Alberta Climate Records

[chuckChuck]

Les Henry's article inspired me to do a little more looking at what he said about Fargo's climate.

His contention that the changes have been all good isn't supported by the evidence.

Not only did he ignore 11 months of the year and focused on primarily July he said nothing about increasing moisture loss due to evapotranspiration.

But he also mislead us with his lack of average temperature change during the months that matter. July is not the only month that matters. May, June, July are all important.

Now look at the following average temperature data for Fargo from about 1940 - 2021 for May-July



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series/USW00014914/tavg/3/7/1895-2021?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=20 00

[Guest]

A5, If you say so.

You seem like you will never change your mind regardless of the science or evidence.

You still stuck on the heat island influence?

You don't think that climate scientists are well aware of the heat island impact and take account of this in their research and analysis?

Here is an explanation

"Scientists have been very careful to ensure that UHI is not influencing the temperature trends. To address this concern, they have compared the data from remote stations (sites that are nowhere near human activity) to more urban sites. Likewise, investigators have also looked at sites across rural and urban China, which has experienced rapid growth in urbanisation over the past 30 years and is therefore very likely to show UHI. The difference between ideal rural sites compared to urban sites in temperature trends has been very small:"

wow , here is a classic example of "the pot calling the kettle black" !!!

[shtferbrains]

Les Henry's article inspired me to do a little more looking at what he said about Fargo's climate.

His contention that the changes have been all good isn't supported by the evidence.

Not only did he ignore 11 months of the year and focused on primarily July he said nothing about increasing moisture loss due to evapotranspiration.

But he also mislead us with his lack of average temperature change during the months that matter. July is not the only month that matters. May, June, July are all important.

Now look at the following average temperature data for Fargo from about 1940 - 2021 for May-July

[ATTACH]9136[/ATTACH]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series/USW00014914/tavg/3/7/1895-2021?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=20 00

Hey Chuck im impressed!
Big step forward for you.

You just took a scientists interpretation of climate records and came to your own conclusion after reviewing the data yourself. Welcome to the club. Many others out there are doing that too.
Big step for you.

Would you do the same if it was reported on the CBC?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Les Henry's article inspired me to do a little more looking at what he said about Fargo's climate.

His contention that the changes have been all good isn't supported by the evidence.

Not only did he ignore 11 months of the year and focused on primarily July he said nothing about increasing moisture loss due to evapotranspiration.

But he also mislead us with his lack of average temperature change during the months that matter. July is not the only month that matters. May, June, July are all important.

Now look at the following average temperature data for Fargo from about 1940 - 2021 for May-July

[ATTACH]9136[/ATTACH]

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/city/time-series/USW00014914/tavg/3/7/1895-2021?base_prd=true&begbaseyear=1901&endbaseyear=20 00

Speaking of ignoring evidence, Why does your chart not include the 1930's? Are you aware of a certain famous weather phenomenon that occurred during that decade?

Can you explain why the temperature has been in a declining trend for over 40 years? While CO2 has been increasing faster than ever?

As for the changes being all good, until the shale boom, North Dakota's economy was primarily agriculture. Can you find some charts of corn and wheat yields for ND that would disprove the statement that the changes have been all good. How much have corn yeilds and acres suitable for corn declined over this same time period?

[furrowtickler]

Things that make you go hmmmmm ...
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/watch-al-gores-latest-solution-climate-change-mass-surveillance

[chuckChuck]

Speaking of ignoring evidence, Why does your chart not include the 1930's? Are you aware of a certain famous weather phenomenon that occurred during that decade?



As for the changes being all good, until the shale boom, North Dakota's economy was primarily agriculture. Can you find some charts of corn and wheat yields for ND that would disprove the statement that the changes have been all good. How much have corn yeilds and acres suitable for corn declined over this same time period?

Check out the NOAA web site and you can take a detailed look at climate across the USA in a lot of detail. I am not sure why the site has only records for Fargo going back to the early 1940s. That would be a question for NOAA. Climate is measured in 30 year segments. 1940 - 2021 is 2.6 - 30 year periods.

"Can you explain why the temperature has been in a declining trend for over 40 years? While CO2 has been increasing faster than ever?" Huh?

Where is the evidence that temperatures have been declining? It certainly doesnt show up on the Alberta Climate Records or in the data from NOAA.

Is climate the only driver of increases in yields? Nope. Genetics and farming practices are the primary driver of increased yields.

[chuckChuck]

So A5 where is this declining temperature trend in the continental US that you speak of? Take a look at the map from NOAA.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-us-climate-normals-are-here-what-do-they-tell-us-about-climate-change

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?

