October Smashes Temperature Records Practically Guaranteeing 2015 Will Be HottestYear

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
30,426
4,635
113
It has changed, you just probably don't remember.

Here's proof.
Um. This chart, like so many others you seem to be in love with, says nothing.

Define hot day. Define cold day. And it doesn't even show the number of days.

And I would add the number of hot days has decreased steadily.

I'm not sure what to say.....so how much stock do you have on solar energy companies?
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,708
22,201
113
Really?

In the graph you posted, I say there isn't a single year in the 21st century where the temperature anomaly intersects with the predicted temperature.

Are you saying I'm wrong?
I'm saying that your metric, 'intersection of lines' is useless and arbitrary.
The present temp is within 0.1ºC of the IPCC projections, and the lines have moved together quite closely.

You are wrong.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,708
22,201
113
Um. This chart, like so many others you seem to be in love with, says nothing.

Define hot day. Define cold day. And it doesn't even show the number of days.

And I would add the number of hot days has decreased steadily.

I'm not sure what to say.....so how much stock do you have on solar energy companies?
The chart says it represents the number of hot and cold record days per decade.
It shows that we have very few record cold days (ie coldest nov 29 ever) now and more record hot days.
It looks like the chart was cut off on the left hand side, same on the original.
But go read the source article and tell me if its nonsense, ok?
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/has-canadas-climate-already-changed/11016/
 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Uhm, your graph actually shows the number of record hot days has drastically decreased from 1930's to the 2000's, does it not??
Not only that,...it doesn't show the many COLD records set in 2104 and 2015.

FAST
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Oh, there was a question in the middle of that run on, weirdly punctuated sentence?
Must have missed it.

For those who can't read charts, that chart maps out the deviation of thousands of weather stations.
The middle horizontal line is the zero line, where the deviation didn't change the stations deviations.
The dots above that zero line represent stations that had their average temp increased after adjustments and the dots below represent stations that had their average temp decreased after adjustment.

Here's the chart, notice that there are about as many stations that were adjust up as there were down.
There was no malicious intent.

In other words,...as usual,...you just don't know the answer to the question,...!!!


FAST
 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
All I see is a bunch of dots. It looks like a swarm of houseflies.

Are you saying the amount of houseflies has increased cause of global warming?? :D



 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
Not only that,...it doesn't show the many COLD records set in 2104 and 2015.

FAST
Not only that but the current amount of record hot days is on par with the 1890's
 

asuran

Tamil and proud
May 12, 2014
3,064
411
83
Ottawa
What's not to get about global warming?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat.
The more energy we consume (or dig up from the ground) the more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Not to mention the pollution we cause by the harvesting of these energy sources.

Our population is growing exponentially, 7+ billion and counting. It's logical that the consumption of energy will grow with this as well. Hence more CO2.

Trees which are natures own filter against CO2 are constantly getting cut down or wiped out by us. So we are making it worse.

Yes there is a cycle that the temperature rises and falls but what we are doing is we are making this cycle go into extreme mode, due to what we are doing to the environment (pollution)
We are basically taking what is is buried underneath us and pouring it up in the atmosphere.

What we need to do is restrain our consumption while also try and find alternatives.
It's just not viable if we continue the way we are going.

We just need to be aware what is happening and change the way we do things.
 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
Trees which are natures own filter against CO2 are constantly getting cut down or wiped out by us. So we are making it worse
And yet you're forgetting about the treeline, which keep moving North. We are probably adding just as many trees as we are cutting down:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-arctic-green-idUSTRE74B7B020110513#j3G8FyM2iQp2jv2b.97


Trees may grow 500 km further north by 2100

Trees in the Arctic region may grow 500 km (300 miles) further north by 2100 as climate change greens the barren tundra and causes sweeping change to wildlife, a leading expert said.

A quickening melt of snow, ice and permafrost will enable more southerly species such as pine trees or animals such as foxes to move north.

"Changes seem to be happening even more rapidly than we had anticipated just 10 years ago," Aevar Petersen, chair of the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), told Reuters from Greenland on Thursday, where foreign ministers of Arctic countries agreed steps to bolster regional cooperation.

"Scientists estimate the treeline could move 500 km north by 2100 from now," he said, based on CAFF projections. If that happened, as much as half the Arctic tundra from Siberia to Canada could vanish.

