Canadian debate on climate change

[LakeEffectKing]

It is false that there is not research into post-fossil fuel Co2 levels and that the assumption gross primary productivity will be unaffected by CO2 concentration (a process known as CO2 fertilization). 

 

The AR5 includes an entire section on CO2 fertilization and an entire chapter on biogeochemical process related to climate change. I suggest you read them. 

 

An extensive summary of field and model based CO2 fertilization experiments is provided. The CMIP5 mean is for a massive 1.0 Pg of Carbon storage per ppm of CO2. It is the largest carbon feedback to changes in CO2 concentration and temperature. It is an even stronger feedback than ocean storage.

 

In fact, figures from Table 6.1 would appear to indicate that, when excluding the effect of land-use changes (probably primarily deforestation) more CO2 has been stored in the land than in the ocean the last 9 years. The cause of this is likely primarily CO2 fertilization, and rapid growth of young forests.

You have misunderstood (misread???...false narrative/premise??) Jonger....he said there doesn't seem to be "much" research.....he didn't say there wasn't "any" as you implied in your direct response to him...

[Jonger]

And this trend is projected to continue. CO2 fertilization of plant-life is a massive negative feedback on CO2 concentration in CMIP5 models.

 

Your claim that there is no research or that this effect is not included or that we will magically stay below 550ppm is baseless.

 

I don't think its going to stay at 550ppm, I think we probably have another 50 years of emissions before we are able to go carbon neutral and that will put us near 550ppm, I believe the rate will increase for a decade or two. Once we stop emissions they should begin to fall due to biomass uptake. I keep hearing that whatever we pump into the atmosphere will hang around for the next 1,000 years, that sounds far fetched considering at 398ppm our plant growth is spreading rapidly, mainly in arid regions.

[Snowstorms]

I have no idea how the AMO affects Michigan weather, so I'll stay out of that one. I just know that the 1970's were highly abnormal in comparison to most of the 20th century. Supposedly suspended aerosols are responsible, but that theory has always been tough for anyone to agree on.

 

I analyzed several stations across the region from Environment Canada's website and have found very close correlations in the behavior of the AMO and temperature trends. Overall I found no real changes in precipitation, though i noticed increases in precip. esp when the PDO is negative and drier conditions when the PDO is positive. The 1970's were highly unusual but we had quite the string of La Nina's and a strong -PDO/-AMO phase going on and La Nina's often provide below normal winters across Canada temperature wise, for example; 1970-71 was the coldest winter in Canada. 

 

Im going to have to look at all the variables more closely to properly correlate the changes in ice coverage but I believe AMO is ONE of the factors. 

[LakeEffectKing]

And this trend is projected to continue. CO2 fertilization of plant-life is a massive negative feedback on CO2 concentration in CMIP5 models.

 

Your claim that there is no research or that this effect is not included or that we will magically stay below 550ppm is baseless.

Again....reread.....

[bluewave]

There has been next to nothing in terms of changes in temperatures across Southern Ontario in about the last 70-100 years. Precipitation values haven't changed at all in the the past century or so. Most of the temperature changes that have occurred are mostly visible at night which can be blamed for urbanization and the Urban Heat Island effect and albedo effect which in turn has an effect how the ice coverage behaves across the Lakes (sunlight reflection, low level cooling, etc). This change has effected the overall yearly mean temperatures which is why it may seem we have seen a substantial warming trend but if you analyze the raw data its mostly confined to the night.  The 1920s thru the early 1940's were quite warm like the 80's and 90's were across Ontario, though I cant speak for the rest of Canada as I haven't analyzed the raw data yet. Canada has warmed in the past 50 or so years but mostly because of the warming across the far north whereas much of the southern regions haven't really changed much if at all.   

 

There has been steady warming over Southern Ontario with several of the warmest years on record over the last decade.

You can even look at rural sites with no UHI and see the same warming trend along with urban centers like Toronto.

 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

[Jonger]

Again....reread.....

 

Maybe I should have worded it differently...

 

"I wish more info was released regarding post-fossil fuel CO2 levels that didn't default to 1,000 year periods, which sound inaccurate".

 

At least that's what we are told by the powers that be to achieve maximum fear effect. 

 

Meanwhile, the fossil fuel age resulting in extending mans lifespan from 38yrs old to 80yrs old, eradicated the plague, put a man on the moon and achieved fusion in a lab to sustain THE ONLY KNOWN SENTIENT SPECIES IN THE UNIVERSE.

 

Yea, we all are just awful critters on this planet.

[Jonger]

There has been steady warming over Southern Ontario with several of the warmest years on record over the last decade.

You can even look at rural sites with no UHI and see the same warming trend along with urban centers like Toronto.

