global warming projections came out. Yet there are NO measurable negative consequences(please prove me wrong). Food production being the most obvious, there is no possible way we should be burdened by food surpluses 40 years into an era of catastrophic global warming, yet here we are. Not only are we warmer than 40 years ago, but also doing better by all other measures, food security, poverty, life expectancy, economically, resource security etc.
I tried to bring this up in a discussion with dmlfarmer and others in a previous thread. No one could provide any real life proof of measurable negative consequences of global warming 40 years later. All they could provide was more projections of future calamities, same as has been happening for decades already.

However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results

[bucket]

It's called critical thinking....

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I think you've hit the nail fairly close on the head here.

These are two distinct issues.

1. Human's impact effecting the Earth in various ways.

2. Potential ways to mitigate said effects.

Many people seem to think vehemently denying we have any effect on the planet/climate is the appropriate method. But I really don't see how this can be denied. Especially in agriculture where we make our livings manipulating the environment to gain a profit. It's naive to think all the manipulations result in only positive and good things. Now it's hard to prove anything from prehistoric times but there's numerous mass extinctions on various continents that are closely linked with the arrival of Homo sapiens in those areas. Coincidence? If we can cause mass extinctions with spears and atlatls then why not climate issues with gasses? Is one easier to believe simply because you can more easily see it happening while the other tends to be invisible fumes?

If you deny the fact that climate change happens, I think you're a moron. If you deny humans have any impact on it, I think you're being obtuse. End of first issue.

But the second issue, that's all going to come down to perspective and individual opinion.

What should be done to lessen our impact and maybe even improve it? Right now the global consensus seems to be that a Carbon Tax is the best approach. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Like all things it has it's pros and cons and like all political legislation, there's room for improvement in it. Would it be nicer for us if the government gave out grants or rebates for people to sequester carbon and lower greenhouse gases? Absolutely! But we should all know that governments prefer to make money via taxation than give it away.

There's various ways we can help the environment: Recycling, planting trees, low energy bulbs and appliances, don't litter, etc. A carbon tax is just another potential tool. If people don't like it, that's fine, but maybe think of ulterior methods instead of straight up denying theres even an issue. Or playing the blame game. "Well China isn't doing anything so why should we." That just sounds like an elementary school student LOL

Say you don't like the idea of a carbon tax. Say you don't think it will work or be as effective as other methods. That's all fine. But backing it up with "Because climate change doesn't exist/because humans don't impact climate" is not an acceptable reason to me.

You bring up some excellent well presented points. But there are many more than two distinct issues which need to be resolved, and need to be resolved in order, we have skipped most of these.

1. Is the earth warming
Most definitely, on some time scales

2. Is the net result of warming a net negative or net positive to earth's ability to sustain all ecosystems
Thus far, it has been a net positive based on all available evidence
3. What are all of the causes of the warming

4. After solving #3, we can then project if the warming is likely to continue, and at what rate. Judging by the failure of models to predict future trends so far, it seems that we have not solved #3 completely yet.

5. After solving #4, we can then project if the resulting future warming will continue to be net positive or net negative.

6. If #5 establishes that action is required, we can then implement the mitigation plans. Regardless of cause, even if #3 establishes that the warming is entirely non-human caused, but #5 establishes that it will have net negative consequences, we would still need to act.

7. Evaluate the ongoing results/evidence, do they continue to confirm what was predicted in the first steps.
We got part way through solving #1, then skipped #2 completely, only considered one option for #3, failed miserably at #4, ignored #5, and jumped right into #6 headfirst. And avoided #7 at all costs.

Come to think of it, this sounds a lot like a concept called the scientific method...

[AlbertaFarmer5]

It's called critical thinking....

And the mantra of the left seems to be criticize anyone who doesn't think like they have been brainwashed into thinking. Perhaps they just misunderstood the concept.

[farming101]

Average Monthly High temperature for Battleford SK going back to 1885.
The record is complete except for 6 months that were borrowed from neighboring stations at Glaslyn(5) and PA (1). There were also a few instances in which estimates for a day or two within a month were recorded. All data was taken from Environment Canada records.
The black line is the linear trend over the time period of 132 years.
It seems to indicate that Battleford on average is not experiencing hotter temperatures.
Hottest monthly average recorded at Battleford was July 1894. 30.2C
Coldest monthly average high Jan 1950. -27.4C

[farming101]

Same data set showing the average monthly low temperature.
Overnight lows were the warmest during the period in July 1886. 13.4C
Overnight lows were the coldest in February 1936. -36.7C
The trendline is moving a little higher showing that overnight lows are warmer over the time period at Battleford.