Remember when the Liberal carbon tax was a conservative idea?

[mustardman]

Jazz There are places in Antarctica where ice cores can now be taken Back as far as 1.5 Million years
Almost twice as far as previous.
Sorry to burst your little bubble

[Robertbarlage]

Previous of what

[furrowtickler]

What Liberals are saying about Liberals....
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/kinsella-liberal-party-has-morphed-into-a-cult

[AlbertaFarmer5]

if true....hmmmm

[ATTACH]4101[/ATTACH]

Noteworthy, they are using a baseline of 1996 to 2005. We are now 23 years after 1996, and yields still keep increasing worldwide. Only 31 years to go to 2050 for them to be redeemed with falling yields. Those are going to have to be some precipitous drops considering how much higher we are already.

Funny that neither Chuck, nor dml made any comment on the fact that all of Canada is expected to benefit according to this map. No comment last time I pointed that out either, and it comes from their favourite, most reputable source too.

[chuckChuck]

As a farmer, I readily acknowledge the vast benefits we are seeing everyday due to the increases in atmospheric CO2. Countless studies showing the increased yields, water use efficiencies, stress tolerance etc. of plants when CO2 is increased. And the data is unequivocal, the climate, at least locally has been improving by all measures since the beginning of record keeping. See Murray Hartman's presenation on this issue as one very good example. We can endlessly debate the causes, and how much is natural vs. how much is anthropogenic, but that won't negate the benefits. What we do know is that while CO2 levels have gone parabolic, temperatures increases have remained linear at most, and the rate of increase decreasing to virtually none in the past 2 decades. Indicating that the relationship between CO2 and temperature follows the law of diminishing returns, and in fact appears to follow a logarithmic relationship, so unfortunately, pumping any more CO2 into the atmosphere at these levels, is going to have diminishing positive impacts on our temperature, unlike the first 2 to 300 ppm which had huge benefits.

Northern latitudes may see benefits but to assume that climate change will result in increased yields globally is naive. If the the great plains region of north america sees higher temperatures and a change in precipitation patterns or reduced precipitation (drought), the result could be reduced yields because moisture is the biggest limiting factor in much of the great plains. That may not be the case in your region but the world is a bigger place than just your region.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Northern latitudes may see benefits but to assume that climate change will result in increased yields globally is naive. If the the great plains region of north america sees higher temperatures and a change in precipitation patterns or reduced precipitation (drought), the result could be reduced yields because moisture is the biggest limiting factor in much of the great plains. That may not be the case in your region but the world is a bigger place than just your region.

Please refer to my post above yours and the map attached. Your own UN claims that Canada will see yield benefits. Of course, we are nearly half way through the period of their prediction, and so far, they are completely wrong about the rest of the worlds yields going down, so they are probably wrong about Canada too.

[chuckChuck]

Chuck, you are stuck in the future. I read through the 4 links. The last one doesn't say a thing about present costs of global warming. And you conveniently chose a paper from 2015, the last year before BC emissions started rising again, as they have every since. Here is another quote from 2018 showing how ineffective their tax has been. More critically, the emission level is only two per cent less than in 2007, putting the province a long way from its original legislated target of reducing emissions 33 per cent by 2020 over 2007

The first two articles are entirely in the future tense. The 3rd does make some baseless claims about insurance costs in the present day by comparing the 2010's to the 1980's, without adjusting for inflation or population growth, apparently they needed to skip over the 1990's and 2000's for obvious reasons. Then makes a bunch of more baseless claims about unprecedented weather events, which are obviously precedented, even in Canada's own very short recorded history.

Please reread the rules. Please post some current actual costs of global warming. After all, we are more than 30 years into the Catastrophic phase of CAGW according James Hansen, and about 160 years into AGW according to many sources. Time to quit living in the future, and come back to the present. And, as you keep reminding us dumb farmers, weather is not climate. Please stop giving global warming credit for every flood, as the one article attempts, there is no scientific evidence to support that, nor any claims that they are unprecedented, the only thing unprecedented is the level of human infrastructure in the way of the inevitable floods.

