Give up Canada, you’re toast

From Simon Fraser University, a new paper says that the Canucks may as well just give up, because its going to warm up no matter what they do. Using powerful new geographic mapping tools on a big screen Mac and a #2 pencil, geographer Kirsten Zickfeld has it all figured out. This is apparently what will cause an end to outdoor ice hockey in Canada.

Warming of 2 degrees inevitable over Canada

photo

SFU geographer Kirsten Zickfeld notes in a new paper she has co-authored that northern hemisphere dwellers will suffer more severe effects of climate change than others. See - it's right there on the map, in Canada. Image from SFU via Flickr

Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. That’s a best-case scenario, according to a paper co-written by a Simon Fraser University researcher.

New climate change research – Climate response to zeroed emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols — published in Nature’s online journal, urges the public, governments and industries to wake up to a harsh new reality.

“Let’s be honest, it’s totally unrealistic to believe that we can stop all emissions now,” says Zickfeld, an assistant professor of geography at SFU. “Even with aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation, it will be a challenge to keep the projected global rise in temperature under 2 degrees Celsius,” emphasizes Zickfeld.

The geographer wrote the paper with Damon Matthews, a University of Concordia associate professor at the Department of Geography, Planning and Environment.

The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The removal of aerosols from the atmosphere would cause additional global warming in the short term, if all of those emissions were removed now. “The widespread presence of aerosols in the Earth’s atmosphere is effectively acting like a solar radiation blocking blanket right now,” explains Zickfeld.

“It’s preventing the Earth’s temperature from responding to the real effects of global warming. But once that aerosol-based blanket is removed the temperature will rise.”

Due to the emission of greenhouse gases, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era. The study finds that elimination of all emissions would lead to an additional short-term warming by 0.25 to 0.5 degrees.

“One to 1.5 degrees of global warming may not seem like a great deal,” says Zickfeld. “But we need to realize that the warming would not be distributed equally over the globe, with mid to high latitude regions such as Canada, Alaska, northeastern Europe, Russia and northern China being most strongly affected.

“Our research shows that as a result of past emissions, a warming of at least 2 ° C will be unavoidable in those regions.”

Backgrounder: Study a first on many levels

This study is the first to find that if all greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions were halted now the Earth’s temperature would actually continue to rise by a few tenths of a degree over the next 10 years. Then it would begin to cool by a few tenths of a degree, coming down to its current level after about a century.

During the warming period the Earth’s temperature would rise to roughly 1.3-Celsius degrees higher than it was at the beginning of the industrial era.

In the northern hemisphere that peak temperature would be closer to 2 degrees higher. The reason is that the warming is not distributed equally over the globe, and is amplified at high latitudes.

“Two degrees is pretty significant,” notes Zickfeld, “when you consider the global temperature was only five degrees colder than today’s during the ice age.”

A decrease in greenhouse gases with short atmospheric lifetimes, such as methane and nitrous oxide, will cause the planet to gradually cool off after the warming phase.

The atmospheric concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide determines the world’s long-term temperature.

This study is also the first to quantify the extent to which past greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions will warm oceans, causing them to rise. Zickfeld and Matthews found emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200, and the sea level will continue to rise for several centuries after that date.

The study doesn’t analyse the impact of other factors, such as melting glaciers and ice sheets, on sea levels. These factors are expected to accelerate sea level rise further.

— 30 —

Contact:
Kirsten Zickfeld, 778.782.9047 (w), 604.354.6214 (cell), kzickfel@sfu.ca; Vancouver resident, originally from Germany
Carol Thorbes, PAMR, 778.782.3035, cthorbes@sfu.ca

Note:  Please contact the researcher directly for interviews and copy of paper

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to Give up Canada, you’re toast

  1. Ibbo says:

    Having experienced a Canadian winter at -25, 2 Degrees warming will not make the slightest difference.

    They do know the freezing point of Water is 0 and the average temperatures rage from -10 to -20

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_in_Canada

    Can’t see a two degree rise in temperature making much difference to be honest.

