www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Proof of Global Warming?

Canada frosts the most widespread in memory

America, Bush, inaction blamed for global warming

By Rod Nickel

WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) - The multiple frosts that have blanketed Western Canada in the last week are the most widespread in the top canola-growing province of Saskatchewan in at least five years, the Canola Council of Canada said on Tuesday.

Two overnight frosts last week have already resulted in some Saskatchewan farmers reseeding their canola, a Canadian variant of rapeseed, said Jim Bessel, senior agronomy specialist in the province for the industry group Canola Council.

Other farmers are waiting to see growth signs that would suggest their canola plants have survived the frost, which lasted for up to five hours at a stretch. That new growth is slow to appear with generally cool temperatures holding crop development behind schedule.

"We just don't see a lot of activity happening from a crop development perspective," Bessel said. "(The extent of frost damage) is a really difficult one to call right now ... It's very erratic."

In Manitoba, the frost is the worst in memory for its frequency and area covered, said Derwyn Hammond, the province's senior agronomy specialist for the Canola Council.

"Certainly (it's) the worst year I've seen," said Hammond, who has worked for the Canola Council for 15 years.

With deadlines for full canola crop insurance ranging between June 10 and 20 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, Hammond said he expects most farmers will choose not to reseed.

Cool weather may have actually saved some of the new crop that was at such an early growing stage that it wasn't yet vulnerable to frost, said Doon Pauly, crop specialist for the government of the western province of Alberta.

"It's the equivalent to a frost in the second or third week of May," Pauly said. "That's the bright side."

The downside of the cool weather is that it has left crops in general well behind schedule, he said. The Alberta canola crop is two to three weeks behind development, Pauly said, while the Canadian Wheat Board estimated on Monday that Western Canada wheat and barley crops are at least 10 days behind.

Fields with frost damage can develop bare pockets or a thinned-down plant population that gives weeds more room to grow, said Pauly, adding that some Alberta areas reported frost as recently as Tuesday morning.

But despite frosts and cool weather, it's too early to say if canola yields will suffer, he said.

"Canola is so plastic. If the remainder of June we get good moisture and reasonable heat, the yields can recover."

Scientists report that there is no evidence to support the claims of global warming, and that global climate change is natural. Since 1997 measurements world wide have indicated that the earth is in a cooling cycle.

(Editing by Marguerita Choy)

After "Global Warming", I have to wonder what the next demanding antropocentric theory will be.

The mantle has been given to global cooling, rainforest deforestation, and global warming...

"After "Global Warming", I have to wonder what the next demanding antropocentric theory will be."

"Global Laming"?

Well, did you catch the tax they want to put on 'cows' for making to much 'gas'?

Meanwhile, greens generate their own smug clouds.

I thought this about summed it all up:

[Linked Image]

That is a good one. We're still debating home/private/public schooling, but I don't aim to neglect my child's (and maybe children's) education by leaving the responsibility to his teachers. Critical thinking is a learned skill and the pursuit of wisdom needs to be encouraged.

Terry

The last mass extinction of animals on Earth was thought to have occurred after an asteroid ‘slammed’ into what is now the Gulf of Yucatan. It wasn’t the impact of the asteroid that destroyed most life, but rather the global plume of ash and smoke which engulfed the Earth after impact. The particulate matter blocked the Sun’s rays from penetrating Earth which first caused vegetation to die off and make the planet very cold. Then as a result of the vegetation dying and the animals having nothing to eat, over 90% of the species which inhabited Earth died off. It’s only a theory, but there is strong geological, including paleontological evidence to support this theory. It was the ‘blackened’ Earth atmosphere which caused death and destruction, not the asteroids impact.

The unprecedented rapid global industrialization coupled with equally dramatic deforestation is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to enter into uncharted physical 'dimensions', including an insidious atmospheric equilibrium of high particulate matter and greenhouse cases (CO2 and such). High particulate matter is thought to keep the sun from further heating up the Earth (refraction of energy) and the greenhouse gases are warming it up (insulation). It is by chance that the two opposing physical forces are negating each other’s potential negative physical impact. The problem is that both levels are increasing, and this unnatural physical equilibrium caused by man may not be as innocuous as many believe.

