Climate Change report on Canada

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
You still have to read and research more. Just because an organization has the suffix ' -watch' behind their name means little these days. It doesn't imply impartiality or neutrality. It's known that The Tides Foundation heavily funded (funds) CMD so do your reading with an open mind.

No organization is perfect but the evidence is clear on how this document was misrepresented.

Here's the aboot page for source watch. Feel free to scrutinize away...

SourceWatch:purpose - SourceWatch

I did read it...that's why I mentioned their boss CMD and a major player in their collection plate.

There is no 'clear', only Zuul. .
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Simply mentioning a source of funding doesn't prove anything as you haven't done any analysis of the material itself.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Simply mentioning a source of funding doesn't prove anything as you haven't done any analysis of the material itself.

u mad I even found that source sir? :lol:

Anyway, I don't really care about the clingers and such. I just provided an opposite viewpoint link (from beavs post natch) and then had a wee look at yours as well. That is all.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
In the Holocene Optimum average temp, would 0.8C be considered a drastic and dramatic spike or ho hum to a geologist?

Question for the believers.....

Who are longuet higgins, stommel, malkus, stern and von arx and what did they discover?

The old petros dodge and weave again.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
I did. So the paper explaining why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas was not my work and the authors have been subject to peer review and they could find no error, and it's not at all unique. We want to use the mass of the atmosphere don't we? Rather than the weight. How often is the atmosphere weighed? Do you know if the atmospheres volume changes and if so what's the range? The black body thing does not apply to a physical body, they say. Where is our electrical accounting in your idea? Why is your science better than the science that feeds the guys I read?

yadda

Becasue you can't just make science up. There are plenty of flaws in that CO2 is not a GHG paper, and similar ones like it. Go visit the website of Dr. Tim Ball--he's a skeptic of AGW theory, but he's pretty clear about what he thinks about folks who don't accept the pretty elementary physics of the Greenhouse Effect.

Or you could test it yourself. Take a visit to your local plaenarium. Most of them have a little spectrum display set up, since that's the primary mechanism by which we determine the atomic make up of stars. Or, look at the signal of radiation ionbound fro the sunb and the signal out to see the missing wavelerngths in the outbound radiation that correlate nicely with the atomic composiution of the atmosphere.

Dodge? Weave? Did you bother to find out who they, what they discovered and how it relates to you being scammed and brainwashed?

Dodge weave because out of a fairly exhaustive post, you posted a one line response that I "missed" something that I had not, in fact, missed at all, and then disappearerd down the rabbit hole. It's back to these oblique statements where you infer some kind of seceret knowledge.
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Runnin back to Saskatoon

Double your flavour, double your fun here.

In this case, rock history, so to speak.

Eh Petros?

If they pick up on that right straight away they can leave class a little early. ;-)
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,658
14,373
113
Low Earth Orbit
Dodge weave because out of a fairly exhaustive post, you posted a one line response that I "missed" something that I had not, in fact, missed at all, and then disappearerd down the rabbit hole. It's back to these oblique statements where you infer some kind of seceret knowledge.
What secret knowledge. 0.8C is SFA in geological terms over the Holocene Optimum.

Are you aware of the geophysical phenomenon happening in perfect timing with "climate change"?

I've been bring it up for years but did you listen, did you try to deviate from the CO2 to accept the geological aspect which has repeated over and over again in just the past few million years alone?

You were razzing Beaver about grade 9 physics which is odd for other reasons all on it's own but long before high school or even grade school you learned some fascinating physics about magnetism but are today ignoring it.

I'm going to go over this one more time. It explains the end of the Wisconsonian Glaciation and todays "climate change" and it's all based on Physics. The names I listed above would have given you a clue but again you flipped it off so I'm going to tell you what these Mofos discovered. Beaver is going to love this BTW.

Ocean currents and jetstreams create their own magnetic fields that interact with the planets magnetosphere. From 1974 to present the magnetic north pole (which sat in James Bay during the last ice age before moving and trigging the Holocene Optimum) has be taking a rapid journey northward and dragging and taking these ocean currents and jetstreams along for the ride.

Start here: https://www.google.ca/#q=geomagnetism+and+ocean+currents It explains what those fellows back in the 40's were on to and why climate is changing as the pole moves.

