Coldest temp anomaly in the WORLD...here

[fjlip]

Scotsman David Douglas came across it in 1827 so not unknown in 1843.

With high quality electronic instruments/thermometers/digital pics...ya right.
As good as native measurements.

[farmaholic]

Do you honestly think the Natives even noticed the ebb and flow of the glaciers over the decades, or handed down stories to the next generations about their changes over the centuries?

[Hamloc]

Still a little baffled as to why everyone continues arguing over whether or not human caused global warming is occurring. It doesn't matter what we think. Our governments through decades of targeted education have created the millennial generation which is driving political discourse. I read a recent opinion poll on what percentage of millennial's looked favourably on socialism. It was over 50%. They also look favourably on carbon taxes. Instead of arguing a point that is beyond our control, why not discuss how farmers will cope with the steep future rise of farm inputs derived from fossil fuels due to the imposition of a carbon tax that will only increase over time and that none of our biggest competitors at present pay?!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Still a little baffled as to why everyone continues arguing over whether or not human caused global warming is occurring. It doesn't matter what we think. Our governments through decades of targeted education have created the millennial generation which is driving political discourse. I read a recent opinion poll on what percentage of millennial's looked favourably on socialism. It was over 50%. They also look favourably on carbon taxes. Instead of arguing a point that is beyond our control, why not discuss how farmers will cope with the steep future rise of farm inputs derived from fossil fuels due to the imposition of a carbon tax that will only increase over time and that none of our biggest competitors at present pay?!

Scary stuff, and like you say, not much we can do but cope. Made all the more difficult when we can't even present a united front, with misguided socialists within the farming community asking to be taxed more, and supporting the anti industry/agriculture agenda.

[fjlip]

Scary stuff, and like you say, not much we can do but cope. Made all the more difficult when we can't even present a united front, with misguided socialists within the farming community asking to be taxed more, and supporting the anti industry/agriculture agenda.

And would rather CHOKE off vegetation due to less Than ideal CO2 levels all in the dream of SAVING the 7 billion too HOT people?

[oneoff]

CHUCKCHUCK 57
APR 1, 2018 10:04
And as far as any idea that we are heading into another ice age here is the science that says it is unlikely.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm

Climate Myth...

We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?


Lets look at the evidence. First chuck shows up on April Fool's Day

Second: Chuck Quotes from the above article that there is little chance of an ice age.. And if you look at the glacial/interglacial evidence that appears in the argument being advanced; the only thing standing between my hypothesis (independently advanced for a couple decades) is total agreement PLUS some equally wild theory of a somewhat weaker "Earth orbit and tilt" this time around (which comes from some author of no known credibility and of course chuck promoting by towing closely behind ). Chuck would have us believe that the upcoming ice age iterneation (on a par with the regular last four similar ice ages of about 100,000 years and interrupted by interglacial periods of about one tenth of that time period will not happen (on schedule) because of the off setting currently increasing CO2 content of the atmosphere and especially the "Earth orbit and tilt argument which isn't explained in any detail at all.


Don't be calling contrarions ...."know it all"s. Those persons may well have a better grasp on reality (and possibility) than those who are force feeding "climate change"

There is no reason to think chuck has any better grasp of an ice age than solar panels being in the significant immediate future of Saskatchewan. I'd also take issue with the Sask response (also quoted as saying that we seem to need to follow the lead of the rest of Canada and/or the world..but with made in Sask solutions.) It's just possible that carbon sequestration has already contributed more than Sask should be expected to contribute to the carbon reduction crusade. But did anyone see one word in that article repeated from the Provincial government release that recognizes the farmers very recent past implementation of direct seeding by the vast majority of prairie farmers. Two possibilities. First the Sask gov't failed to remember that argument (for whatever reason); or maybe the particular government response was chosen and printed so that argument was left out.

I'd love to reprint the chart in the link given to reader's by chuck. THat's the kind of evidence that non-believers feel free to quote...use it for their purposes and then throws in but one simple hypothesis that bebunks about as solid a repeating ll get. To disbelieve requires only a belief or hint of a " weaker Earth orbit and tilt " change to dismiss our last four severe ice ages from happening again. Those past glacial advances that reached all way into Wisconsin USA in a time period of the equivalent of a long blink of an eyelid since the Earth was formed.

Here's as much of chucks link to the article as I can get to properly copy. Please somebody post that accompanying chart.







We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?