One example of current costs. One coastal city in one state and there are many more coastal cities.

Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise | Miami Herald

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html

Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

[fjlip]

One example of current costs. One coastal city in one state and there are many more coastal cities.

Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise | Miami Herald

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html

Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

All GUESSES, nothing can be proved.

[fjlip]

Just saw this posted by a person working up north...typical example of the CORRUPT WORTHLESS data being used...

The CBC JUST PUT OUT A LEAKED REPORT SAYING THE NORTH IS WARMING AT TEMPERTURES 2.5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD.... THIS IS WHAT I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE ARCTIC...The air quality monitoring stations that were installed after 2000 are a point of faulty data collection. The person who installed them (i helped them find locations for the ones in Inuvik and Yellowknife) were placed in locations to to get 'hits' ... when I asked the person in charge why he wanted them in locations where it would obvious give high readings he told me they want 'hits' so they can get more funding. I thought that was bad science so I would only approve a site that was average air quality for the town of Inuvik by a soccer pitch and no buildings or traffic near it... since they are going to use that single point to represent the surrounding 500 km I felt that was best... the person complained to the SAO and Mayor ... but I held firm on my assertion that the location away from direct sources of pollution was a better location to collect a representative sample. Since I moved away they moved the air quality station next to the boiler end on one of the larger buildings in Inuvik (Midnight Sun Rec Center) obviously to get 'hits' ... the air quality monitoring station in Yellowknife (see pictures) is next to one of the larger sewage lift stations (think pig barn) in the city... I would get calls a couple times a year from environment Canada asking about a high numbers...LOL! so the data from any of these sources are suspect... not because I don't believe data... quite the opposite ... I collect and analyze data professionally... there are serious problems when the data is collected to get 'hits'... the report 'leaked' by CBC has been fixed with 20 years of manipulated data... we are being miss-lead.
If this is happening on Canadas Arctic... where else has the data collected been placed so the monitoring system will get 'hits'?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

One example of current costs. One coastal city in one state and there are many more coastal cities.

Miami Beach to begin new $100 million flood prevention project in face of sea level rise | Miami Herald

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article129284119.html

Miami is racing against time to keep up with sea-level rise

https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-2018-4

Thank you Chuck for taking the time to find an example that is in the present time, and is costing real money to mitigate today, and is not a common weather event being called unprecedented. Only thing missing is that it has nothing to do with climate change or CO2. Much of Miami Beach was built on land that was already at the time known to be below high tide water levels, on man made islands made of mud dredged out of the ocean at or below high tide mark to begin with, before subsidience. Remember what I was saying about a lot more human infrastructure being in harms way? But apparently the ocean view is worth it, it must be because house prices are rising rapidly, and populations isn't declining, as one would expect for an area about to be underwater, either the residents don't believe the hype( they should, it is real, even if the causes are wrong), or they think they will be bailed out eventually( and maybe literally too...). And it really is about to be underwater, even without any man made climate change, it is subsiding at a rapid rate, accounting for nearly a third of the estimated sea level rise ( estimated since there is no tide gauge there for enough years to be considered valid). And a portion of that subsidience is man made, due to pumping aquifers to water golf courses and such. And as I have repeatedly pointed out, sea levels have been inexorably rising since the glaciers started melting, they are rising with or without humans activities, there is no acceleration. Sea level rise will swamp Miami Beach regardless of what efforts they take to postpone the inevitable for a few more decades, or what we do to CO2 levels. And back to unprecedented, the highest tide was recorded in 1984, with all of the unprecedented sea level rise since then, one would think that the record would have been broken by now.

This is an agricultural forum, can't you find something agricultural related that would fit the criteria?

[MBgrower]

Just saw this posted by a person working up north...typical example of the CORRUPT WORTHLESS data being used...

