Some carbon info for Chuck Chuck

[chuckChuck]

I don't think Homogenization would have any impact on a climate record when the data shows 4.5 C degree warming in the past 70 years in the Mackenzie area of the Northwest Territories.

"People say, well gee, the world's warmed up by 1 C in the last 135 years, but there are parts of Canada that have warmed in some seasons by four, four-and-half degrees in a 70-year period," Environment Canada's senior climatologist, David Phillips says. "So twice as much in half the time."

take a look at the climate map from Environment Canada in this article:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-change-canada-1.4878263

"The greatest differences are seen in the north and the interior of continental coast in the west. The region with the greatest warming in 70 years is in the Mackenzie area of the Northwest Territories where temperatures have risen by between 4 C and 5 C in some parts."

I recently spoke with a farmer from La Crete in northern Alberta. On the ground in that area it has had dramatic climate change with higher temperatures and much drier than normal. It is near the area of greatest temperature change in the Mackenzie as mentioned by Philips and show on the map in the article.

You can deny climate change and make excuses all you want, but the data tells the truth.

[blackpowder]

So where are we at on the interglacial timeline?
And what should we do about it?

[chuckChuck]

So where are we at on the interglacial timeline?
And what should we do about it?

Read this "Are we heading into a new Ice Age?" https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Excerpt:
"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:

1. 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.
2. 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."

[seldomseen]

So wouldn't the farmer from La Crete just be talking about weather? How can you have an informed discussion with someone doesn't know the difference between weather and climate?

[chuckChuck]

So wouldn't the farmer from La Crete just be talking about weather? How can you have an informed discussion with someone doesn't know the difference between weather and climate?

His on the ground anecdotal weather observations over several farming seasons correlate with the data that shows up on the temperature map. The temperature data is proof, the farmer observations are supporting the data and conclusions.

That's very different that saying its going to be very cold this week and so there is no warming.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Read this "Are we heading into a new Ice Age?" https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Excerpt:
"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:

1. 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.
2. 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."

That has to be the most contradictory statement you have yet made. So increasing CO2 is effectively staving off global cooling, yet there are no benefits to increased CO2. Your words, not mine. Do some research on agricultural productivity during the most recent little ice age, or even during the cooling cycle from the 40's to 70's, compared to during the warming trend of recent decades.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So where are we at on the interglacial timeline?
And what should we do about it?

Our current interglacial is already long in the tooth relative to the last 4.

And what should we do about it, within the next few generations, we should be slowly(and quietly) selling our farms to global warming fanatics(also known as suckers) and buying real estate in tropical and subtropical latitudes. Perhaps making a straight across trade for ocean front property promised to be submerged by rising sea levels imminently would be the best bang for the buck. Tuvalu would be a good place to look. Of course they may not be as easily suckered as Chuck et al. considering that in spite of the constant threats, their island is growing:

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/land-area-of-low-lying-tuvalu-has-increased https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/land-area-of-low-lying-tuvalu-has-increased

And just for Chuck, there are peer reviewed papers showing the same results. Use google.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So wouldn't the farmer from La Crete just be talking about weather? How can you have an informed discussion with someone doesn't know the difference between weather and climate?

And isn't the fact that there are farmers at LaCrete a benefit of global warming?

[fjlip]

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."

So you and all other irrational SUCKERS would rather see the ICE AGE? There is the life on earth saving benefit right before your eyes...we will not DIE in an ICE AGE! Horay for CO2!!! We are saving life on earth according to Chucky! Start those engines, delete your emissions! Party on!

[seldomseen]

Chucky your hilarious

I am getting a little confused by all that you tell me but the way I see it is

If a scientist agrees with you then you have climate change.
If a scientist doesn't agree with you he is un informed and talking weather.
If a farmer disagrees with you then he is to dumb to have a conversion with. He can't even tell the difference between climate and weather.
If a farmer agrees with you then he is enlightened and understands climate change.