This one is a good read: http://digitool.library.mcgill.ca/R/?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=39884&local_base=GEN01-MCG02

Electromagnetic fields generated by ocean currents and the potential for using geomagnetic data in ocean and climate studiesCreatorTyler, Robert H.ContributorMysak, Lawrence (advisor)Date1995AbstractThe ocean currents flowing through the earth's main magnetic field are known to induce secondary magnetic fields. Hence, variations in the ocean circulation induce variations in the net magnetic field. This research is aimed at exploring the potential for using geomagnetic data to study variability in ocean circulation and climate. First, general relativity theory is used to formally establish the proper set of electromagnetic equations to be used for observers in a rotating (accelerating) frame of reference observing a medium (the ocean, in this case) with relative velocity. Extra terms due to rotation are derived and described and a generalized Schiff's charge density is shown to be potentially significant for the application to ocean circulation. We extend the theory of electromagnetic fields generated by ocean currents. Many analytical solutions are found for idealized ocean features including sheared flow, jets, and a Stommel gyre. Results indicate that the ocean-induced magnetic fields will typically have magnitudes of 10's-100's of nT within the ocean. Outside of the ocean, the magnitudes are smaller (typically 1-10 nT) but decay on scales set by the horizontal scale of the ocean feature. We investigate the time-scales associated with the adjustment of electromagnetic fields generated by low-frequency ocean currents. We find that the time scales can be quite long, prohibiting a quasistatic assumption in the treatment of the electromagnetic fields generated by the important tidal, inertial, and diurnal-frequency ocean currents. Three-dimensional explicit time-dependent and steady-state finite-difference numerical models are constructed to study the electromagnetic fields generated by more realistic ocean current and conductivity features. The ocean currents generate electromagnetic forces on the fluid at the surface of the earth's core. If these forces lead to significant core motion, the effect of the oceans on the generation and variability of the earth's magnetic field may be nontrivial. We estimate the form and magnitude of these forces and make comparisons with observations. Despite many uncertainties, we find evidence to suggest the ocean forcing mechanism may be significant and conclude that this process should be further investigated in the context of a larger study. This work indicates that it is likely that the geomagnetic record has captured oceanic signals. From a preliminary data analyses we find that aside from the oceanic tidal signals, the magnetic record shows other signals of possible oceanic origin including an apparent correlation between magnetic records from the equatorial Pacific and the Southern Oscillation Index. We discuss the prerequisites that are necessary to extract information about ocean circulation variability from the geomagnetic record.SubjectGeophysics.Physical Oceanography.Physics, Electricity and Magnetism.DegreeDoctor of PhilosophyDepartmentDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.RightsAll items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.URL of this recordhttp://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/-?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=39884&silo_library=GEN01

When the wrong people get funded you get wrong outcomes. Stuff your CO2 where the sun don't shine.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
What secret knowledge. 0.8C is SFA in geological terms over the Holocene Optimum.

Are you aware of the geophysical phenomenon happening in perfect timing with "climate change"?

I've been bring it up for years but did you listen, did you try to deviate from the CO2 to accept the geological aspect which has repeated over and over again in just the past few million years alone?

You were razzing Beaver about grade 9 physics which is odd for other reasons all on it's own but long before high school or even grade school you learned some fascinating physics about magnetism but are today ignoring it.

I'm going to go over this one more time. It explains the end of the Wisconsonian Glaciation and todays "climate change" and it's all based on Physics. The names I listed above would have given you a clue but again you flipped it off so I'm going to tell you what these Mofos discovered. Beaver is going to love this BTW.

Ocean currents and jetstreams create their own magnetic fields that interact with the planets magnetosphere. From 1974 to present the magnetic north pole (which sat in James Bay during the last ice age before moving and trigging the Holocene Optimum) has be taking a rapid journey northward and dragging and taking these ocean currents and jetstreams along for the ride.

Start here: https://www.google.ca/#q=geomagnetism+and+ocean+currents It explains what those fellows back in the 40's were on to and why climate is changing as the pole moves.

This one is a good read: DigiTool - Results - Full

Electromagnetic fields generated by ocean currents and the potential for using geomagnetic data in ocean and climate studiesCreatorTyler, Robert H.ContributorMysak, Lawrence (advisor)Date1995AbstractThe ocean currents flowing through the earth's main magnetic field are known to induce secondary magnetic fields. Hence, variations in the ocean circulation induce variations in the net magnetic field. This research is aimed at exploring the potential for using geomagnetic data to study variability in ocean circulation and climate. First, general relativity theory is used to formally establish the proper set of electromagnetic equations to be used for observers in a rotating (accelerating) frame of reference observing a medium (the ocean, in this case) with relative velocity. Extra terms due to rotation are derived and described and a generalized Schiff's charge density is shown to be potentially significant for the application to ocean circulation. We extend the theory of electromagnetic fields generated by ocean currents. Many analytical solutions are found for idealized ocean features including sheared flow, jets, and a Stommel gyre. Results indicate that the ocean-induced magnetic fields will typically have magnitudes of 10's-100's of nT within the ocean. Outside of the ocean, the magnitudes are smaller (typically 1-10 nT) but decay on scales set by the horizontal scale of the ocean feature. We investigate the time-scales associated with the adjustment of electromagnetic fields generated by low-frequency ocean currents. We find that the time scales can be quite long, prohibiting a quasistatic assumption in the treatment of the electromagnetic fields generated by the important tidal, inertial, and diurnal-frequency ocean currents. Three-dimensional explicit time-dependent and steady-state finite-difference numerical models are constructed to study the electromagnetic fields generated by more realistic ocean current and conductivity features. The ocean currents generate electromagnetic forces on the fluid at the surface of the earth's core. If these forces lead to significant core motion, the effect of the oceans on the generation and variability of the earth's magnetic field may be nontrivial. We estimate the form and magnitude of these forces and make comparisons with observations. Despite many uncertainties, we find evidence to suggest the ocean forcing mechanism may be significant and conclude that this process should be further investigated in the context of a larger study. This work indicates that it is likely that the geomagnetic record has captured oceanic signals. From a preliminary data analyses we find that aside from the oceanic tidal signals, the magnetic record shows other signals of possible oceanic origin including an apparent correlation between magnetic records from the equatorial Pacific and the Southern Oscillation Index. We discuss the prerequisites that are necessary to extract information about ocean circulation variability from the geomagnetic record.SubjectGeophysics.Physical Oceanography.Physics, Electricity and Magnetism.DegreeDoctor of PhilosophyDepartmentDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.RightsAll items in eScholarship@McGill are protected by copyright with all rights reserved unless otherwise indicated.URL of this recordhttp://digitool.Library.McGill.CA:80/R/-?func=dbin-jump-full&object_id=39884&silo_library=GEN01

