1937 – Canada’s hottest day on record; temperatures reach 45.0C (114F) in Midale and Yellow Grass, both in southern Saskatchewan. *
And still the dust blew.
On June 24 it blew with such fury that it forced the Moose Jaw fair to cancel its horse races and shut down. The force of the storms blowing across southern Saskatchewan was felt as far east as Winnipeg, where once again a dust haze obscured the sun.
Highways became so drifted with dust as to be impassable. South of Moose Jaw the blowing alkali from dried-up Johnstone Lake coated the countryside a dirty white and drove everybody indoors. Sixty miles to the south, near the town of Rockglen, Fife Lake, which had once been thirty-five miles long, dried up completely. Far to the east in the Oxbow area, the Lake of the Rivers went dry and in the process a great mass of prehistoric buffalo bones was uncovered. The farmers of the area lived that year on the returns they got from the fertilizer plants for the carloads of bones them managed to harvest. Near Arcola, the trains were dealyed by the myriads of grasshoppers that lit on the rails and were ground to grease.
The Saskatchewan crop was destroyed by the fourth week of June. Then the heat got worse. At the end of June, 100-degree temperatures were common everywhere and the areas as far north as Prince Albert got a bitter taste of what Regina and Moose Jaw had experienced in 1936. The peak came on July 5 when it touched 110 degrees at Regina, Moose Jaw, and a dozen other southern comminities. For the rest of the summer ninety-degree heat was the rule, for the hot weather extended well into August, and the records established all over on August 23, when it went well over the 100-degree mark again.
There had been hotter Junes than 1937, hotter Julys, and hotter Augusts, but taken together there had never been a longer and hotter summer. – James H. Gray – The Winter Years
Ratt,
I wasn’t putting you in the same camp as Jeff. I was just directing part of my point which was similar to the idea of forests and conservation.
Jeff is in his own camp with the bugs.
You can check the records – for example, inthe US, 1936 summer was a HOT summer, with temperatures in July and August any where from 112 to 121 f. (between 44-50 c approx) Montana of July 5, 1937 was 117.
In the article that Stephen is refering to;
The Earth was much, much warmer back then, and a lot of the world’s ice had melted.
Sea level at that time was estimated to be one to two meters higher — 3 to 6 ft.
Albert Gore ‘brimstone n’ fires’ us with 26 ft.!!??
In a few decades from now, Historians will be asking — who were these Gore and Suzuki guys anyways ??? Some kinda Mesiahs ??? Earlier Day Saints ?? Witches ?? Calamity Johns??
Warwick: You said Your argument is self-defeating.
In fact it is your strawman that is self defeating. My first point was that CO is diatomic and thus is a very poor GHG.
However you have said that CO is 20 times more potent than CO2 twice in this thread. This is not a reasonable statement. CO can act to slow the removal of other GHG (by reducing hydroxil radicals) but it is not a GHG by itself. If you can back up your 20 times factor with a link or a reference then please do so.
Regards,
John
Usually methane is referred to as being 20 times more heat trapping than CO2.
Whether it is true or not I cant say….
Ron: In fact the article that Stephen references mentions the melting of the southern 1/3 of the Greenland icecap. I have never seen AIT but I suspect that this was not the criteria for the 28 ft. rise.
Regards,
John
Stephen you are correct, methane is 20 times more effective a GHG as CO2. But Warwick was talking about CO, not CH4.
Regards,
John
Plants and trees take in the CO2 humans and life sources expel, and humans and life sources take in the oxygen plants and trees expel, so it is a win-win solution – I say just plant a tree if you want to make a difference. Humans produce so little CO2 compared to the oceans; perhaps Al Gore, the profiteer, whose brain cells are in short supply, should appeal to the oceans for their co-operation – maybe a whale could swallow him up or something, and he could write a book on his adventure.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
This is the Great Global Warming Swindle Video for those who may not have viewed it yet. It gives a much clearer understanding of how little CO2 humans produce in the scheme of CO2 producers.
Be carbon footprint quilt free just like Al Goracles, with out the money or a carbon offsets company. http://www.freecarbonoffsets.com/home.do;jsessionid=7E833B4C8B9AA388935F39EF57A68942
Not to mention that at its current atmospheric concentrations, Co2 has already maxed out its IR absorption (greenhouse effect)…..why do we not hear more about THAT???
