Saskatoon Star Phoenix - June 15, 2006
Following is the opinion of the writer, a geography professor at the University of Saskatchewan and director of the centre for hydrology. He holds a Canada Research Chair in Water Resources and Climate Change.
Streams, sloughs and wetlands may not be sustainable under climate change, and the slightly milder winters anticipated under global warming may dry out the Prairies.
[...]
On June 5, the United Nations Environment Programme announced a study that shows the world's desert and arid regions are at risk of becoming even more parched. Research at the University of Saskatchewan supports this, showing the Canadian Prairies could be drying out due to more moderate winters.
As evidenced by the following desert photographs:
...but it's a dry cold.
I can not believe that this type of rhetoric is still being spewed by these "true believers." in the AGW theory. These people should shut up already. The credibility of the alarmists is at an all time low and hopefully their credibility goes into oblivion.
Well, they're keeping quiet for the moment, aren't they. BTW, thoughts and prayers for all our fellow citizens in sounthern Saskatchewan.
That's what ya get when the prophets who spout this crap...with media, academic and bureaucratic blessings/approval...have less credibility than Erich Von Daniken.....
but it's a dry cold
Or a wet dry.
We cannot cut off funding for idiot professors fast enough from the Global Warming Fame & Gravy Train.
They are such a drag on the integrity of real scientists, the ones who gather data, have a hypothesis, publish results, data and methods so they can be challenged.
And then there are the professor types in love with the Fame Game, who put forward silly and stupid forecasts, forecasts that are designed to scare the public, to keep the Gravy Train rolling along, the money rolling in, the attendance at waste-of-time Conferences in Bali in February . . . etc.
An accounting is needed and professors who contributed to the global warming fear mongering need to be called to that accounting. Positions need to be terminated, career paths changed by external influence not internal institutional back slapping.
Tick, tock.
Tick, tock.
The time is coming for the promoters of the AGW Ponzi Scheme & Scam to pay the piper.
Last year the Climate Zealots warned us a global drought was on the way and we'd be facing world wide water shortages fast forward to this year: Record breaking floods, rainfalls and cold wet weather that isn't letting up. Moral of the story, these tards are still making up shite because it's not science it's their "Opinion".
In the Southeast most producers have less than 10% seeded due to 'wet' conditions.
Again, a comment regarding Rex Murphy's editorial in the National Post suggested that this flooding is a RESULT of AGW (in complete contrast to the above, although I'm sure the two positions are 'consistent', just not in a way any of us understands.)
The 1892 survey shows the water level comparable to that of today. Any ideas what was the cause of the AGW flooding back then?
Climate change is todays perpetual motion machine con, spitting out the green from you & me. A kind of unemployment insurance for defunct researchers.
While they scurry about looking to find a pot "o" gold at the end of the climate rainbow.
Mark Twian lost most of his fortune presuring the former. Are we as a civilization, to die for the latter?
With all the "may”, or "could" weasel words considered; he said absolutely nothing...Who ever published this drivel is a moron
USSC ruled today against Global Warming lawsuits by the failed States (California, New York... Etc..) That means the Eco freaks can't use the Courts in thier Extortion Conspiracy..
No legal money to be made on the Global Warming side. The BIG lie Experts will now become defendants in Class Actions...California & the US ninth Circuit are toothless
EPA Actions become a political liability. Your move Obama
BTW: The Market may get an big uptick
Now, if you actually knew how to read, you would have noticed the words "predicted to be more frequent ... by the mid-21st century". Now, granted, English isn't my first language, but I'm fairly certain that the words "more frequent" do not mean "all the time", and the phrase "mid-21st century" does not mean "2011".
Maybe y'all have gots a diffurent kind of Engrish down in dem Preiries?
8-0
American Supreme Court Justices are Climate Racists-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_climate_change
They contradict themselves all over the place. What else can one expect from work based on a UNEP study? It's easier to count the number of times that UNEP has been right about anything than to count its legion of errors.
Wetlands disappear when evaporation and outflow exceed inflow. Climate change theory, such as it is, presumes that increased warmth means increased water vapour, which in turn means increased precipitation. This ADDS to rainfall, not subtracts from it.
"However, any one of three factors -- lower winter precipitation, warmer winter air
temperatures, or lower fall soil moisture -- can cause a dramatic reduction in runoff to
small streams and sloughs."
Climate change theory presupposes that a warming world moves more warm tropical air further north. That means increased, not decreased, snowpacks.
Of course you folks in the west know all about this. Dry as a bone, ain't it?
at the family Sask cabin the lake water level was dropping in the 90's.
Been rising since.
Highest ever now.