 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

 

Where are you seeing these site trends? I see a map that uses the COLDEST period in the last 100 years as a benchmark. Any year from 1900-1960 would look warm compared the 1960-1990 in north America.

 

[Snowstorms]

There has been steady warming over Southern Ontario with several of the warmest years on record over the last decade.

You can even look at rural sites with no UHI and see the same warming trend along with urban centers like Toronto.

 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

 

Yeah i saw that graph but it only goes back to 1947, see? I looked at several stations individually and saw no real change with the greatest change at night which has effected the yearly mean average. The mid 1920's to the mid 1940's were really warm winters across Southern Ontario. And again if you analyze that image, most of the warming has been across the northern regions, the southern regions have hardly changed with very minimal warming. The UHI has the greatest effect during the summer where i noticed the greatest changes in overnight temperatures but overall, very little change in the past 80-100 years. 

 

During a +PDO phase much of the Great Lakes region is often drier, and the 1920's and 1930's were fairly dry just as the 1980's and 1990's. In fact just for fun, Jan 1994 is the coldest month on record across some regions of Southern Ontario. 

[Jonger]

Yeah i saw that graph but it only goes back to 1947, see? I looked at several stations individually and saw no real change with the greatest change at night which has effected the yearly mean average. The mid 1920's to the mid 1940's were really warm winters across Southern Ontario. And again if you analyze that image, most of the warming has been across the northern regions, the southern regions have hardly changed with very minimal warming. The UHI has the greatest effect during the summer where i noticed the greatest changes in overnight temperatures but overall, very little change in the past 80-100 years. 

 

During a +PDO phase much of the Great Lakes region is often drier, and the 1920's and 1930's were fairly dry just as the 1980's and 1990's. In fact just for fun, Jan 1994 is the coldest month on record across some regions of Southern Ontario. 

 

 

This isn't very scientific, but before 1947 there was very notable warming in the arctic, so the national temp trend would reflect that if it went before 1947.

 

Maybe like this?

 

[bluewave]

Yeah i saw that graph but it only goes back to 1947, see? I looked at several stations individually and saw no real change with the greatest change at night which has effected the yearly mean average. The mid 1920's to the mid 1940's were really warm winters across Southern Ontario. And again if you analyze that image, most of the warming has been across the northern regions, the southern regions have hardly changed with very minimal warming. The UHI has the greatest effect during the summer where i noticed the greatest changes in overnight temperatures but overall, very little change in the past 80-100 years. 

 

During a +PDO phase much of the Great Lakes region is often drier, and the 1920's and 1930's were fairly dry just as the 1980's and 1990's. In fact just for fun, Jan 1994 is the coldest month on record across some regions of Southern Ontario. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's easier to find 100+ year temperature graphs for the U.S. areas near the Canadian Border. I have posted graphs from

southern areas of Canada showing similar trends to places like BTV. There are some sites that have Canadian locations

you can plot out for yourself. Many of the Southern Canadian locations look similar to Burlington Vermont.

 

[Snowstorms]

This isn't very scientific, but before 1947 there was very notable warming in the arctic, so the national temp trend would reflect that if it went before 1947.

 

Maybe like this?

 

not scientific.jpg

 

Yeah there aren't any graphs of Canadian temperature plots before 1947 including the Northern regions. Some of the northern regions of Canada didn't have temperature gauges prior to the 1940's as i looked back at the stations so anything prior to the 1940s on the Canadian side of the Arctic is very limited data wise and temperatures vary alot across the North so its hard to get a real figure on how the temperature trends were back in the 1920's and 1930's when the south was fairly above normal. 

[Snowstorms]

 

It's easier to find 100+ year temperature graphs for the U.S. areas near the Canadian Border. I have posted graphs from

southern areas of Canada showing similar trends to places like BTV. There are some sites that have Canadian locations

you can plot out for yourself. Many of the Southern Canadian locations look similar to Burlington Vermont.

 

Screen shot 2013-10-28 at 7.39.24 PM.png

 

 

Yeah i made graphs of the average mean temperature, high temperature and low temperature of some stations in Ontario and found no real trend. The greatest trend was again, mostly at night and this affected the monthly and yearly mean. Thats a good graph but lets say i was basing Toronto, the early 1930's and late 1920's were fairly above normal and are very similar temperature wise to what was visble in 1980's and 1990s. The only real year that stands out is 2011-2012 and 2001-02. 

 

Prior to 1920, it was far cooler than today but there were, again some warm winters mixed in comparable to today. Overall i saw no real trend if you minus UHI, etc. 