JCL: You can read a great deal more about it here.
Regards,
John
Gee….wonder what Gore or Suzuki would think…..?
Must be those evil oil companies……after all Yellow Grass and Midale are right in or bordering oil.
John,
Lubas Motl had a pretty counter to Spencer Weart’s article at Real Climate.
Link
I tried to resist dragging this thread down to my level, but is the yellow grass hotel still open?
After i picked up eastern visiters at the Regina airport, i always stopped there on the way back home; it calmed them down after the horizon (and clean air) made them hysterical.
“visitors!”
Kitchener Conservative: In fact I couldn’t see much counter argument in Dr. Motl’s piece. Dr. Wert said as much in the first comment and Dr. Motl’s reply was an insult.
John
John Cross, I remember you coming here and asking for facts on global warming suspicion. You do a fine job of countering rebuttals of anti-global warming, I’ll give you that. But you have nothing to say about how we should curb it. ET has asked you, as well as others, do you believe that sending cash over to China for carbon credits is logical. Now, I may have missed it, but I haven’t seen you respond. So please, to an ignorant layman as myself, you obviously believe in global warming. What is your suggestion on how to reduce it.
Apparently a number of rock bands and stars are boycotting Al Gore’s Earth Concerts as hypocritical (national newswatch) – ie, that the stage lighting alone is ‘enough to power ten houses’
The beauty of living in a large country with a small population is that when Saskatchewan becomes too hot and dry, the fewer than one million residents can simply move elsewhere. The vast majority of the people born in Saskatchewan have already done just that.
Rather than Gore and Suzuki leading the phony war on climate change, they should simply consider that wherever the planet becomes uninhabitable, people will either move elsewhere or die off. Just like they did all through human history.
The arrogance of these weather wogs believing that they can out-do the Sun and cosmic rays that are what actually influence out climate is stunningly stupid, but equally cunning and clever in it’s success with the dullards on the Left. But equally sad when politicians who know better, buy into the scam for votes.
Actually John,
Weart didn’t say very much at all.
Motl’s post was in response to Weart’s post which was in part a response another one of Motl’s posts on Climate CO2 Sensitivity
Weart commented once, didn’t say much and only came back to say he didn’t have time to explain himself except to go to his site.
Motl was sounded like he wanted to have a good debate with Weart and even said “use as much technical language as you want because we’ll be able to understand what your talking about”.
wyatt salt,
Alas, the Yellow Grass hotel burned down some years ago. The 99 cent glass of beer will never return. Sigh.
8.4% of Earth’s black body radiation falls in the band that will be attenuated (‘trapped’) by CO2. Since the current concentration of CO2 traps all of these IR wave-lengths in less than 300m from the radiating surface, adding CO2 to the atmosphere simply reduces the distance above the surface of the Earth that will be warmed due to the ‘greenhouse effect’ of CO2. This will make the night-time air slightly warmer near surface, but will have little effect at higher altitudes.
The Earth’s atmosphere evolved over ~4 billion years from a mixture of nitrogen and carbon dioxide plus an assortment of minor gasses (~20% CO2) and became oxygenated only after ~2,000,000,000 years ago when blue-green algae evolved. They consumed CO2 and exhaled oxygen. Previous to this evolution there was insufficient oxygen in the atmosphere to oxidize iron. With increase in oxygen much of the available-at-surface iron oxidized to form the great iron deposits that date from about 1,700,000,000. This slowed the rise in oxygen in the atmosphere since each tonne of hematite, for example, contains 300kg of oxygen.
Subsequent to 1,700,000,000 the oxygen content of the atmosphere increased to modern levels (~21%) and the CO2 content fell – largely due to combination with calcium and magnesium weathered from igneous rocks, carried into the oceans and precipitated as carbonates – the limestones and dolomites commonly found in Palaeozoic and younger sedimentary sequences.