A warmer normal

The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

[shtferbrains]

Is
Is climate the only driver of increases in yields? Nope. Genetics and farming practices are the primary driver of increased yields.

Have to agree with you there Chuck. Yields have been rising the last 20 yrs. Pretty much forever actualy. Not the 30's of course but they did make some big changes in farming practices to adapt fot that one.

[Hamloc]

Is
Is climate the only driver of increases in yields? Nope. Genetics and farming practices are the primary driver of increased yields.

Have to agree with you there Chuck. Yields have been rising the last 20 yrs. Pretty much forever actualy. Not the 30's of course but they did make some big changes in farming practices to adapt fot that one.

I am curious I thought climate change proponents are always predicting reduced yields and food shortages? Yesterday’s USDA Wasde report has U.S. farmers producing the second biggest corn crop ever and the second biggest soybean crop ever. Hmmm this doesn’t point to a food shortage. While Canada’s production was down in the U.S. it was up.

[furrowtickler]

So A5 where is this declining temperature trend in the continental US that you speak of? Take a look at the map from NOAA.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-us-climate-normals-are-here-what-do-they-tell-us-about-climate-change

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?

A warmer normal

The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

[ATTACH]9148[/ATTACH]

Ever hear of the earth’s weakening magnetosphere?
Yes pollution has an effect , but the suns ever changing activity and earths weakening magnetic field is being so overlooked as the main driver of earths climate changes . Slowly the truth is coming out that the carbon blame game is way way over exaggerating the current climate change reality .

[furrowtickler]

a video that most should understand about climate change and its driving forces over time ...

https://youtu.be/8_rb98g0jwU

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So A5 where is this declining temperature trend in the continental US that you speak of? Take a look at the map from NOAA.

https://www.noaa.gov/news/new-us-climate-normals-are-here-what-do-they-tell-us-about-climate-change

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?

A warmer normal

The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

[ATTACH]9148[/ATTACH]

Why do you resort to these strawman arguments whenever you are losing a debate? Have you ever had this tactic succeed in distracting your opponent?
Where did I make any claims about the continental US?
Out of the blue you started making claims about Fargo ND weather. Not sure why, you made it sound like you were responding to someone or some claim, but I checked back through the thread and you were the first one to mention Fargo, trying to distract from your original losing argument. So I looked at the chart you provided of Fargo. It clearly is in a downtrend in recent decades.

As for the 30 year maps you keep posting. I've asked you this before, and you haven't answered, yet you keep posting these maps again, ignorant what they indicate.

Can you explain why the first few maps indicate a warming trend, then switch to a cooliong trend, then switch back to a warming trend? If rising manmade CO2 is the main factor affecting temperature, then how does steadily increasing CO2 explain the cyclical warming and cooling indicated in your maps?

[chuckChuck]

Les Henry in his article cited Fargo North Dakota as evidence that all the climate changes are good and there is no downsde.

Temperatures in July he said were largely unchanged which maybe is true. But if you look at May June July that is simply not the case. the average is rising significantly.

Not only that Climate Alberta's site clearly shows temperature and evapotranspiration increases for southern Alberta and much of the province. That means less moisture for forages and crops.

Read the whole article from NOAA that explains the maps they included in the article.

The new U.S. Climate Normals are here. What do they tell us about climate change?
May 4, 2021

Every 10 years, NOAA releases an analysis of U.S. weather of the past three decades that calculates average values for temperature, rainfall and other conditions.

That time has come again.

Known as the U.S. Climate Normals, these 30-year averages — now spanning 1991-2020 — represent the new “normals” of our changing climate. They are calculated using climate observations collected at local weather stations across the country and are corrected for bad or missing values and any changes to the weather station over time before becoming part of the climate record.

Simply stated: The Normals are the basis for judging how daily, monthly and annual climate conditions compare to what’s normal for a specific location in today’s climate.

For the past decade, the Normals have been based on weather observations from 1981 to 2010. In early May, climate experts at NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) issued an updated collection based on the weather occurring from 1991 to 2020. The data set reflects a “new normal” that takes the most recent 30 years of climate change-influenced weather and climate conditions into account. (More: See our Climate Normals Explainer.)

A warmer normal

The U.S. Climate Normals collection has 10 versions: 1901-1930, 1911-1940 and so on through 1991-2020. In the image below, we’ve compared the U.S. annual average temperature during each Normals period to the 20th-century average (1901-2000). The influence of long-term global warming is obvious: The earliest map in the series has the most widespread and darkest blues, and the most recent map has the most widespread and darkest reds.