The CBC JUST PUT OUT A LEAKED REPORT SAYING THE NORTH IS WARMING AT TEMPERTURES 2.5 TIMES GREATER THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD.... THIS IS WHAT I PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS IN THE ARCTIC...The air quality monitoring stations that were installed after 2000 are a point of faulty data collection. The person who installed them (i helped them find locations for the ones in Inuvik and Yellowknife) were placed in locations to to get 'hits' ... when I asked the person in charge why he wanted them in locations where it would obvious give high readings he told me they want 'hits' so they can get more funding. I thought that was bad science so I would only approve a site that was average air quality for the town of Inuvik by a soccer pitch and no buildings or traffic near it... since they are going to use that single point to represent the surrounding 500 km I felt that was best... the person complained to the SAO and Mayor ... but I held firm on my assertion that the location away from direct sources of pollution was a better location to collect a representative sample. Since I moved away they moved the air quality station next to the boiler end on one of the larger buildings in Inuvik (Midnight Sun Rec Center) obviously to get 'hits' ... the air quality monitoring station in Yellowknife (see pictures) is next to one of the larger sewage lift stations (think pig barn) in the city... I would get calls a couple times a year from environment Canada asking about a high numbers...LOL! so the data from any of these sources are suspect... not because I don't believe data... quite the opposite ... I collect and analyze data professionally... there are serious problems when the data is collected to get 'hits'... the report 'leaked' by CBC has been fixed with 20 years of manipulated data... we are being miss-lead.
If this is happening on Canadas Arctic... where else has the data collected been placed so the monitoring system will get 'hits'?

Most scientists are funded by government. only objective is to protect their jobs, not unlike any other government worker who will vote ndp/liberal governments as best way to ensure their phony jobs are protected.

[chuckChuck]

The extreme persistent blocking patterns that we have been experiencing in the last few years may be caused by rapid warming in the arctic and a declining temperature differential with mid lattitudes. Notice I said may because climate scientists are still trying to figure this out. David Philips Canada's most prominent climate scientist says there is a link with climate change. If so then recent droughts and extended wet cold periods that caused crop losses have a large climate change bill attached.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sweltering-summers-linked-to-rapidly-warming-arctic/

"A separate paper published today in the journal Scientific Reports suggests that the massive 2016 Fort McMurray wildfire in Alberta—Canada’s costliest disaster on record—was likely linked to a persistent planetary wave pattern existing in the Northern Hemisphere at that time. This wave pattern helped drive a high-pressure system over western Canada that favored unusually hot, dry conditions for the region. The weather was worsened by the effects of a particularly severe El Niño event, which was still in full swing at the time.

The new paper suggests that the same wave structure could have helped drive the conditions fueling other wildfires that cropped up across the Northern Hemisphere in 2016, although it doesn’t specifically investigate those links. It also suggests that a similar planetary wave structure could have influenced an unusual spate of wildfires in Greenland last summer.

Mike Flannigan, a wildfire expert at the University of Alberta, said in a recent conversation with E&E News that some researchers are concerned about future increases in blocking patterns over western North America, which has seen some of its most intense wildfires on record in the last few years.

Flannigan pointed to recent research, including a 2017 paper in Scientific Reports, suggesting Arctic-driven changes in the jet stream could increase the frequency of atmospheric blocking and extreme weather events.
Advertisement

Many of the extreme heat waves that have dominated European news the last few summer have been associated with stationary weather patterns, as well, said climatologist Judah Cohen, director of seasonal forecasting at the analytics group Atmospheric and Environmental Research.

“We’ve had quite a few summers that you can rattle off that we’ve had this extreme heat—for them, anyway—and seems to be associated with very persistent high-pressure blocks,” he told E&E.

This summer is no exception. According to a recent blog post from the World Meteorological Organization, extreme heat in northern Europe the last few months is linked to a stationary high-pressure system.

As 2018 follows in the footsteps of other recent summers—marked by record-breaking heat events, raging wildfires and other disasters—there’s a growing importance attached to research on extreme summer weather. It’s clear that the global influence of climate change is driving more extremes around the world and will continue to do so."