When the wrong people get funded you get wrong outcomes. Stuff your CO2 where the sun don't shine.

Yes we have been through this. I believe where we left it was: If increasing CO2 is not increasing heat in the lower atmosphere (and cooling the upper atmosphere) then why isn't it? Because according top the radiation physics, increasing the CO2 by as much as we have should have heated up the planet by around half a degree (ignoring complex ecosystem feedbacks). In fact it's gone up by about 0.8 deg C.

You say that is in fact due to electromagnetic disturbance, and I don't discount that since I haven't read a lot on the subject. However you also have to explain why the CO2 isn't behaving as it should. Are the two mutually exclusive, or does one cause/interact with the other?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,658
14,373
113
Low Earth Orbit
Again you ignore the geophysics for your brainwashed psychobabble on CO2 even though we are dealing with what acctually drives climate and that is the oceans and their currents and their interaction with the magnetosphere.

The Arctic Lows we had this winter were because of the magnetosphere and solar storms that pounded the snot out of our poor planet.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
Where do you get this stuff? By cyclical cooling phase, do you mean winter? The far north has not seen the global warming "pause" experienced by the rest of the planet. There are several indications of continued warming there, not the least of which is teh extent of sea ice, which has trended downward since satellite measurements began. Maybe you're talking about the far south (where ice has increased, though not to the extent that the north has lost ice)?

.

Where do you get your info. Arctic Ice this year has increased 50%.. that after the AGW publicity machine publicized we had seen the last of the Polar Ice Cover.. for ever. Almost all of their most alarming predictions of sea water rise is based on the Polar Ice melts. It's NOT happening. We've had the coldest winter in a century in North America and Europe. Not only is this not incorporated into their modeling data.. it's not even mentioned.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/16/g...-shows-arctic-sea-ice-coverage-up-50-percent/

They are desparately trying to change the script to 'Climate Change' now as their models are in such utter disrepute in predicting 'warming'. But the entire hypothesis is linked to that... it can't be ignored.

As for dissenters. I would love to see one honest debate about the AGW and its methods and scientific credibility on CBC or PBS with both sides represented.. but it is disallowed by its political and philosophical masters. They've deemed this proven science even though all the empirical evidence.. the foundation of the scientific method.. indicates it is a fraud.. and its proponents are liars.

AGW is a pathetic, shameless shambles now. With its proponents increasingly using smoke and mirrors illusions to make up for the contradictions in its science.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Do you actually enjoy the grandstanding on half truths when it's so easy to debunk this stuff?

It's like scientists enjoy putting this stuff up because they know it will eventually lead to denier foot in mouth disease.

In September, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre reported that Arctic ice cover at its summer minimum this year was 5.1 million square kilometres. That was also up 50 per cent from last year's record low, but the sixth lowest on record. The seven lowest levels have all been recorded in the last seven years.

CBCNews.ca
 
Last edited:

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Again you ignore the geophysics for your brainwashed psychobabble on CO2 even though we are dealing with what acctually drives climate and that is the oceans and their currents and their interaction with the magnetosphere.

The Arctic Lows we had this winter were because of the magnetosphere and solar storms that pounded the snot out of our poor planet.

We've been down this road too, if you recall. I said that if the Greenhouse Effect is wrong, if there is no blanketing effect from the atmospehere, then why doesn't the Earth decrease in temperature to -200 or so at night. Your response was that the oceans conserved heat. But if that were the case then just the oceans would stay warm, but the atmosphere would drop to -200 or so. And you never responded to that.

If you throw away the Greenhouse Effect, you have to come up with another plausible reason why the temperature doesn't plummet when there is little incoming solar radiation (i.e. night time).