La Nina

[margrace]

Environment Canada is predicting the coldest winter in 15 years caused by La Nina, with higher precipitation. Well this time last year we had no snow, tonight we have well over a foot. and it is still storming. I remember 15 years ago, between Christmas and New years it went down to -30C and stayed there for six weeks. Lovely for those who like ice fishing.

[fellowtraveller]

Maybe where you live.....not in central AB.

Last winter was brutal, cold, and long- the worst I can remember.

[guyser]

Environment Canada is predicting the coldest winter in 15 years caused by La Nina, with higher precipitation. Well this time last year we had no snow, tonight we have well over a foot. and it is still storming. I remember 15 years ago, between Christmas and New years it went down to -30C and stayed there for six weeks. Lovely for those who like ice fishing.

Good. I like colder temps, usually doesnt come with that damp crap we endure here.

margrace, you do know you recd more than normal total snowfall last winter dont you?

[jawapunk]

I wouldn't mind a cold ass winter either. I like to camp and hike when during it. Ice fishing is pretty good too.

[guyser]

I wouldn't mind a cold ass winter either. I like to camp and hike when during it. Ice fishing is pretty good too.

Forgive my ignorance, but where would you ice fish? Are there that many fresh water lakes around? I know there are some.....

[jawapunk]

Newfoundland is full of small ponds, lakes and rivers. It wouldn't be around St. John's but in central or northern newfoundland it works out.

[sharkman]

In B.C. we need a cold winter really bad. A sustained cold front of -25c would kill off those pine beetles, but every year we have no such luck.

I wonder how the Global Warming crowd is taking this colder winter news.

[jdobbin]

In B.C. we need a cold winter really bad. A sustained cold front of -25c would kill off those pine beetles, but every year we have no such luck.

I wonder how the Global Warming crowd is taking this colder winter news.

No one said there still wouldn't be record colds. Climate change means shorter seasons of it. A La Nina is simply a change in direction of where the cold is coming from and where it is going.

[Wild Bill]

In B.C. we need a cold winter really bad. A sustained cold front of -25c would kill off those pine beetles, but every year we have no such luck.

I wonder how the Global Warming crowd is taking this colder winter news.

Ah, it's not called Global Warming anymore. The term today is "Climate Change".

I've been dating myself, too. It's hard to keep up when they keep changing things. It seems like only yesterday but it was back in the 70's when we were all being told that Mankind was precipitating an Ice Age.

Anyhow, near as I can figure from a quick google, the new term was adopted just a few years ago after some reports showed evidence that average temperatures had DROPPED since 1998!

The new term is an excellent tool as it is all inclusive. If temperatures go up that's because of Climate Change. If they go down that's also the result of Climate Change. If they stay constant that is also (you guessed it!) the result of Climate Change!

With such a definition Climate Change can never again be denied! Makes it easier for the members of that church, I guess!

[jdobbin]

Anyhow, near as I can figure from a quick google, the new term was adopted just a few years ago after some reports showed evidence that average temperatures had DROPPED since 1998!

A quick google search should have turned up this current graph as well.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

[sharkman]

Ah, it's not called Global Warming anymore. The term today is "Climate Change".

I've been dating myself, too. It's hard to keep up when they keep changing things. It seems like only yesterday but it was back in the 70's when we were all being told that Mankind was precipitating an Ice Age.

Anyhow, near as I can figure from a quick google, the new term was adopted just a few years ago after some reports showed evidence that average temperatures had DROPPED since 1998!

The new term is an excellent tool as it is all inclusive. If temperatures go up that's because of Climate Change. If they go down that's also the result of Climate Change. If they stay constant that is also (you guessed it!) the result of Climate Change!

With such a definition Climate Change can never again be denied! Makes it easier for the members of that church, I guess!

Nothing like using fear and marketing to manipulate the masses!

[jdobbin]

Nothing like using fear and marketing to manipulate the masses!

Or falsehoods to try and attack the scientists.

[Riverwind]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

The graph means nothing becuase the time range is way too short. Look at a graph over the last 500 thousand years and you will not see anything significantly unusual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

[jdobbin]

The graph means nothing becuase the time range is way too short. Look at a graph over the last 500 thousand years and you will not see anything significantly unusual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

So this denies global warming now?

[Riverwind]

So this denies global warming now?

It demonstrates that it is silly to draw conclusions about warming or cooling from short term variations in temperatures.

[jdobbin]

It demonstrates that it is silly to draw conclusions about warming or cooling from short term variations in temperatures.

And helps support for Tory position of do nothing.

[guyser]

Newfoundland is full of small ponds, lakes and rivers. It wouldn't be around St. John's but in central or northern newfoundland it works out.

Thanks. I had looked at a map but it showed very little in the way of bodies of water. So, I blame the maps. hehehe..

Thanks

[Wild Bill]

A quick google search should have turned up this current graph as well.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Hasn't this claim:

"The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Eleven of the twelve warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past twelve years (1995-2006). The only year in the last twelve not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990)."

been discredited? Didn't NASA make a retraction?

[Drea]

Nothing like using fear and marketing to manipulate the masses!

works for Bush and his regime. Why not use it.