  2. John Marshall says:

    This has just convinced me that geography is not a science subject but wooly Liberal left wing ideology.

  3. AleaJactaEst says:

    ….”The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…..”

    Hans Christian Anderson stuff. Start with “data” from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which is all from models) and end up with manure.

  4. CodeTech says:

    Well this is GREAT news! Heck, the only thing wrong with it is that this is her “best case”.

    Speaking as a Canadian, I can’t wait for the warming! Imagine the lengthened growing season, the reduction in snow days, less shoveling of the driveway, no more need for winter tires, and if we’re really lucky, we can stop wasting all that money for Natural Gas to heat our homes!

    So…

    emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200, and the sea level will continue to rise for several centuries after that date.

    Well that’s interesting. So, I should be advising my heirs to sell their seaside property in 2199? Also, way to make a no-brain extrapolation of current sea-level rise trends… 2-3mm per year, times, hmm… 200 years… wait a second, that’s… 40-60cm! She’s even lowballing the current (long term) trend! That’s just bad math right there…

    So yeah, Earth to Zickfeld: Canada Wants Warming. Unfortunately, your analysis is a load of crap and we’re not going to get it. Or if we do, it won’t have anything to do with CO2 emissions. Oh well.

  5. joated says:

    “Give up”? I would think they would celebrate!

  6. mike about town says:

    hilarious…will they never tire of dramatic overstatements? We humans have a built in need for an apocalypse…those of us who believe in God believe in a theistic one, while perhaps those who don’t (or just need some more apocalyptic inclinations in their lives) must go with environmental ones.

  7. Spartacus says:

    The publication of this kind of almos non-sense articles is only accessible to alarmists. Poor “Nature (Magazine)”….

  8. Dave says:

    The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Well if they used a model it must be true. Especially if the model is based on the infallible IPCC reports.

  9. Claptrap! Emblazoned all over this article are the trappings of the meme that climate is anchored in time. “Then it would begin to cool by a few tenths of a degree, coming down to its current level after about a century.” Who are they trying to kid here? Citing the IPCC report wholesale is not a good place to start. What an embarrassment.

  10. Anopheles says:

    Is it not true that the predicted warming is equivalent, in the NH, to moving a couple of hundred miles south? Nearly everybody in Canada lives within a few miles of the US border. If they want to carry on playing outdoor Ice Hockey, all they need to do is move a couple of hundred miles north. Land is cheap up there, and there is a lot of it. A real lot of it., as anyone who has flown over the pole in winter will know.

    Coming back on the coupla hundred miles south thing, would that not mean that the weather we experience will be like that to the south of us now, in most cases, ceteris paribus? So if we exerience ‘warming causing cooling’, that’s because it’s cooler down there now? It isn’t? Well, maybe that meme is not really based in anything but wishful thinking.

  11. …oh yes, and notice the convenient smuggling of ‘aerosols’ into the mix. Just to ensure there is an unquantifiable ‘out’? Amazing bit of everything they have going on.

  12. DirkH says:

    Canada, Australia and California are favorite destinations for German emigrants.

    Kirsten Zickfeld was born in Saarbrücken, Germany, and Rahmstorf finds her work outstanding:
    http://warpsix.komedia.de/sixcms/media.php/1471/zickfeld.pdf

    She expects a failure of the Monsoon due to aerosols and a collapse of the thermohaline circulation. (Of course, with the usual caveats, “we found out that XXX COULD happen”… you know the drill)

    Small fry, alarmist phantasist foot soldier, responsible for whipping up scare scenarios. Creates scares since 2006 in Victoria.

  13. Truthseeker says:

    “The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate.”

    There is your problem right there. Turn off the frigging computers and go outside and do some observations. Nothing that the satellite data is showing support this hypothesis.