I don't believe in global warming and I think climate change has been happening forever, but when it comes to flooding on the prairies, I think we have had some effect. There used to be thousands of small potholes and sloughs in my area. Now there are few, even with the wet conditions. Where did the water go? It is concentrated in a few wetlands instead of thousands of wetlands. This makes flooding worse for those that have it.
These flaky Professors do not get paid when they get it wrong - do they ?
Well, surely they will have to give up their pensions when they cause financial losses to those duped into acting on the alarmism - correct?
I thought only weathermen get paid when they are wrong.
Wow, those pictures show quite a story. I thought it was bad in our area what with trying to keep the roads in a somewhat passable condition.
It is time for some to start taking the slime-balls that are pushing the AGW fraud to court for damages and crimes against humanity. David Suzuki had it backwards when he said those that do not believe in AGW should be jailed. In fact it is him that should be jailed, along with his pal the inventor of the internet.
Opinions are like a**holes.
Everybody has one.
Wanna try again, prof? This time with less credibility?
When my Mom was still alive, she always said "sure it rains on Vancouver Island, but it's a DRY rain." So is that a dry flood on the Prairies this year?
>>"predicted to be more frequent ... by the mid-21st century"
Weasel words. Most of us, including the 'predictors' won't even be around by the mid 21st century so it's quite safe to predict just about anything one wants and never be held to account. I could predict that the Earth will be destroyed bt a meteorite on June 21st 2053 and never have to worry about looking like an idiot if I'm wrong. Even if English is my first language
lol. Yes, a scientific prediction is "weasel words". Hey, Halley comment won't be visible in our skies again until 2061 - is that "weasel words" also? Or are you just a troglodyte whose only interest in science is figuring out how to mock those who actually understand it?
We have been fighting the destruction of our 100 sq kilometer lake here in Sask. where overfilled dead salt lakes are almost spilling into fresh water lake. These lakes are overfilled because of illegal drainage of every pot hole, slough and small lake. The cause is incompetence by the Sask Water Shed Authority (SWA).
The fact is wetlands get abnormally dry in drier years in large part because of drainage and has absolutley nothing to do with the bullsh!t AGW.
The irony here is that we have had no help what so ever from environmentalists and relied completely on conservative capitalists who have stepped up with tens of thousands to protect the Lake.
Despite being told the fact that this Lake would dwarf the tailing ponds in the Oil sands they refuse to help.
Real environmental threats are ignored or subverted by people like the geography professor at the University of Saskatchewan.
lance
Where were the arial shots taken?
If the theories about glacial rebound are true, (much of the northern part of the continent were covered by thousands of feet of ice. The weight depressed the crust causing it to sag. Ice melted and the ground starts rising back) couldn't the changing patterns of lakes, marshes, and sloughs, be simply explained away? The U.S. Geological Survey has GPS sensors scattered all over to sense fault lines and plate movements. Does Canada have an equivalent system in these prairie areas?
>>'scientific prediction' = 'guess'
Halley's 'comment', or is that 'comet' can be predicted mathematically. I would be impressed if one of these speculators could accurately predict mathematically what was going to happen climatically next year, or the year after. That would be 'real' science. The fact is, climate cannot be predicted mathematically. It's all guesswork and your guess is as good as mine, as they say. I must have touched a nerve since you are now resorting to insults rather that real argument.
Can't say they didn't warn us. Obviously sea level is 2000' higher than 20 years ago.
Is that "Bill Halley and the Comments" you're referring to,Alex?
WalterF
On the up side you may be able to catch some sea bass or halibut on the north 40.
"I would be impressed if one of these speculators could accurately predict mathematically what was going to happen climatically next year, or the year after."
Chaotic systems don't work that way. If I pour a bucket of sand through a funnel, I can't predict where every single grain will drop; according to you, this means that I have no way of predicting where the pile will end up. If you actually understood math (rather than just bringing it up to make yourself sound knowledgeable), you'd understand how silly your complaint is.
Alex I and a lot of other people call them hourglasses. Not only do you where the sand will fall you know how long it takes. Science eh?
I refuse to dumb down that analogy any further. You can try re-reading it, but if you're still unable to understand it then please just stay out of the way.
alex....Halley's Comet is predicated and PROVEN by mathematics. All the Warmistas have proven is??? Oh.but then you probably took liberal arts.Math is soooooo hard,yaknow.
It's obvious that those are mirages.
[And my relatives from Northern Ontario think that Toronto feels colder in winter than up north because of the damp.]
Well, there is some good news for AGW. I hear that it is so wet in SE Sask that the coal mines cannot haul from the pits. The power plants are running on stockpiles right now but that supply is limited to ? days/weeks.