The Solar System orbits the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy once every 226 million years. The Sun and its planets pass through varying conditions during each orbit. Simplistically, one might imagine the Sun and its planets passing through a dust cloud. A small amount of dust between the Earth and the Sun can reduce the heat the Sun supplies to the Earth and to the other planets. We are currently benefiting from an increase in solar energy arriving at the surface of the Earth as are the other planets- the ice caps on Mars have been shrinking for the past two decades. (It is of interest that Mars’ atmosphere is 95% CO2 – none of it can be blamed on man; apparently there are no CO2 bugs to modify that atmosphere).
The geological record suggests ice ages once each ~200 million years. We are coming out of a major one now – perhaps, for we may only be experiencing an inter-glacial period and the Solar System could soon enter another ‘dust cloud. Or it may be clear sailing for the next 200 million years.
In my view, man cannot cause global warming, nor can man ‘do something’ to influence ‘climate change’
The Earth’s climate is the result of external factors for every system requires energy to drive it and the most important energy source is our Sun. The variation in the position of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun, the variation in the energy out-put of the Sun, both contribute to the climate on Earth. Where we are in the Solar System orbit – the inter-stellar conditions that are encountered by the Mother Ship (the Sun) and its fleet of planets account for major variations – such as the Ice Ages.
Because the system is complicated and we do not have all the answers it lends itself beautifully to those who benefit from spinning a phantom hazard.
Pliny The Elder – 2000 years ago – remarked “Men are most apt to believe what they least understand”.
How little things have changed in two millennia.
The ‘science’ supporting AGW is so flimsy and much of it looks to be steeped in blatant dishonesty. As previously mentioned – climateaudit.org is a great place for good information. Roger Pielke Sr. has his Climate Science site at climatesci.colorado.edu — there’s the book “The Chilling Stars”, plus the current issue of Discover has an interview with Svensmark. And “Unstoppable Global Warming” is a good read as well.
“Apparently a number of rock bands and stars are boycotting Al Gore’s Earth Concerts as hypocritical (national newswatch) – ie, that the stage lighting alone is ‘enough to power ten houses’ ”
Posted by: ET at July 5, 2007 9:00 PM
I heard the tail end of a CBC radio discussion early this evening and a gentleman with a slight English accent was commenting on the hypocrisy of the Gore-like, who apparently fully believe the Kyoto religion, expect others to make mass sacrifices but won’t change their own lifestyles, relying instead on the purchase of “carbon credits”. This gentleman was clearly a strong believer in AGM himself, but was exhorting these types to “act ethically”. After all, he said: “you wouldn’t have much respect for someone who gave generously to animal support charities so he could continue to beat his dog at home.”
Goracle, Dr. Fruit Fly: Do you beat your pets?
Kitchen Conservative: Dr. Weart’s main point was that increasing CO2 will raise the elevation at which IR will escape into space causing it to be lost from a cooler area of the atmosphere. This will require a raise in the earth’s temperature to allow the earth to emit as much as it absorbs. How does Dr. Motl counter this?
Multirec: My interest is in the science so that is what I tend to focus on.
John
At this address ‘http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm’ you will find a petition by the people you prefer for the opposition to the AGW madness.
Did not check how many of them have added their name, though the number is large, in k’s.
And that was long before AL GORE was born there in area 51
“Multirec: My interest is in the science so that is what I tend to focus on.”
Forgive me John, but you tend to focus on the side of pro-climate change. You don’t have many answers as to how to combat climate change, just rebuttal to anti-climate change believers. How about an opinion as to how we combat climate change, or are you here just to argue about science, but have no alternatives.
Boshevik: In fact I did comment on the petition project at the time 12:26 above. I can go into it more if you wish.
Multirec: Understanding the science is the first step to developing alternatives. Personally, I enjoy the science, but not the politics.
But to throw out just one possibility, I think that nuclear power should play a larger role in our future.
John
all bullshit aside and when all is said and done, history will reveal the asshats and I fully expect gore and his sidekick suzi to top the list! they preach about you and I leaving a “carbon footprint”? what’s so bad about that? I expect my footprint, carbon or otherwise, to be qutie large
Ok John, You enjoy the science but not the politics. Personally, I see the two muddled together unfortunately. But I’m curious, as an educated person that you obviously are, why do you not denounce the idea of “carbon credits”, why do you refute any attempt of someone going against the “Kyoto” scam, but not a peep about your thought process on how to combat it. It’s as if you want to show your intelligence from a scientific point of view, but have no alternatives. Not a word from you when ET et all confront you with questions about Mo and China. Don’t you have an opinion?