In some places, southerly evergreen shrubs were taking over from grasses, mosses and lichens typical of tundra. "The tree line is moving north quite rapidly," he said
 

asuran

Tamil and proud
May 12, 2014
3,064
411
83
Ottawa
And yet you're forgetting about the treeline, which keep moving North. We are probably adding just as many trees as we are cutting down:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/13/us-arctic-green-idUSTRE74B7B020110513#j3G8FyM2iQp2jv2b.97
By 2100...!!
Compare to the growing emissions that we create within the next 10-20 years I think that may be a bit on the slow side. Don't you think?

Trees takes years to fully mature, but we are constantly emitting CO2 at a growing rate ( again more people, more consumption) and we do cut down more quickly than we grow trees.
It's just not viable the way it is.

If we plant 500 trees in a month (that takes I have no idea how many years for it to mature) but we cut down say 1000 trees in a month.
The rate of trees getting cut down is greater than them being grown. Cutting down one tree takes a few minutes with machines, growing one tree takes many years.

Certain type of trees grow in certain location due to it's climate. Also it's moving up north because it is getting warmer, less ice up there. Which also means there will be more water, and the sea level will rise. Certain coastal cities and location and even inhabited islands will be somewhat under the then new sea level if not completely.

You somewhat explained with a non-solution but if so it also bring forth another problem. Basically IMO you like the sweeping under the rug method of problem solving.

Also, certain type of trees grow slower than others. Northern trees grow slower due to temperature. Also compare to warm climate trees, cooler climate trees tend to have smaller leaves, such as pine trees. It is the green leafy parts of the trees and plants that converts CO2 into O2 in a process called photosynthesis. And not to discount the fact that in northern parts with cooler climate, the leaves fall off during the cooler months.

Warmer climate, the trees are green year round -> converting CO2 to O2 year round. Not so for the northern trees, which means it will be producing half of the O2 that is used to be while we consume energy and emit greenhouse gasses exponentially as there are more people on earth.

So do you understand that the world's population is growing constantly while the earth's resources itself is basically finite? I mean yes, we live in the here and now and all we should care about is how we live now. You or I probably won't be here by 2100.
 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
By 2100...!!
Compare to the growing emissions that we create within the next 10-20 years I think that may be a bit on the slow side. Don't you think?

Trees takes years to fully mature, but we are constantly emitting CO2 at a growing rate ( again more people, more consumption) and we do cut down more quickly than we grow trees.
It's just not viable the way it is.

If we plant 500 trees in a month (that takes I have no idea how many years for it to mature) but we cut down say 1000 trees in a month.
The rate of trees getting cut down is greater than them being grown. Cutting down one tree takes a few minutes with machines, growing one tree takes many years
Most trees take between 10 to 20 years to mature. It depends on which tree, some are slower, some are faster.
The max for the slowest trees to mature is about 25 years or so

And where are you getting your stats that we're cutting down more trees than we are replacing.
I dont believe thats the case for Canada. IIRC we have laws that say x amount of trees must be replaced with x amount we cut down.

If there's one thing Canada has enough of thats trees. Go drive through Wawa Ontario sometime.
I dont know about the rainforest in Brazil though, that might be different

You somewhat explained with a non-solution but if so it also bring forth another problem. Basically IMO you like the sweeping under the rug method of problem solving
No, I just dont think global warming is the crisis some people are making it out to be.
The planet will be fine. Sooner or later some genius will come up with an alternative fuel source, and that will get us off oil. I have no doubt
 

asuran

Tamil and proud
May 12, 2014
3,064
411
83
Ottawa
Most trees take between 10 to 20 years to mature. It depends on which tree, some are slower, some are faster.
The max for the slowest trees to mature is about 25 years or so

And where are you getting your stats that we're cutting down more trees than we are replacing.
I dont believe thats the case for Canada. IIRC we have laws that say x amount of trees must be replaced with x amount we cut down.