I am sure that wind and solar will have no problem backing up the electrical supply if fossil fuel generation should run into problems. /s
Seriously, Alex, anyone comparing the purely speculative science of climate change with the mathematical certainty of Halley's comment is proving only their science illiteracy. As Willis Willis Eschenbach likes to say climate science is "models all the way down".
BTW, any answer yet about what climate/weather event or trends will disprove the climate change hypothesis?
BTW, any answer yet about what climate/weather event or trends will disprove the climate change hypothesis?
It's already been disproven.
The hypothesis states that increases in global atmospheric CO2 concentration forces the average global temperature to increase.
Well, CO2 has been increasing every year but the global temperature hasn't been increasing since 1998.
Hypothesis falsified.
Alex, you've hit the nail on the head: science (math) can predict with some certainty the next appearance of a comet; math, however, cannot provide a solution when the number and value of variables is not known.
I refer, of course, to the computer models (math) that form the basis for the AGW hoax: not only do the models require assumptions about what factors (variables) will change climate, but also what values (magnitudes) to assign them, and also what effect a given variation will have. The models supporting AGW predict increased global temperatures because that's what their designed to do, not because they're accurate or precise.
I've tried to dumb it down so that you might be able to tell the science from the demagoguery; try and not confuse them in the future.
Thanks, Oz. I like to pose that question to Alex as a de-trolling substance, it is as effective as spraying on deet to get rid of mosquitoes.
No doubt highly paid part time consultants from academe will soon be able to advise governments which new taxes and raised old ones will be just what is needed to protect against the "drought".
The photos are from the Estevan area of SE Saskatchewan.
I'm applying for a grant to study the utter stupidity of anyone believing the SCAM globull warming. I've asked for a billion dollars and that's just to locate the idiots, because like most victims of SCAMS, they are reluctant to acknowledge thev'e been scammed. That is exept Alex, he will likely chase, my truck, that is specially equipped with clownometers and doofus counters, comming to a town near you soon Alex.
"Chaotic systems don't work that way" Alex
Tell me please.. how do Chaotic systems work?
Yes, from looking at these photos it is obvious that it is so dry that someone will have to mail us a drink of water.
Cold is hot. Wet is Dry. Calm is stormy.
It's Gorewellian.
Wet or dry, hot or cold, you can bet your boots those small dead, teabaggin', rural conservative, welfare bum plough jockeys will be looking to the taxpayer to subsidize their lifestyle.
As they grow your food fo your ilk Phil, or do you and mommy live on the stuff grown behind Safeway moron.
Idiots....these fools sitting around the faculty lounge impressing each other with their advanced modeling....they should just watch Three Stooges reruns instead
Far more insight into the human and enironmental condition than they could ever wish to forcast.
Lost in Tupelo Ms
phil was told to go f**k himself so many times on these boards that I thought he might have taken the advice, over-contorted.... and died.... evidently not! Looks like a few more brain cells bit it though! Head up your ass= probable cause.
Gee, if this keeps up, soon he'll be sounding as intelligent as new!
Snagglepuss, actually I think he took that advice and it has affected his brain. For some reason he has a hate on for sod busters.
bartinksy, that was good.
We had another 1/4 inch of rain today on top of the 2 inches on Saturday and more than that at the gravel pit. Trucks had to suspend hauling gravel onto the soft spots on the road. Cars and trucks have been getting stuck in roads that have been good for 50 years. It is not good here and it is a whole lot worse near Estevan and along the whole east side of Saskatchewan.
Modern UN reports are worth the value of the paper they are
printed on - provided that you use them as toilet paper.
"Alex, you've hit the nail on the head: science (math) can predict with some certainty the next appearance of a comet; math, however, cannot provide a solution when the number and value of variables is not known."
Except, of course, that it CAN. It all depends on what solution you're looking for. We can easily model long-term trends without being able to define each individual factor.
Statistics work on that exact basis. I can't tell you exactly which people will be beaten up tomorrow, or even how many, but I can tell you roughly how many people will be assaulted over the course of the next year based on previous data, and I can tell you what your odds are of being assaulted. I can't tell you who will win the lottery next week, but I can tell you how many winners we'll have within the next year, and what the odds are that your numbers will come up. If you don't understand how odds and statistical projections work, you don't understand math. And while projections based on changed factors might not be perfect, they're a hell of a lot better than guesswork.
In the end, after all the rhetoric and hatred being spewed on here, I've yet to see any interesting refutation of AGW. So far 99% of the opposition is based on ideological grounds, and all of it 'supported' by a poor understanding of math and science. If you can come up with an actual refutation, I'll gladly change my mind - until then you're as irrelevant as the "Intelligent Design" proponents. You might convince a handful career-oriented and ignorant politicians to back you up, for a while, but in the long run you probably won't even be a footnote in the pages of history.