[Jonger]

 

It's easier to find 100+ year temperature graphs for the U.S. areas near the Canadian Border. I have posted graphs from

southern areas of Canada showing similar trends to places like BTV. There are some sites that have Canadian locations

you can plot out for yourself. Many of the Southern Canadian locations look similar to Burlington Vermont.

 

Screen shot 2013-10-28 at 7.39.24 PM.png

 

 

It is what it is, but last year REALLY makes that chart look ugly.

 

+2F over the 100 year average looks about right for that spot.

[Jonger]

 

If technology progressed 60 years ahead of todays pace, we could have had the same arguments in 1950 and the trend would look just as bad.

 

If it drops like it did from 1950 to 1970 from here till 2033, I'll have to laugh.

[Sundog]

I don't think its going to stay at 550ppm, I think we probably have another 50 years of emissions before we are able to go carbon neutral and that will put us near 550ppm, I believe the rate will increase for a decade or two. Once we stop emissions they should begin to fall due to biomass uptake. I keep hearing that whatever we pump into the atmosphere will hang around for the next 1,000 years, that sounds far fetched considering at 398ppm our plant growth is spreading rapidly, mainly in arid regions.

And I thought desertification was a major problem.

[Jonger]

I don't think its going to stay at 550ppm, I think we probably have another 50 years of emissions before we are able to go carbon neutral and that will put us near 550ppm, I believe the rate will increase for a decade or two. Once we stop emissions they should begin to fall due to biomass uptake. I keep hearing that whatever we pump into the atmosphere will hang around for the next 1,000 years, that sounds far fetched considering at 398ppm our plant growth is spreading rapidly, mainly in arid regions.

And I thought desertification was a major problem.

Growth rates are increasing in dry areas, CO2 is allowing plants stomatas to close sooner and reduce the vulnerable period of moisture loss. Australia and the SW United States are establishing new growth faster than anywhere on earth.

[skierinvermont]

You have misunderstood (misread???...false narrative/premise??) Jonger....he said there doesn't seem to be "much" research.....he didn't say there wasn't "any" as you implied in your direct response to him...

 

Wow LEK.. you are so smart.. you can play semantics so well! I am impressed!

[skierinvermont]

Growth rates are increasing in dry areas, CO2 is allowing plants stomatas to close sooner and reduce the vulnerable period of moisture loss. Australia and the SW United States are establishing new growth faster than anywhere on earth.

 

Link? I live in the SW, I'm not noticing much greening around here. A lot of forest fires and droughts though.

 

 

The point stands, climate models, which include realistic and large CO2 fertilization, show that global CO2 concentrations will continue to rise without drastic emissions reductions.

[Jonger]

Link?

 

 

The point stands, climate models, which include realistic and large CO2 fertilization, show that global CO2 concentrations will continue to rise without drastic emissions reductions.

 

We discussed this a few months back, there was a widely accepted study on this... Anyhow, here is one. I'll find the article either tonight or tomorrow.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110303111624.htm

 

If you google co2 + plants + stomata... Its brings up gobs of articles on the issue, it appears to be an unchallenged finding.

[Jonger]

http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/60575-rising-co2-level-making-earths-deserts-bloom-csiro-study

 

More recent.

[skierinvermont]

http://www.itwire.com/science-news/climate/60575-rising-co2-level-making-earths-deserts-bloom-csiro-study

 

More recent.

 

Interesting. I wasn't aware CO2 fertilization was strongest in arid environments, but it makes sense. Regardless, these processes are included in CMIP5 models, which show a very strong carbon sink negative feedback over land in response to rising CO2 concentration. 

 

Your claim that these effects are not included, under-researched, or underestimated remains baseless. I would go so far to say that your claim was willfully ignorant, dishonest, and misleading.

[LakeEffectKing]

Wow LEK.. you are so smart.. you can play semantics so well! I am impressed!

Andy, what is the problem with admitting that you were wrong?  It's not semantics...your thirst for being a contrarian seems endless, and comes with a price, if your not willing to adhere to your own terms.

[skierinvermont]

Andy, what is the problem with admitting that you were wrong?  It's not semantics...your thirst for being a contrarian seems endless, and comes with a price, if your not willing to adhere to your own terms.

 

Are you threatening me?

 

It is semantics. He said there is not much research into CO2 fertilization and that CO2 fertilization is assumed to be the same as at 280ppm. CO2 fertilization is already believed to have been the largest negative feedback on carbon concentration that there is, and it is projected to remain the largest negative feedback. More carbon is stored as biomass due to fertilization than is absorbed by the oceans over the next century by CMIP5 models and together both negative feedbacks absorb well over half of all carbon emitted by humans. His statements are flat out wrong and most likely either willful ignorance or a lie on his behalf. Whether there is "no research" or "not much research" is semantics, as both statements are grossly incorrect. 

