Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
Moderating in temperatures is not going to prevent the extreme in events. The extreme events science speaks about are storms, flooding, fires, etc., things predicated on by change in climate. Do you think tornadoes have become more or less an issue in Alberta? Do you think forest fires are become more or less a larger problem? Do you think flooding is become more or less a larger problem? All of these have been predicted and have been proven to be accurate, no? And it just isn't in Alberta. Look at what is happening in DC right now. That is an extreme event and consistent with forecasts. I don't think this is fearmongering, it is recognizing what happens as balance in the system is disrupted.
|
Except that's exactly what I'm talking about. Troutman's link says temperatures will get more extreme(and have been trending that way), which is what I'm taking issue with.
Tornados: no, and I've never seen any evidence they are increasing in Alberta, have you? As far as I know the trend in the US isn't up at either. This doesn't really indicate it is:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends
Forest Fires: I'm not sure how you separate climate change, and not other issues like forestry management. If you can prove regions are getting hotter and drier, then ya, perhaps, but the last time I looked for that information I actually found most of BC had gotten wetter.
Floods: Again, really crap management. We worry of flooding in Calgary, yet strip the Elbow headwaters of forests. I've yet to hear of any reasonable attribution of flooding to climate change where it wouldn't have been more likely caused by other factors like paving over the earth, putting people where they shouldn't be and deforestation. There is no increasing flooding trend in Calgary or area, certainly nothing you could say "climate change has caused these to be more frequent".
I'll agree that all of these have been predicted, but I dispute the accuracy. I have yet to see any reasonable explanation, and correlation between events and rising temperatures. What does the IPCC have to say? I'll paste the whole section so I don't get accused of cherry picking.
Quote:
It is very likely that there has been an overall decrease in the number of cold days and nights,3 and an overall increase
in the number of warm days and nights,3 at the global scale, that is, for most land areas with sufficient data. It is likely
that these changes have also occurred at the continental scale in North America, Europe, and Australia. There is medium
confidence in a warming trend in daily temperature extremes in much of Asia. Confidence in observed trends in daily
temperature extremes in Africa and South America generally varies from low to medium depending on the region. In
many (but not all) regions over the globe with sufficient data, there is medium confidence that the length or number
of warm spells or heat waves3 has increased. [3.3.1, Table 3-2]
There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions. It is likely
that more of these regions have experienced increases than decreases, although there are strong regional and
subregional variations in these trends. [3.3.2]
There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e.,
intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been
a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in
observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and
inadequacies in monitoring systems. [3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.4.4, 3.4.5]
There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in
particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense,
or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. [3.5.1]
There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and
frequency of floods at regional scales because the available instrumental records of floods at gauge stations are
limited in space and time, and because of confounding effects of changes in land use and engineering. Furthermore,
there is low agreement in this evidence, and thus overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of
these changes. [3.5.2]
It is likely that there has been an increase in extreme coastal high water related to increases in mean sea level.
[3.5.3]
|
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uplo...l_Report-1.pdf
What this tells us is that there is large variability globally, and confidence in the predictions. So again, my POINT is that if they can't prove it for a specific region(namely, Alberta or Canada) stop attributing these disastrous effects when they are regional. All it does is make people say "well I'm not seeing that here, so the whole theory is BS." Be honest with the public. Use facts. That is going to include the perhaps uncomfortable position that climate change is actually going to improve life and prosperity for Canada(though not all regions, and there will also be negative effects).