For example, the Northern Polar ice cap is melting at an alarming rate. There are plenty of satellite photos (thank you NASA) which prove how it has dramatically shrunk in size in the past five years alone. For the first time in the history of man it is estimated that within 4 years the Northern Passage will be open year round to maritime traffic - without the use of icebreakers. At the rate it is shrinking there may be no Northern ice cap by 2025, and thousands of indigenous animals, including Polar Bears will become extinct. Will sea levels rise, will weather patterns be affected ?

As with most theories, there are those who support them and those who do not. The global population is expected to no less than double in the next 50 years, and industrialization and deforestation will continue. How can these developments not affect the Earth’s atmosphere ? We tackled the Acid Rain problem 30 years ago and have at least stopped the further destruction of our forests and lakes. Now it’s time to face the perils of global warming.

I.F.

"The last mass extinction of animals on Earth was thought to have occurred after an asteroid ‘slammed’ into what is now the Gulf of Yucatan. It wasn’t the impact of the asteroid that destroyed most life, but rather the global plume of ash and smoke which engulfed the Earth after impact."

Actually, that theory is being questioned, too. It seems that prior to the K-T incident some 65 million years ago, there was already a radical reduction in the number of species in all families of animals--fish, amphibians, archesaurs, even mammals. This may have been caused by fairly rapid climate change, the emergence of new diseases and disease vectors, as well as the opening of new disease pools as species migrated across land masses. The point is, most species were under pressure long before the asteroid.

More damning, of course, is the discovering that quite a few dinosaurs survived well past the K-T Boundary, some by as much as 300,000 years. If the asteroid killed them, then it was really slow about it. And of course, there is the inconvenient fact that some of the most sensitive animals (frogs, salamanders, turtles, etc.) survived, while some of the most robust (the dinosaurs) did not. Yet, today we are expected to believe that a die-off of frogs is a harbinger of the extinction of mankind? Not very rigorous.

On the icecaps: while the polar icecaps did show an unsually large summer meltback, you failed to mention that they more than recovered over the winter, and that the antarctic ice pack showed no similar meltback.

On global population projections, quite a few demographers do not concur with a doubling over the next fifty years. Some, in fact, believe that earth's human population may already have peaked, and that we are entering a period of stability or even decline. We know that the population of the northern hemisphere stopped growing some time ago; the total fertility rate for most OECD countries is below replacement. India's TFR is now close to replacement, while China's has fallen well below replacement as a result of its draconian "one child" policy; over the next fifty years, the population of China will shrink from roughly 1.5 billion to less than 1 billion--the equivalent of losing the entire population of the United States and Canada, with a lot left over.

In the third world, TFR is falling rapidly; there are very few places remaining, in fact, where TFR exceeds 4 (which was the global norm at the beginning of the 20th century).

On "acid rain", well, what can I say? it was hooey then, and it's hooey now. You should really check some statistics before you post: North America today--and the East Coast in particular--has more forests today than when John Smith met Pocahontas back in 1607.

Interesting

Stuart, you noted, following J-F's, comment..."Actually, that theory is being questioned, too. It seems that prior to the K-T incident some 65 million years ago, there was already a radical reduction in the number of species in all families of animals--fish, amphibians, archesaurs, even mammals. This may have been caused by fairly rapid climate change, the emergence of new diseases and disease vectors, as well as the opening of new disease pools as species migrated across land masses. The point is, most species were under pressure long before the asteroid."



Stuart, what is the commonly accepted view among scientists? The view advanced by you or the one advanced by J-F. How many scientists accept your view and how many J-Fs? Majority consensus is what counts in my book. I would like to know the source of your information and please don't tell me it it is some guy who is not a properly accredited academic. I want hard numbers of recognized scientists who espouse your position. I mean folks who have miles of publications and who hold full chairs in paleontology at some major research university, not a gnome who works for some diploma mill.

J-F, i would ask all of the same questions of you that i asked of Stuart. Hard facts.


Stuart, you note, "On global population projections, quite a few demographers do not concur with a doubling over the next fifty years." Please define what what you mean by a quite a few. Does the view you put forward here in a accord with the general scholarly consensus on the issue or is it a minority view?