    I am jealous of the computer screen though. It is bigger than my IMac. Size matters …

  14. Gary Mount says:

    I am glad that CAGW didn’t exist when I went to SFU.
    I pity some of the students of today that are indoctrinated such as the student highlighted here:

    http://www.sfu.ca/dean-gradstudies/blog/studentprofiles/TylerHerrington.html

    “His undergraduate research experience prepared him well for asking important questions as part of his master’s research program, where he’ll be investigating climate change. His research question: What cumulative CO2 emissions are compatible with regional level tipping points in the Earth’s climate system, such as those affecting the Amazonian rainforest die-back, Greenland ice sheet decay, and complete disintegration of arctic sea ice?”

    Complete disintegration of arctic sea ice? Come on, you are making my SFU credentials look bad.

  15. Matthew W says:

    “used an earth system climate model”

    Gee, imagine that !!!
    GIGO strikes again !!

  16. Ripper says:

    So now Canadian children won’t know what outdoor ice hockey is?

  17. fadingfool says:

    So remove the additional CO2 warming element (i.e. emissions remain at existing levels) then remove the “aerosol” effect invented to “mask” the inadequacies of the CO2 warming model and oh no its “WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT” . And this was published?
    How do I get on this gravy train?
    Seriously I’m fed up with having to work for a living.

  18. TomO says:

    Sigh… they don’t give up do they?

    I’d like to see if their funding application stated the study outcome…

    Contrivance, conflation, confirmation bias and unverified computer models.

    Didn’t see anything mentioned about going outside and taking some measurements….

  19. Lew 'Big Oil' Skannen says:

    OK. So we are doomed even more doomedly that we had previously been doomed.
    Are there now new levels of doomedness we should be preparing for or what?

  20. Jimbo says:

    Due to the emission of greenhouse gases, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era.

    To put it another way:

    Since the end of the Little Ice Age, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era.

    Funny that. ;O)

  21. Luther Wu says:

    Two degrees temp rise in 10 years and only if we completely stop all emissions right now… doomed, for sure.

  22. Eve says:

    That must be why I just moved to the Bahamas, where is is a balmy 72 at present. At home it is 7 C. Canada may get so hot, people will not leave but I doubt it.

  23. Gail Combs says:

    They do not give up do they?

    I wonder when Canada’s internet/media censorship laws will go into effect? If Australia is getting censorship laws and they are trying to impose them here in the USA Canada can not be far behind.

    See: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/

  24. Dude says:

    Well that’s good to know. Now they should do a study on why their theory does not seem to prove itself out from 2007- today. Since they say that the Earth will continue to warm even if there is no more CO2 in the air how can they validate their study since the Earth has actually cooled and more CO2 is in the air than at the time of their study……………

    Fools. Fools working for grants saying the proper things to get another grant.

  25. General P. Malaise says:

    …still using false data and false assumptions. it is criminal.

  26. The duo used an earth system climate model…

    So the report should read:
    Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the MODEL’S world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. …

    The removal of aerosols from the atmosphere would cause additional global warming IN THE MODEL used…

    “The widespread presence of aerosols in the MODEL Earth’s atmosphere is effectively acting like a solar radiation blocking blanket right now,” explains Zickfeld BECAUSE THAT’s HOW WE PROGRAMMED THE AEROSOLS TO WORK IN THE MODEL.

    And so on….

  27. Blade says:

    Due to the emission of greenhouse gases, the world’s temperature has warmed by almost 1 ° C since the beginning of the industrial era. The study finds that elimination of all emissions would lead to an additional short-term warming by 0.25 to 0.5 degrees.”

    It’s official! She has admitted what I suspected all along. The Earth is supposed to still be in the Little Ice Age, but no longer is thanks *completely* to the actions of human beings.

    She leaves no wiggle room in that quote, every single fraction of that fraction of a degree increase is due to human influence, none of it would have occurred but for humans and their evil activities. Not even a slither of that fraction of a degree is attributed to natural warming rebounding from a cold period.

    I always try to ask that specific question to the warmie trolls and their sympathetic lukewarmers and they always duck it, so I guess Kirsten Zickfeld didn’t get the memo to keep it ambiguous.