 

And I reject your premise that I am a contrarian. I just don't like people making up lies and posting them as fact. 

[WXheights]

There are many people who would like to see Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts dead, in fact there was a fake announcement of Goddards death not too long ago. Wishfull thinking I guess.

 Just the opposite -- live a long life to see their errors and be mercifully guilt ridden for it. Their own private hell as we live ours. Death for some would simply too easy a way out!

[Jonger]

Andy, what is the problem with admitting that you were wrong?  It's not semantics...your thirst for being a contrarian seems endless, and comes with a price, if your not willing to adhere to your own terms.

 

Are you threatening me?

 

It is semantics. He said there is not much research into CO2 fertilization and that CO2 fertilization is assumed to be the same as at 280ppm. CO2 fertilization is already believed to have been the largest negative feedback on carbon concentration that there is, and it is projected to remain the largest negative feedback. More carbon is stored as biomass due to fertilization than is absorbed by the oceans over the next century by CMIP5 models and together both negative feedbacks absorb well over half of all carbon emitted by humans. His statements are flat out wrong and most likely either willful ignorance or a lie on his behalf. Whether there is "no research" or "not much research" is semantics, as both statements are grossly incorrect. 

 

And I reject your premise that I am a contrarian. I just don't like people making up lies and posting them as fact. 

I could quote dozens of climate alarmists warning the public that whatever we pump into the atmosphere is going to stay there for as long as 1000 years. So, maybe my error was believing their word and not challenging their findings like I usually do.

[WXheights]

Canadians by life experience should be in a slightly more robust spot to see ramification of warming then those further to the south. Of course the population centers of Canada  are all close to the US. border excepting Edmonton, Calgary and other Prairie states. But do they not communicate with their more northerly comrades? Seems selective

[LakeEffectKing]

 

Are you threatening me?

 

It is semantics. He said there is not much research into CO2 fertilization and that CO2 fertilization is assumed to be the same as at 280ppm. CO2 fertilization is already believed to have been the largest negative feedback on carbon concentration that there is, and it is projected to remain the largest negative feedback. More carbon is stored as biomass due to fertilization than is absorbed by the oceans over the next century by CMIP5 models and together both negative feedbacks absorb well over half of all carbon emitted by humans. His statements are flat out wrong and most likely either willful ignorance or a lie on his behalf. Whether there is "no research" or "not much research" is semantics, as both statements are grossly incorrect. 

 

And I reject your premise that I am a contrarian. I just don't like people making up lies and posting them as fact.

LOL! No, not threatening you (can't believe you took it that way!) Just pointing out that the "price to be paid" is calling you out when stating falsehoods (ie. Jonger's clear statement of "not much" vs. your misrepresenting his statement as "any")...get a bit thicker skinned! Sheesh! And what one characterizes as semantics is quite arbitrary. You need not embellish to make your point...it makes for better debate.

[Jonger]

Canadians by life experience should be in a slightly more robust spot to see ramification of warming then those further to the south. Of course the population centers of Canada  are all close to the US. border excepting Edmonton, Calgary and other Prairie states. But do they not communicate with their more northerly comrades? Seems selectiveAGWarcticamplification.jpg.png

 

You are right, most Canadians live near SW Ontario, which has warmed about a half a degree over the 100 year average. Toronto is probably 2 degrees fahrenheit over the 1960-1990 average. 

 

My brother in-law moved from Winnipeg to Michigan about 5 years ago. According to him, its miserable and impossible to tell if its a high of -20C or -18C on a January day. He isn't interested in weather anymore than joe-blow on the street, which is the exact type of person we are talking about.

[skierinvermont]

I could quote dozens of climate alarmists warning the public that whatever we pump into the atmosphere is going to stay there for as long as 1000 years. So, maybe my error was believing their word and not challenging their findings like I usually do.

 

I've heard that statement before as well, and it is a bit of an oversimplification, but I think their general point is that it will take 1000s of years for CO2 concentration to return to normal. A lot of what is initially emitted is absorbed by the oceans and land biomass, but the portion that remains in the atmosphere will take many 1000s of years to be fully or even mostly re-absorbed.

 

Your mistake was not further investigating this issue before posting it on this forum. A quick glance at the IPCC report shows an entire section on CO2 fertilization, and an entire chapter dedicated to projecting CO2 concentration. 

[Jonger]

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/local.html?id=42500432769&var=TAVG

 

Here's a great tool I forgot about until tonight, there are quite a few stations near Canada.... Some are nearly flat trend, but most show the usual 1975-1995 warming bounce.

 

It even has warming scenarios added to the trend lines, some look quite funny when placed against the flat trend stations.

 

I love Circleville, Ohio