If there's one thing Canada has enough of thats trees. Go drive through Wawa Ontario sometime.
I dont know about the rainforest in Brazil though, that might be different


No, I just dont think global warming is the crisis some people are making it out to be.
The planet will be fine. Sooner or later some genius will come up with an alternative fuel source, and that will get us off oil. I have no doubt
I don't have the stats, but I do see that as the population grow, the city grow and new land will need to be cleared. Hence trees cut down.
I mean Canada do have a lot of trees, but just look at our own cities, wasn't it used to be trees and after we settled the area we cut down all of them and added commercial and residential zones onto it instead.
Did a quick google and read this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/t...d-to-be-7-times-higher-than-thought-1.3213176

What you are doing is pushing the responsibility onto someone else to solve the problem, this genius that you hope or know will arrive.
Kind of like how Christians know or hope for the 2nd coming of Christ that will save them. Or any other religion that has some sort of superman that will arrive and save them somehow.

Again I'm not saying that we should stop doing this or that. I am a proponent of having restraint. Just use less when you don't really need it. But fact is the population on Earth is growing exponentially and logically there will be more energy consumption in the future thus more emissions. something we need to look at.

There has been talk of carbon pricing. Those who use more carbon will need to pay for it.
It's just so that when we need to pay for something we tend to use less of it. Like a reverse incentive. LOL
I hope we don't need this so-called tax but maybe it is necessary for people to have restraints.
 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
Here you go, deforestation myths and facts in Canada: http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/fire-insects-disturbances/deforestation/13419

Deforestation in Canada: Key myths and facts

At 0.02% of its forested area, deforestation in Canada is among the world’s lowest, yet many myths exist about the state of our forests. The reality is that Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management. Canadian forests are healthy, productive and thriving.

Deforestation is an important issue, since shrinking forest cover reduces biodiversity, affects soil and water quality, impacts wildlife habitat and influences climate change. The Canadian government carefully monitors and regularly publishes reports on deforestation. Our scientists combine satellite and aerial images with information about regional development, forest ecosystems, natural processes and local conditions to help monitor and manage the health of Canadian forests.

Here are some key facts about Canada’s low levels of deforestation.

Myth: Deforestation in Canada is increasing.
Fact: Canada’s deforestation rate is among the lowest in the world.
The annual deforestation rate in Canada in 2010 was less than 0.02% of our forests and the rate has been declining for over 25 years. In 1990, 64,000 hectares were lost to deforestation and in 2012 this figure dropped to 45,800 hectares.

Today, Canada’s 348 million hectares of forest lands represent about 9% of the world’s forest cover, but account for only 0.3% of global deforestation.

Myth: Logging causes deforestation.
Fact: Harvesting trees does not cause deforestation.
Deforestation only occurs when forests are permanently removed so the land can be used for something else. Harvesting, forest fires and insect infestations do not constitute deforestation, since the affected areas will grow back. According to laws, regulations and policies in place across Canada, all areas harvested on public land must be reforested, either by replanting or through natural regeneration. About 94% of Canada’s forests are on public land.

The conversion of forest to agricultural land is decreasing but it remains the largest contributor to deforestation in Canada. The small contribution the forest sector makes to deforestation is from building permanent logging access roads. Forest harvesting practices in Canada are tightly regulated to ensure long-term sustainability of this important natural resource. Learn more about forest management practices.

Myth: Canada’s boreal forest is at risk.
Fact: Canada responsibly manages our boreal forests to ensure they remain healthy
Almost three-quarters of Canada’s forests lie in the boreal zone. The 2.5 million Canadians who live in this region, including many Aboriginal peoples, rely heavily on the forests for economic stability. Recognizing the many values of the boreal forests, Canada works to balance conservation objectives with economic drivers such as agriculture and resource development. Deforestation in Canada’s boreal zone is low – just 0.3% in total between 1990 and 2008. Read more about Canada’s boreal forest.

Myth: Canada has the world’s worst record when it comes to deforestation.
Fact: Canada is a world leader in sustainable forest management.
Canada has some of the most rigorous laws in the world for protecting forests and ensuring sustainable forest management. We are world leaders in scientific research that informs planning and management practices. Find out about Canadian forestry laws and policies.

Media reports have equated forest cover loss from forest fires, harvesting and insects to deforestation, which is incorrect. The small amount of deforestation that occurs in Canada is primarily driven by resource development, economic growth and the need to build infrastructure. To manage these pressures, provincial governments are increasingly using integrated landscape management (ILM) to plan the land uses over a broad landscape and encourage different users to share infrastructure and minimize deforestation.

