Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist

[jazz]

I can dispel the science by simply looking at the models. To model a chaotic system such as the atmosphere is NOT possible. The same way that your 3 day forecast is always off. Its the same inputs plus dozens more applied to a longer time scale.

The models need to account for hundreds of variables including stuff we cant even measure, like subsea vulcanism, forest fires and carbon sinks in deep waters etc. There are dozens of other variables we have no hope of even estimating like carbon release from tectonic plates colliding. So without proper input data, the models would run forever and never converge. So what do they do - make guesses, or assumptions, whatever you call it, it adds a degree of uncertainty to the output.

The entire climate narrative relies on 2 deg. Past 2 deg warming, its game over we all die. But the models cannot provide that sort of resolution. What if its 1 deg? Basically we have had 1 deg of warming in the past 20 yrs when they predicted 4 deg. The models have not provided any verifiable predictions yet and they should not be fully relied on.

Is there manmade CO2 -absolutely, but there is a lot of natural stuff around too. Is it increasing - probably. Is it a catastrophe in the making that we need to go back living in caves - not established.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Jazz, stop encouraging him. 1 degree of warming is over the entire temperature instrument record, not the past 20 years, which have seen no significant warming. And that info is right from the alarmists. Actually, they only claim 0.95C since 1880, not a full degree.

[tmyrfield]

On Michael Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

You haven't got the Mann story correct either. Where is your peer reviewed science showing his graph was wrong?

Climate change deniers seize on this because they have no other arguments to use. This is from the climate change denial play book. Discredit the science and cast doubt by whatever means.

The tobacco industry used the same tactics to deny that cigarettes caused cancer.

Ask and you shall receive, However |I am breaking my own rules by debating with an anonymous coward who doesn't have to courage of his convictions, who also by his own admission doesn't follow what he preaches. I hear guys like this at the coffee shop all the time which is why I rarely go. As I am getting older and hopefully wiser |I chose my battles and this is one that will be very difficult to win. I Dare you to read this.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

[shtferbrains]

The BC economy is indeed growing very quickly Charlie.

Where did all those people come from?

Did they bring money with them?

Hongcouver is now an Asian city.

300000 people show up in Surrey to for Punjabi new year.

They love the place, IN SPITE OF the highest gas prices in North America.

Maybe they have connections to import solar panels from China.

Or maybe they will just keep buying real estate and let it sit empty while they capitalize on the appreciation due to the shortage of housing.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

On Michael Mann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

You haven't got the Mann story correct either. Where is your peer reviewed science showing his graph was wrong?

Climate change deniers seize on this because they have no other arguments to use. This is from the climate change denial play book. Discredit the science and cast doubt by whatever means.

The tobacco industry used the same tactics to deny that cigarettes caused cancer.

Did you bother to read what you posted? So in 2008, Mann did a subsequent reconstruction which supported the one which Mann had done in 1998. And that constitutes evidence? I often agree with myself too... And of course, Wikipedia is the most reliable possible source of information, as we all know. Why are you held to a different standard, you demand that I have to post peer reviewed papers, while you post Wikipedia articles, edited by anyone with a pulse and an agenda?

[samhill]

For all of 2017, StatCan says household spending easily made the biggest contribution to growth, followed by inventory and business investment. It also says Canada’s exports grew for the second-straight year with gains in both goods and services.

– With files from Global News national online money reporter Erica Alini

It would look like immigrants are fueling the growth, most of it from household spending

[malleefarmer]

more and more wind turbines popping up in our state which has most number of them.

not bad coin $12000 per year per tower and not sure about my next comment but been told by a few the 12k a farmer receives is tax free. Put me down for 10 towers thanks

[chuckChuck]

Did you bother to read what you posted? So in 2008, Mann did a subsequent reconstruction which supported the one which Mann had done in 1998. And that constitutes evidence? I often agree with myself too... And of course, Wikipedia is the most reliable possible source of information, as we all know. Why are you held to a different standard, you demand that I have to post peer reviewed papers, while you post Wikipedia articles, edited by anyone with a pulse and an agenda?