Personally I believe the earth is warming naturally -- that it is natural for the poles to be ice free every few hundred thousand years.

The best we humans can do is adapt to the change.

[jdobbin]

Hasn't this claim:

"The 1990s were the warmest decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Eleven of the twelve warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past twelve years (1995-2006). The only year in the last twelve not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990)."

been discredited? Didn't NASA make a retraction?

Here is completely up to data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

The data changed very little.

Edited December 1, 2007 by jdobbin

[Keepitsimple]

Here is completely up to data.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

The data changed very little.

All these graphs use the same scales to "prove" their point. From the graph lines, it looks like the temperature is going way up......but in fact the increments are only in tenths-of-a-degree so the overall change over a hundred years is more like one degree....and it's generally agreed that natural climate change has been causing the temperature to rise by about one degree per century for quite a while......but whether you're a skeptic or an alarmist, we'll all find out in no more than 10 years as to whether there is, or there isn't a problem...because either the temperature will continue to rise, water levels will rise, islands will sink - or nothing much will happen......and regardless of what anyone says, ten years is not going to be a make-or-break period. Keep your eye on those graphs as each year passes.

[jdobbin]

All these graphs use the same scales to "prove" their point. From the graph lines, it looks like the temperature is going way up......but in fact the increments are only in tenths-of-a-degree so the overall change over a hundred years is more like one degree....and it's generally agreed that natural climate change has been causing the temperature to rise by about one degree per century for quite a while......but whether you're a skeptic or an alarmist, we'll all find out in no more than 10 years as to whether there is, or there isn't a problem...because either the temperature will continue to rise, water levels will rise, islands will sink - or nothing much will happen......and regardless of what anyone says, ten years is not going to be a make-or-break period. Keep your eye on those graphs as each year passes.

And in the mean time, the Tory policy is to do nothing. We'll see how well that plays with the Canadian public.

[Wild Bill]

And in the mean time, the Tory policy is to do nothing. We'll see how well that plays with the Canadian public.

Well, consider the other possibility. You're the party that spends tons of taxpayer money and imposes sacrifices on millions of Canadians to catch up to the Kyoto commitments. You ride fairly high in the polls for a couple of terms. People seem to believe it hurts but it's worth it to "save the planet".

Then one day everyone wakes up to discover that we had it all wrong. Either the warming trend was totally natural and beyond Man's power to do anything about or maybe it was only a cyclic blip and temperatures have been falling. Perhaps it was a short warming period that introduces the next Ice Age as some scientists have suggested. We wasted all that time and made all those sacrifices for nothing. Worse yet, we spent all our time trying to handle heat when now we have to switch gears, scrap investments in machinery and start to cope with increasing cold.

So you tell the people "OOPS! Oh well. Better safe than sorry!" Then comes the next election.

What do you think would happen to that party? How long would they be lost in Opposition?

Now I know you might reply that you absolutely believe that would never happen but it's easy for those of us to take such stands when we're merely debating amongst ourselves. Would you want to be one of those responsible to the party who took them down that road with no "cover your ass just in case" strategy?

Having something like that on your political resume would be the kiss of death to your career!

I think we shouldn't be surprised at Harper's caution. It's all very well to get out in front of a parade but you do have check once in a while to be sure you won't be branded as Krusty the Clown for life.

Look what happened to Stockwell Day with the Barney the Dinosaur label. He cost his party the election and burned his chances of ever again being party leader forever!

As for Dion, he's still harping on Kyoto when it's obvious the treaty is dead. Many countries will continue to give it lip service but the big countries are making their own plans and the smaller ones will have no choice but to follow. They tried to mix actual emission reductions with exemptions for the biggest polluters like China and India out of some sense of guilt for colonial history with global welfare schemes that effectively taxed the US and the rest of the G8, except for Russia.

Never ask a politician to stick his neck out too far...

[jdobbin]

Well, consider the other possibility. You're the party that spends tons of taxpayer money and imposes sacrifices on millions of Canadians to catch up to the Kyoto commitments. You ride fairly high in the polls for a couple of terms. People seem to believe it hurts but it's worth it to "save the planet".

Then one day everyone wakes up to discover that we had it all wrong. Either the warming trend was totally natural and beyond Man's power to do anything about or maybe it was only a cyclic blip and temperatures have been falling. Perhaps it was a short warming period that introduces the next Ice Age as some scientists have suggested. We wasted all that time and made all those sacrifices for nothing. Worse yet, we spent all our time trying to handle heat when now we have to switch gears, scrap investments in machinery and start to cope with increasing cold.

I guess the contrasts will be sharp in the next election: The Conservatives are opposed to reducing emissions. The Liberals for for reducing the emissions. Let the Canadian public decide.

[sharkman]

Come come dobbin, you commented above on using falsehoods to attack scientists who support GW, now YOU are using falsehoods. Isn't that hypocritical? The Tories clearly laid out their plans to reduce emissions when they punted Kyoto, so your claim is at best wildly inaccurate.

And we've already seen with Dion's approach how high Canadians rate Global Warming issues. If this issue was as important to Canadians as it is to you, Dion would be polling in the 50s.