Myth: Industrial activity, such as the development of the oil sands, has made Canada the new global leader in deforestation.
Fact: Canada has reduced deforestation over the past 20 years.
Canada is fortunate to be rich in many natural resources, such as trees, water, oil and gas. While resource development and industrial activity have increased deforestation in localized regions, nationwide Canada has been able to consistently reduce deforestation over the past 20 years – a trend that is expected to continue. While oil sands development has increased in recent years, the area of land it occupies is very small relative to the size of Canada’s forests. In fact, the total area of mineable oil sands (i.e., including both developed and undeveloped areas) occupies 480,000 hectares, while Canada has 348 million hectares of forests.

The Canadian Forest Service of Natural Resources Canada is collaborating with the oil and gas sector to identify ways to reduce the amount and impact of development on forest ecosystems and to accelerate the reclamation of land disturbed by mining or oil and gas extraction.

Myth: Canada must preserve our forests untouched or intact to keep them healthy.
Fact: There is no such thing as untouched forest in Canada.
A forest is a living community of organisms that naturally experiences constant change. Over time, forests experience many disturbances (including fire, insects, disease, drought, wind throw, floods and timber harvesting), yet trees continue to grow back naturally. In the forest, nothing is ever static. This is particularly true in the boreal forest, which is ecologically adapted to renew itself through disturbances such as fire. Read more about natural disturbances.

Although many forests are in remote areas, inaccessible to people, human activities such as harvesting do affect other forests. However, modern methods of harvesting trees are often intended to mimic natural disturbances and harvested areas are regrown. Canada’s managed forests will generally grow for 60 to 100 years between harvests, so most managed forest areas return to a natural state for considerable lengths of time. See how harvesting is done in boreal forests
 

AK-47

Armed to the tits
Mar 6, 2009
6,697
1
0
In the 6
I don't have the stats, but I do see that as the population grow, the city grow and new land will need to be cleared. Hence trees cut down.
I mean Canada do have a lot of trees, but just look at our own cities, wasn't it used to be trees and after we settled the area we cut down all of them and added commercial and residential zones onto it instead.
Did a quick google and read this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/t...d-to-be-7-times-higher-than-thought-1.3213176

What you are doing is pushing the responsibility onto someone else to solve the problem, this genius that you hope or know will arrive.
Kind of like how Christians know or hope for the 2nd coming of Christ that will save them. Or any other religion that has some sort of superman that will arrive and save them somehow.

Again I'm not saying that we should stop doing this or that. I am a proponent of having restraint. Just use less when you don't really need it. But fact is the population on Earth is growing exponentially and logically there will be more energy consumption in the future thus more emissions. something we need to look at.

There has been talk of carbon pricing. Those who use more carbon will need to pay for it.
It's just so that when we need to pay for something we tend to use less of it. Like a reverse incentive. LOL
I hope we don't need this so-called tax but maybe it is necessary for people to have restraints
What we really need is an alternative fuel thats clean and can compete with oil.
Maybe ethanol is the answer?? Or maybe Bloom box energy??

I know for sure electric cars are NOT the answer, it takes a huge amount of rare earth minerals just to produce 1 electric car battery.


EDIT: although the Tesla doesnt require any, so thats kinda cool https://my.teslamotors.com/de_AT/forum/forums/no-rare-earth-metals-model-s
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
All I see is a bunch of dots. It looks like a swarm of houseflies.

Are you saying the amount of houseflies has increased cause of global warming?? :D



That's about all it is,...unless somebody can post a report of the results of re-writing history,...sorry,..."re-calibration",...

Was the result higher or lower,...nothing more needs to be said,...until then,...useless,...!!!


FAST
 

asuran

Tamil and proud
May 12, 2014
3,064
411
83
Ottawa
Thanks for the info on deforestation AK-47

Canada is one of the last places with a magnificent forest. As I've said before our forest don't work year round. The cold months, there are way, way less green leaves thus photosynthesis decreases drastically.
As our population grows, our cities grows and rural/forested areas will be developed.

We do however need to look at things on the world scale.
I probably won't be around when things go to shit but I do feel I need to do my part for the future generations.

I understand this is a hobbyist forum and we may or may not be family men with kids that have a future to look forward to. Hence we may be the type that values the have fun here and now rather than the future generations.
 
Toronto Escorts