Yesterdays dust storm

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The graphs are too small to easily read. But it looks like average maximums are trending down and average lows are trending up? Is this correct? I did see on line he says that the growing season is 1 month longer on average than 110 years ago. So that is a significant improvement and certainly an advantage. If the frost free season is getting longer, can that occur without a warming climate? What is Hartman's position on human caused climate change? I see he was calling for more agricultural research on adaptation to a changing climate.

During his presentation, and talking to him after, Murray didn't express any opinion either way on climate change, he kept it to the facts, and kept it apolitical, which is refreshing.

And to your credit Chuck, I am pleasantly surprised to see you acknowledge my inconvenient post. Now regardless of causation, and without invoking climate models, can you please show me why I should be alarmed about climate change.

[chuckChuck]

During his presentation, and talking to him after, Murray didn't express any opinion either way on climate change, he kept it to the facts, and kept it apolitical, which is refreshing.

And to your credit Chuck, I am pleasantly surprised to see you acknowledge my inconvenient post. Now regardless of causation, and without invoking climate models, can you please show me why I should be alarmed about climate change.

I don't have a lot of time at the moment. I know you are an intelligent thoughtful guy as you put extra effort into good posts. However the temperature data from Lacombe is interesting but it doesn't tell the whole story about climate change on a global scale. As you probably know, many areas of the world are experiencing much more dramatic climate change. The arctic for example. The oceans have absorbed alot of warming. Sea levels are rising due to melting ice mass and expansion due to warming. We are only seeing the beginning of what will be relatively rapid change that could lead to catastrophic warming with severe consequences for many coastal cities. The point is, regardless, of what is happening in Lacombe this issue goes beyond your situation. If you want to understand what the implications are there is much to read on the internet. Whether you believe it or not, is up to you

[binthere]

You can believe sea levels are rising according to many publications if you want. Or you can travel the world and see for yourself that the sea levels haven't risen dramatically. From new Zealand Africa south and central America four hundred year old ports have not been affected. Now newer developments in questionable areas now that's a different story. You pay your dollar you take your chances.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I don't have a lot of time at the moment. I know you are an intelligent thoughtful guy as you put extra effort into good posts. However the temperature data from Lacombe is interesting but it doesn't tell the whole story about climate change on a global scale.

Actually, the reason why Murray chose Lacombe is because it is one of the few weather stations still in it's original habitat, to not experience urbanization, or having been moved. Check for yourself how many other stations fit those criteria.

As you probably know, many areas of the world are experiencing much more dramatic climate change. The arctic for example. The oceans have absorbed alot of warming. Sea levels are rising due to melting ice mass and expansion due to warming.

We have been through this before, sea level rise is what happens during interglacials, acceleration would indicate something unusual, that is not the case.

We are only seeing the beginning of what will be relatively rapid change that could lead to catastrophic warming with severe consequences for many coastal cities.

As usual, you just proved that you can't make the catastrophic case, without invoking models of what is going to happen. Using here and now real world evidence, and current trends just doesn't support the catastrophic case.

The point is, regardless, of what is happening in Lacombe this issue goes beyond your situation. If you want to understand what the implications are there is much to read on the internet. Whether you believe it or not, is up to you

And, as usual, you use the word believe. I don't believe in science, I look at evidence and draw logical conclusions. Believe is not a part of the scientific process.

[blackpowder]

Sorry to hear about your soil loss Mallee.
Wienerville becoming like tastebuds on an asshole with the climate diahrea.

[chuckChuck]

Actually, the reason why Murray chose Lacombe is because it is one of the few weather stations still in it's original habitat, to not experience urbanization, or having been moved. Check for yourself how many other stations fit those criteria.
We have been through this before, sea level rise is what happens during interglacials, acceleration would indicate something unusual, that is not the case.



As usual, you just proved that you can't make the catastrophic case, without invoking models of what is going to happen. Using here and now real world evidence, and current trends just doesn't support the catastrophic case.


And, as usual, you use the word believe. I don't believe in science, I look at evidence and draw logical conclusions. Believe is not a part of the scientific process.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Is NOAA making this up or are you wrong?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
Is NOAA making this up or are you wrong?

Perhaps I am a poor reader, but I don't see any evidence, numbers or graphs quantifying sea level rise acceleration. Just a couple statements in the title and first paragraph, then the remainder is propaganda fluff, completely devoid of facts that in anyway substantiate the title.

[mihikasharma]

I don't know.