Did you read that there were over a dozen reconstructions that supported Mann's original conclusion. So it wasn't just Mann reviewing his own work. We are still waiting for you to provide peer reviewed evidence from several climate scientist that clearly show that Mann's conclusions are not correct. Where are they?

[chuckChuck]

Ask and you shall receive, However |I am breaking my own rules by debating with an anonymous coward who doesn't have to courage of his convictions, who also by his own admission doesn't follow what he preaches. I hear guys like this at the coffee shop all the time which is why I rarely go. As I am getting older and hopefully wiser |I chose my battles and this is one that will be very difficult to win. I Dare you to read this.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Your link is to an unpublished 2005 paper that was not peer reviewed and is written by an economist who is not a climate scientist who is a member of the Fraser Institute and the Global Warming Policy Foundation. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is a climate change denial organization that is clearly trying to muddy the waters and discredit climate change science. this is not peer reviewed evidence from climate change scientists disproving that humans are causing climate change. Ross Mckitrick the author is a climate change denial activist not a climate scientist.

[chuckChuck]

Did you bother to read what you posted? So in 2008, Mann did a subsequent reconstruction which supported the one which Mann had done in 1998. And that constitutes evidence? I often agree with myself too... And of course, Wikipedia is the most reliable possible source of information, as we all know. Why are you held to a different standard, you demand that I have to post peer reviewed papers, while you post Wikipedia articles, edited by anyone with a pulse and an agenda?

If you read the references below which are from actual peer reviewed science you will see there are many published peer reviewed studies that looked at global temperatures based on proxies.

Some of the most recent ones are listed below. So regardless of what wikipedia says The references and the science is there to back up Mann. That is unless you dont't believe in science.

Let me know when you find a study that shows that Mann's original conclusions were wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,00 0_years#CITEREFPAGES_2k_Consortium2013


"This list of large scale temperature reconstructions of the last 2,000 years includes climate reconstructions which have contributed significantly to the modern consensus on the temperature record of the past 2,000 years.

The instrumental temperature record only covers the last 150 years at a hemispheric or global scale, and reconstructions of earlier periods are based on climate proxies. In an early attempt to show that climate had changed, Hubert Lamb's 1965 paper generalised from temperature records of central England together with historical, botanical and archeological evidence to produce a qualitative estimate of temperatures in the north Atlantic region. Subsequent quantitative reconstructions used statistical techniques with various climate proxies to produce larger scale reconstructions. Tree ring proxies can give an annual resolution of extratropical regions of the northern hemisphere, and can be statistically combined with other sparser proxies to produce multiproxy hemispherical or global reconstructions.

Quantitative reconstructions have consistently shown earlier temperatures below the temperature levels reached in the late 20th century. This pattern as seen in Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1999 was dubbed the hockey stick graph, and as of 2010 this broad conclusion was supported by more than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[1]"

Smith et al. 2006 "Reconstructing hemispheric-scale climates from multiple stalagmite records".
Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008 "Evaluation of proxy-based millennial reconstruction methods".
Huang, Pollack & Shen 2008 "A late Quaternary climate reconstruction based on borehole heat flux data, borehole temperature data, and the instrumental record"
Kaufman et al. 2009 "Recent warming reverses long-term arctic cooling".
Tingley & Huybers 2010a "A Bayesian Algorithm for Reconstructing Climate Anomalies in Space and Time".
Christiansen & Ljungqvist 2011 "Reconstruction of the Extratropical NH Mean Temperature over the Last Millennium with a Method that Preserves Low-Frequency Variability".
Ljungqvist et al. 2012 "Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries".
Marcott et al. 2013 "A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years"
PAGES 2k Consortium 2013 (78 researchers, corresponding author Darrell S. Kaufman) "Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia"