Slashdot Mirror
Canada Warming At Twice the Global Rate, Report Finds (www.cbc.ca)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: Canada is, on average, experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with Northern Canada heating up at almost three times the global average, according to a new government report. Entitled "Canada's Changing Climate Report (CCCR)," the study was commissioned by the Environment and Climate Change Department and was slated to be released officially on Tuesday. That release date was moved up to Monday after CBC published its story about the leaked report.
The leaked copy of the report says that since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia. In Northern Canada, the annual average temperature has increased by 2.3 C. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), since 1948, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.8 C. Along with these temperature increases, the CCCR says Canada is experiencing increases in precipitation (particularly in winter), "extreme fire weather" and water supply shortages in summer, and a heightened risk of coastal flooding. The document says that while warming in Canada has been the result of both human activity and natural variations in the climate, "the human factor is dominant," especially emissions of greenhouse gases.
The leaked copy of the report says that since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia. In Northern Canada, the annual average temperature has increased by 2.3 C. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), since 1948, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.8 C. Along with these temperature increases, the CCCR says Canada is experiencing increases in precipitation (particularly in winter), "extreme fire weather" and water supply shortages in summer, and a heightened risk of coastal flooding. The document says that while warming in Canada has been the result of both human activity and natural variations in the climate, "the human factor is dominant," especially emissions of greenhouse gases.
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
can really generate the heat. I blame Tim Hortons.
On the positive side of things this would indicate that there are some countries warming slower than (though not necessarily at half) the global rate.
The Royal Metrological Society in the UK found that 1 deg of the increase was from urbanization, not CO2. Buildings/asphalt absorbing heat during the day and radiating back out during the evening, thereby increasing Tmin (and thus the average). Same effect here?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
What a good thing! What a wonderful thing!
I live in Toronto. The winters here are frickin freezing. Just a few days ago we had snow, and it's April already, for Christ's sake.
I welcome global warming with open arms.
Canada will soon be a livable country.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
When the permafrost thaws, the carbon in it starts getting converted to CO2 and methane. There's enough carbon in the permafrost to torch the planet.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Geoengineering options include increasing albedo through deforestation.
Nice try Canada, but we're not falling for that one again! There are more Canadians hiding from polar votexes in Florida than there are Floridians. It's the only reason Florida has not just one, but TWO hockey teams for Pete's sake!
https://youtu.be/5CsGexs8ar0
All the climate models show that temperatures should rise faster closer to the arctic, here in Norway we have measured the same rise as in Canada, i.e. about twice the global average.
Norway starts at 58N, North Cape is 71 degrees North. Except for the Gulf Stream Norway would not be habitable at all.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
But getting longer warmer summers and less ice and snow in the winter makes up for it! :)
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
So not merely the 1m temps of a Stephenson Screen, but the bottom x00m or more
Right, the air temperature at 1meter above surface is what we are interested in. Satellites measure the bottom hundreds of meters, which is not the same. There's a huge gradient just above the surface. Thanks for confirming and elaborating.
Of the industrialized countries only Australia is worse. We beat the American's by over 5% and that's not counting the fact that we fudge the numbers. The Canadian government chose not to include methane being released by rotting wood from forests. It turns out if you clear cut large areas and then replant those areas with only one type of tree those trees become susceptible to disease. Who would have thought. I guess there is some justice in seeing the Australians suffer but I can't see many Canadians complaining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You claimed that satellites don't measure air temps. YOU WERE WRONG. So when this was pointed out WHOOSH!!!! went your goalposts and suddenly it has to be 1m. Except that isn't where our weather is, you fucking lying idiot. Nor most of our livable area: we normally use two or more storey houses, both for living and work.
So the stephenson screen doesn't measure surface air, only spot temperature.
Unlike satellites which that is all they do: the surface air. All of it. A volume, not a point in space.
Nor does that fact change you were 100% absolutely wrong and still refuse to accept it, because you're terrified that if you admit it you suddenly have to look again at all the denier tropes you've engorged yourself on and maybe find yourself wrong about many more things.
And your ego can't handle that.
You claimed that satellites don't measure air temps.
No, I claimed that they don't measure surface air temperature. There's a standard definition for that, and it doesn't mean the bottom half kilometer of the atmosphere. It means the temperature a small distance above the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Not sure if you're trolling or stupid, but at least this conversation can help to educate others, so I guess it doesn't really matter either way.
CO2 and H2O's spectra don't overlap
Here you can see that the CO2 and water vapor spectra overlap between the 15-20 micrometer wavelengths.
https://wattsupwiththat.files....
In the dry arctic air, the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the CO2. And yes, as the temperature rises, and the ice cover shrinks, more water will evaporate, adding a positive feedback.
Okay. So it is now officially April 2nd in all of the (at least CONTINENTAL) United States.
So. Which stories from yesterday here were real, and which stories total bullshit? /. is still doing this, right?
Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
They overlap like your FM stations overlap. They occupy the same band, they do not occupy the same frequencies.
Wrong, the spectral 'lines' are not actually thin lines, as you can see in the explanation here:
http://www.barrettbellamyclima...
'Lines' overlap
Pressure broadened lines or bands overlap so that over the spectral range there are no instances of 100% transmission. This is illustrated by spectra of CO2 with 100 m and 200 m path lengths respectively that show that over the spectral range there is some absorption at all wavenumbers. Please note that the spectra have been replaced with their correct titles. The previous titles were for 100 m and 200 m path lengths in error, pointed out by Brenden O'Connor.
Also: http://www-star.st-and.ac.uk/~...
Someday my ggrandkids will going to the store to pick up a carton of Okanagan Valley orange juice.
I think Canada will soon be a livable country.
Temperatures in Sweden, on roughly the same latitudes as Canada, have also been reported as rising twice as much as the global mean.
The press release (Swedish) from the Swedish meteorological institute was posted last Friday, and in the newspaper this mornin.
That temperatures would be rising faster near the poles than the global mean, is right in line with expectations. So nobody around here who is the least bit in the know about climate change is surprised one bit.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
I would have expected it to warm at exactly the global average rate. I mean, isn't that what averages are FOR? /sarcasm
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
This was coincidentally "leaked" the very same day the new carbon tax kicked in, federally imposed to the provinces that are currently fighting it.
Canada is, on average, experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with Northern Canada heating up at almost three times the global average, according to a new government report.
You're welcome.
Yet Vancouver continues to dump raw, unprocessed sewage into the Puget Sound:
https://www.thestar.com/vancou...
The report was timed to come out the same day our carbon tax came into effect. It's designed to freak Canadians out so that they will fully accept the carbon tax.
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
nazis (National Socialist German Workers' Party) are socialists they vote democrat
No one on either side can TRUTHFULLY prove their point!
Climate change is science. Proof is for mathematicians.
Perhaps if they measured the temperature outdoors instead of in the full-of-hot-air opinion factories they derive their "data" from, they would see that the warming and cooling trends are normal, that humans have nothing to do with it, just as humans have nothing to do with the shrinking/expanding ice caps on Mars.
Nothing to see here. Just the usual Chicken Little Climate Change propaganda that's been ongoing since the late 1800s
https://www.inhofe.senate.gov/newsroom/speech/climate-change-update
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver --Proverbs 25:11
Yeah, the biggest risk Canadians face from global warming is probably Americans deciding we need to expand our borders as our own territory goes to hell.
A word of advice - take a good hard look at our track record of treaty violations and genocide with nations who offered to share before making any decisions.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Cool story Bro. Where'd you get your Phd In climate?
Or any part of Canada that is not within 100 miles of the US border? I don't think Urbanization is the problem here.
Yes, I live there and I have to say that urban heat definitely exists in Edmonton as well as Calgary. Not every large city in Canada is within 160km of the US border but since we have a population about half that of the UK and a land area about 40 times greater it is true that urbanization is not going to account for any significant effect on the average temperature.
Reminder: Atmospheric carbon PPM is all that separates Earth and Venus.
No, not at all. First, there is the distance to the sun: Venus is about 100e6 km vs. Earth 150e6 km which means Venus receives about twice the intensity of solar radiation. Then there is the atmospheric pressure on Venus which is about 90 times higher than Earth's.
You cannot generate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth by burning all the fossil fuel reserves because they simply do not contain enough carbon, which is not surprising since this carbon originally came from the atmosphere in the first place. If you look at this article then the current estimate is that you would need to burn about ten times the amount of carbon locked away in coal and oil to generate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth and even then it is not certain.
Climate change is a serious problem because it will lead to rapid changes in which areas of the planet are habitable both for humans and for the crops we depend on. This will lead to political instability as well as potential deaths due to famines and droughts. Not to mention the damage to ecosystems which may have repercussions we have not yet figured out. That list of dire results should be enough to motivate anyone to action without the need to invent fictitious rubbish about runaway greenhouse effects which, because it is so obviously wrong, undermines the message about the real and still disastrous implications of rapid global warming.
No, you missed the point. Instead of labeling someone and dividing people, lets try and have a conversation.
Claiming all studies (on both sides) are fake, discredited, and falsified, doesn't really sound like an attempt to unite.
Of course if a study doesn't prove the funder's narrative,
Who's funding NASA now, and what's their narrative ?
In the north, it flows to the north east. Canada itself is not warming it that much. Northwest America generates very little, so nope. So, where is a massive CO2/CH4/soot based nation to the south west of Canada that could generate so much as to impact them (and alaska)?
No doubt, we will see Chinese trolls here shortly blaming New York and Chicago for this.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Century? Nope. Back in the 60s it was colder than this. If we are really lucky, we will see multiple years like this one. But, that is not supposed to be the case.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
we mostly do okay amongst ourselves, but can you name a single treaty with the original owners of this continent that we honored? They shared their land, helped us survive, probably even made a decisive difference in our fight for independence. And then as soon as it was convenient, we tore up the treaties and did our best to exterminate them. When they fought us to a standstill we made new treaties - and then violated those as soon as we had the advantage again.
You really, really don't want to own anything America desires unless you're powerful enough to keep us at bay. Land, oil, banana plantations - we leave a wake of destruction and usurped governments wherever we find valuable assets.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I wasn't trying to unite anyone. I'm not stating one side or the other. When a person labels someone, it usually dividing. That was my point. Also, I don't see any connection with "claiming all studies" (your words not mine) can be faked and falsified has anything to do with dividing people. So it happens? Both sides do it. Statistics lie. Etc... In fact, I don't blame some of them. Tough choice to make.
NASA? Your kidding!! The huge dump of money into a black hole? Massive government contracts? Takes forever to get anything done at huge costs. Their narrative is they are stuck in the same government machine which is controlled by whoever is in power at the time. So I guess their narrative changes about every 4 to 8 years or so.
The Nazis, AKA the National Socialists, and the fascists were against the International Socialists, AKA the Communists. Their platforms in terms of demands had about 90% overlap. They mostly differed in terms of who should be in charge, them or the other guys, not in what they promised to do once they were in charge.
It was more like an argument between Southern Baptists and the Baptists General Convention over whether to marry homosexuals or not. Beyond that one issue, they're basically the same, with very similar beliefs and tactics.
That's why pretty much all the major fascist leaders were members of socialist and "worker's" parties.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
firstly
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time
This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.
So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.
This is a much more appropriate timescale
If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.
If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.
So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.
The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.
Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the map for every year and China barely breaks into the oranges. America's CO2 per person is over double China's even now. And don't forget you started at 16 tonnes when China was at less than 1.
And all of that says nothing about how laughably inaccurate your 'climate modelling' is. Blaming China because of the wind patterns LOL. This is just you not even using the correct data.
You are a complete joke on this topic WindBourne.