Sorry, I may be thick headed, but I’m not understanding you.
I invest in uranium..we have to look at alternative energy. it’s clean, abundant and it’s in Saskatchewan!
I certainly don’t subscribe to Mr. Layton’s political, and opportunistic (disgusting) statements.
And I don’t subscribe either to Harper’s very political “all party agreement” statements.
The whole poop-load is the same on all accounts.
Our guys and gals are there doing what we sit back here and claim we stand for.
Right now, we have our money where our mouth is and I still believe that means something.
Respectful as I can be, any Mr. Laytons that try to further the argument that we need to find diplomatic or political solution to the conflict are so far up something … like I said, respectful.
OK .. here’s my line. If we can’t win the war … and if we can’t “resolve by chatting”, then let what will be, be.
But shut down our borders, the US borders, and the whole nine yards to immigrants, outsiders … let’s be the BORG. Gene Rodennberry didn’t invent the BORG but his ideas did.
If I weren’t 51 years old (the military won’t accept me) I’d be there now with the folks who DO believe in something.
Well Multirec, let me ask you a straight question; do you accept the science that leads us to the conclusion that we are making the world warmer?
Actually, I don’t think that John Cross is interested in or arguing about science; he rejects science because his mind is already made up. He’s convinced that the current warming phase is due to AGW. The scientists who dispute this are of no relevance to his conclusion. He’s not interested in them.
Furthermore, John, to attempt to bolster your opinion by implying that those who disagree with AGW are ‘political’ rather than ‘scientific’ is invalid.
If Kyotoism is based on a belief in AGW, then, it cannot exclude any country – such as India and China who are heavy industrial nations. China, as you know, is now the top CO2 emitter in the world as well as the top polluter. The fact that Kyotoism excludes these nations suggests that its followers are disinterested in AGW and more interested in financial transfers of wealth.
The solution is charcoal soil called terra petra.western gorvernments could meet all of their kyoto commitments while improving the quality of our agriculture by leaps and bounds.For perhaps 2% of our gdp we can almost eliminate dependence on imported oil, greatly reduce agricultural pollution and create thousands of new jobs at the rural and local levels to support redevelopment of small rural economies.
ET: please review my posts and show me where I am not interested in the science or where I dismiss a point of view without a valid reason. If you don’t like my conclusions, then argue with my intrepertation of the science.
Well, look what happens when a Finn actually crunches the numbers for a specific area (Helsinki). I wonder what would happen if this was done in this detail for many more sites around the globe.
http://www.tilmari.pp.fi/tilmari5.htm
http://www.kolumbus.fi/tilmari/globwarm.htm
“The issue is that we have seen no increase in sola output for the last 25 years ”
[Posted by: John Cross at July 5, 2007 12:26 PM]
Where am I confused here???
http://www.john-daly.com/solar.htm
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast14oct99_1.htm
http://science.msfc.nasa.gov/ssl/pad/solar/IMAGES/ssn_recent2.gif
john cross – because you ignore the anti AGW science. It’s posted here and elsewhere, but you ignore it. You focus on only ONE cause of warming – CO2 caused by man. That’s unscientific.
You ignore that solar activity has changed in the last 25 years and possibly century, that there’s been a .05% increase per decade since the late 70s; you ignore that other planets, such as Mars, are experiencing increased temperatures; you ignore the fluctuations in temperature on this planet that occurred before industrialism – much less before human beings.
Therefore, I conclude that you are not interested in the science of climate change; you are only interested in selective data that supports your fixed opinion – of AGW.
Furthermore, you are not interested in pollution, which is an industrial output over which humans do have control – and this control would greatly enhance the health of this planet.
You are not interested in the political structure of Kyotoism that actually supports and enables non-Kyoto countries such as China to increase both their CO2 emissions and pollutions! That’s astonishing!
Furthermore – you have nothing to say about how to deal with your conclusion of AGW. So – what are we to do about it?
No, I don’t accept AGW; it’s not science.
ET: Well, if I ignore so much it should be fairly easy to give some examples.
John