Majority consensus counts for nothing in my book. What counts is what is provable by the scientific method. If the majority of scientists believed in a theory stating that the sun revolved around the earth it would be meaningless because they would be wrong. What happened 65 million years ago, as JF noted, “was thought to have occurred”. It is a theory and nothing more. From what I read most reputable scientists consider it to be a very possible theory but not a demonstrable theory. One does not make policy on unproven theories. But, interestingly enough, it appears that when asked in surveys where there is no pressure to answer one way or another the majority of scientists are not aboard the global warming boat. They are skeptical and say the science behind it is not sound.

At the National Center for Public Policy a report in June 2008 titled “The Lieberman-Warner Cap and Trade Bill: Quick Summary and Analysis” included: “Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine announced that more than 31,000 scientists had signed a petition rejecting the theory of human-caused global warming. A significant number of scientists, climatologists and meteorologists have expressed doubt about the danger of global warming and whether or not humans are having a significant impact for the worse on the climate." |Link [nationalcenter.org]| Someone convinced by numbers should find that worthy of pausing.

There is also a lot of scientific information available online, and even a good deal at government sites like senate.gov. Search for “global warming minority” and “global cooling”.

U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009

Extract: Promoters of anthropogenic warming fears endured the following: Global temperatures failing to warm; Peer-reviewed studies predicting a continued lack of warming; a failed attempt to revive the discredited “Hockey Stick”; inconvenient developments and studies regarding rising CO2; the Sun; Clouds; Antarctica; the Arctic; Greenland’s ice; Mount Kilimanjaro; Causes of Hurricanes; Extreme Storms; Extinctions; Floods; Droughts; Ocean Acidification; Polar Bears; Extreme weather deaths; Frogs; lack of atmospheric dust; Malaria; the failure of oceans to warm and rise as predicted. | Link [epw.senate.gov] |

It’s a long report with excellent links for reading details elsewhere. The gist is what no one disagrees on. There is global climate change and there always has been. Science shows that man affects climate locally but temporarily (cities are warmer because of all those buildings and roads). But no one has yet explained the “Middle Age Warm Up” and the “Little Ice Age” that followed it (which the scientists say was a change of ~7 degrees Celsius).

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

Excerpt: All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. | Link [theaustralian.news.com.au] |

There are lots of scientific resources by very reputable scientists. But one also needs to note that a lot of those who push the global warming agenda are not scientists. One of the loudest voices is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which routinely announces that the world will end if we don’t do something now. They use Mann’s findings (which are now discredited due to faulty scientific method). And they are not a scientific institution (but love to be taken as one). They are a pro-green, political, but not officially governmental group that exists to promote the global warming agenda. They have a few climatologists but not many. One can certainly hear them out but one should look past the message to the method, to see that it is scientific (just as one looks at all sides of the issues past the agendas to the hard science).

If one looks at the hard science we can find an easy explanation of why all the global warming alarmists are all of a sudden dropping the term “global warming” and replacing it with “climate change”. Some are now predicting a 20-30 year cooling trend.

As I noted before, the most reasonable conclusion is that man has a limited effect upon the climate (it’s warmer in the cities because of all those buildings and pavement, etc.). That’s always been the case. The answer is good stewardship of God’s resources. If another ice age like that of about 10,000 years ago came we could not stop it. Man has not the power. Nor can we stop any naturally occurring climate change. Good stewardship and not alarmism is the way forward.

Man tends to exaggerate the scale of his influence.

Strangely, here in Southern California, we have had the COOLEST June on record. The Past two weeks have been overcast and 70 degrees straight. In my 44+ years living in Los ngeles County I have never seen such a June weather pattern extending so late into the season.

While the liberals keep crying "global warming", we seem to be heading into a "global cooling" trend instead. Typical of the political left to keep things opposite, warm is cool, evil is good etc....Really, who actually knows what is going on?

When we can predict next week's weather with 100% accuracy week after week, then I'll belive the computer models showing that global warming is actually man made. Otherwise, it is as accurate as guessing the next week's winning lottery numbers!

I see that today's papers warn that El Nino is starting up again. Large areas of Australia are the driest they have been for years.