A wetter normal?

In the collection of precipitation maps, few places exhibit a precipitation trend that is either steadily wetter or steadily drier than the 20th-century average. Instead, drier areas and wetter areas shift back and forth without an obvious pattern.
Normal annual U.S. precipitation as a percent of the 20th-century average for each U.S. Climate Normals period from 1901-1930 (upper left) to 1991-2020 (lower right). Places where the normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more below the 20th-century average are darkest brown; places where normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more wetter than the 20th-century average are darkest green. Maps by NOAA Climate.gov, based on analysis by Jared Rennie, North Carolina Institute for Climate
Normal annual U.S. precipitation as a percent of the 20th-century average for each U.S. Climate Normals period from 1901-1930 (upper left) to 1991-2020 (lower right). Places where the normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more below the 20th-century average are darkest brown; places where normal annual precipitation was 12.5 percent or more wetter than the 20th-century average are darkest green. Maps by NOAA Climate.gov, based on analysis by Jared Rennie, North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies/NCEI. (NOAA Climate.gov)


And yet, it’s probably not a coincidence that the last four maps in the series — the 1961-1990, 1971-2000, 1981-2010 and 1991-2020 Normals — are nationally the four wettest-looking maps in the collection. At least some of that wetness relative to the 20th-century average is linked to the overall climate warming and “wetting” of the atmosphere that’s occurred as rising temperatures cause more water to evaporate from the ocean and land surface.

What used to be normal

The 1991-2020 Normals tell us what is normal in today’s climate. NOAA scientists conduct other analyses that tell us about what used to be normal.

For example, In NOAA’s monthly and annual climate monitoring reports, temperature averages and precipitation totals are ranked in the climate record dating to 1895; U.S. and global climate conditions are compared to the 20th-century average.
Visualizing climate is easier now than ever

NCEI has a collection of maps showing both recent and long-term trends in temperature and precipitation. You can also create a custom graph showing monthly, seasonal or yearly climate conditions for any region, state and many cities that shows the long-term trend.

The Normals might be shifting, but NOAA scientists and forecasters aren’t losing track of climate change.

[dmlfarmer]

I am curious I thought climate change proponents are always predicting reduced yields and food shortages? Yesterday’s USDA Wasde report has U.S. farmers producing the second biggest corn crop ever and the second biggest soybean crop ever. Hmmm this doesn’t point to a food shortage. While Canada’s production was down in the U.S. it was up.

I am interested in why you are insinuating that climate change proponents are wrong because of the big corn and soybean crops this year while ignoring all the other factors that influence total production besides weather. Why are you ignoring that US farmers planted near record number of acres of both corn and soybeans this past year? (Corn up by 2.5 million acres over 2020, a level not seen since 2016 and soybean acres up 4.5 million acres) More acres of a crop is expected to result in higher total production.

Why are you ignoring the impact of higher yielding new varieties that have been developed, which increases production?

Can't some of the second biggest crops also be the result of increased fertilizer use given total fertillizer use in the US has been trending upward every year?

etc etc. Here is an interesting chart to mull over if as you suggest climate change is not impacting crop production. Why is the trend line for soybean yields increasing faster under irrigation than under dryland.; unless there are other factors than weather which also affect yields.

One year production stats does not prove anything about the impact of long term climate change, especially when you ignore all other factors which contribute to total production

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Dml, you bring up some really good points.
But you will have to remind me, when did the narrative of the climate change alarmists go from proclaiming that agricultural production would decline precipitously, to stating that farmers would innovate and take advantage of improving conditions and continue to increase yields?
Because I must have missed that memo.
But why would you be surprised that farmers are adapting? Are you really surprised that farmers are adapting to improving conditions? When one limiting factor is eliminated, we will push the limits until the next limiting factor is reached then find a way to eliminate that one and on and on.

Starvation levels of CO2 have been a major limiting factor in recent centuries. Of course, as that input has beneficially increased, Farmers have taken advantage of that and increased fertility rates to match. Then water becomes limiting factor, so we are now applying water to more acres to reach the increased potential.
As the growing season gets longer, and heat units increase, crop varieties and species and high input production methods will and are following that trend. As you may have noticed, arable acres are not declining, in fact in spite of urban sprawl eating up productive farmland, worldwide acres under cultivation still continues to increase. And in spite of bringing in more marginal acres, yields continue their relentless increase.
I've put this challenge out before, find somewhere in the world, for some crop where production is declining not increasing to prove your theory.