Figure 1: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). The timing of warmer interglacials is highlighted in green; our current interglacial, the Holocene, is the one on the far right of the graph.

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.
It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

Basic rebuttal written by Anne-Marie Blackburn

[AlbertaFarmer5]

And would rather CHOKE off vegetation due to less Than ideal CO2 levels all in the dream of SAVING the 7 billion too HOT people?

When I hear adherents of the global warming dogma, I have to wonder if they believe in the "theory" of photosynthesis, and how they manage to teach photosynthesis in schools nowadays. These people advocate for limiting 2 of the 3 ingredients for photosynthesis, the basis for all foodchains on earth, then claim that they are "green".
Apparently hypocrisy and irony are alive and well.

[sumdumguy]

My Aussie cousin visited us here in 2002 and we attended an auction sale April 5. Same kind of weather, only there was 6 feet of snow in our front yards. We were still seeding in June that year.

[sumdumguy]

When I hear adherents of the global warming dogma, I have to wonder if they believe in the "theory" of photosynthesis, and how they manage to teach photosynthesis in schools nowadays. These people advocate for limiting 2 of the 3 ingredients for photosynthesis, the basis for all foodchains on earth, then claim that they are "green".
Apparently hypocrisy and irony are alive and well.

Yep, just thought about that today too when I saw a sign at Home Depot saying “Think Green”. No carbon-no green millenials-no salad-no avocados-no pomegranates-no food.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Yep, just thought about that today too when I saw a sign at Home Depot saying “Think Green”. No carbon-no green millenials-no salad-no avocados-no pomegranates-no food.

Think brown would be more appropriate, as in brown-outs in the electrical grid when they eliminate all reliable sources, brown plants and trees from lack of heat and CO2, brown soil blowing from tillage when chemicals are banned.

Might be a good slogan in fact. Chuck, do you want to use that?

[grassfarmer]

Think brown would be more appropriate, as in brown-outs in the electrical grid when they eliminate all reliable sources, brown plants and trees from lack of heat and CO2, brown soil blowing from tillage when chemicals are banned.

Might be a good slogan in fact. Chuck, do you want to use that?

"No thinking" might be a more appropriate slogan for some of you advocating this. You want to see brown grass and trees and soil blowing - just welcome on that increase in temperature and the increase in droughts it will bring with it. How are we going to be lacking C02? even if we were able to limit the INCREASE in global temperature to 2%, which looks unlikely at this moment, it would only be rolling CO2 levels back to a period when things were green and plants growing. To suggest otherwise is either scaremongering or stupidity.

[recapped]

"No thinking" might be a more appropriate slogan for some of you advocating this. You want to see brown grass and trees and soil blowing - just welcome on that increase in temperature and the increase in droughts it will bring with it. How are we going to be lacking C02? even if we were able to limit the INCREASE in global temperature to 2%, which looks unlikely at this moment, it would only be rolling CO2 levels back to a period when things were green and plants growing. To suggest otherwise is either scaremongering or stupidity.

Higher temperature will promote more evaporation from oceans resulting in more rain. Think about it for a moment.

[fjlip]

Higher temperature will promote more evaporation from oceans resulting in more rain. Think about it for a moment.

AKA, "pineapple express" drowning California is NOT COLD WET air.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

"No thinking" might be a more appropriate slogan for some of you advocating this. You want to see brown grass and trees and soil blowing - just welcome on that increase in temperature and the increase in droughts it will bring with it. How are we going to be lacking C02? even if we were able to limit the INCREASE in global temperature to 2%, which looks unlikely at this moment, it would only be rolling CO2 levels back to a period when things were green and plants growing. To suggest otherwise is either scaremongering or stupidity.

Earth has been steadily sequestering Carbon from the atmosphere faster than it is liberated for millions of years, down to approximately 240ppm by the beginning of the industrial revolution, and would have eventually approached the point where plant life ceases to be able to perform photosynthesis, at ~170ppm(sources vary). Until man started releasing fossil CO2 from hydrocarbons, which has led to a greener planet, a marginal improvement in temperature, and a host of other tangible benefits.

The bigger concern is how do we maintain these beneficial CO2 levels when we have moved on to more sustainable energy sources than combusting carbon containing fossil fuels.

[grassfarmer]

Higher temperature will promote more evaporation from oceans resulting in more rain. Think about it for a moment.

Distribution might be the problem though - it's not going to fall only on the driest areas that need it most - more likely it will lead to increased tropical cyclones and hurricanes in coastal areas.