    So I suggest that everyone confront all the warmies and their sypathetic lukewarmers and demand a simple answer to these questions. No more ducking! Are we supposed to still be in the Little Ice Age? Is that why we should flush trillions of more dollars down the climate science toilet bowl, to ‘recover’ the climate back to the Little Ice Age?

  28. Shevva says:

    1900 – 1999 – Nuclear, DNA, Computers, penicillin.

    2000 – 2099 – Activist Political Science. Fondle slabs(iPad).

  29. Martin Brumby says:

    Yeah, right.
    I’m sure all those Canucks (especially the ones living in Northern Canada) will be quaking in their boots. But that’s more likely because it is ####ing cold than because Zickfeld is predicting that it just might get warmer.
    There’s more danger of her prodding ‘em up the bum by tapping her big screen Mac with that pencil.

    Nice to see young lassies make it to be “associate professor” now-a-days.

    In my day I never heard of “associate” professors and “real” professors were pretty high grade boffins who had all been around for years and seen a thing or two.

  30. Garry Stotel says:

    I guess there is nothing left to do but wait out 7 years and 9 months and see whether ice hockey as we know it will survive.

    If this means that Canadians will lose more readily to Czech and Russians, I am going to go and put my coal fired stove on.

    “The atmospheric concentration of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide determines the world’s long-term temperature.” What about water vapour? What about the Sun? What about asymptomatic saturation of CO2? What about negative feedbacks? What about all the other stuff that affects the climate, that Anthony put out here.
    So that is it then, CO2 drives the climate. Simples…

  31. Steve Keohane says:

    Zickfeld and Matthews found emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200, and the sea level will continue to rise for several centuries after that date.

    Does this nearly 10″ of SL rise happen all at once in 2200? I’m glad I live at 6600′, I predict in 2200, I won’t care about SL. This has to be one of the silliest papers published.

  32. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    The duo (of geographers) used a climate model… to study the impact of greenhouse gas… on climate… based on… data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change… and published in Nature’s online journal.

    Unbelievable! (Literally)

  33. Other experts have already told us Canucks that we’re toast if we get a suntan – see this 1999 Center for Disease Control PSA. I first saw it on a billboard at the side of a Northern Ontario highway.

    Now it turns out that the latitude that far North makes it tricky, indeed, to get enough Vitamin D from sunlight. The CDC’s scaremongering may well have increased the risk of a range of diseases now thought to be linked to Vitamin D deficiency in northernly communities.

    Moral of the story: experts are often mistaken – and often miss the big picture.

  34. klem says:

    I live in Canada and I welcome a 2C rise over the next 100 years, I wish it would happen over the next 100 hours. Matter of fact it has; only two days ago it was -10C, and tomorrow it will be +15C. That’s a 25C range in only a couple of days, not unusual really for March.

    So a 2c rise over 100 years is a big deal, in what way?

  35. John F. Hultquist says:

    She should know. The local B.C. area is a hotbed of the hot-house (aka greenhouse) industry and they use . . .

    Liquid carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide extracted from boiler flue-gas condensers are used to supplement carbon-dioxide (CO2) levels in the crop. (p.6)

    http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/ghvegetable/publications/documents/industry_profile.pdf

  36. Francisco Fernandez says:

    Well, make up your mind!! Aerosols were bad for ozone and now they can block the sun heat and prevent global warming…. Oh, that’s right, when their predictions in the 90′s failed they switched to AGW. Then Climate change. But the 80′s was Global cooling, right? (I might be a little young to get that one right).

    They are so full of it.

    The only thing that is correct in this article is that no matter what we do, we can’ effect the weather, in a Global Scale, more than we can count the water molecules on earth and their exact state at any given time, all of them.

  37. BrettR says:

    My goodness, is this all it takes to get a paper published these days if you’re on the “right” side? I’m going into climate science so I can get grant money to study the effects of climate change on the brewing industry. Just imagine the headlines, ” Climate change will cause beer shortage!” I’ll make a mint.

    I have to agree with AleaJactaEst; this study is a great example of GIGO.

  38. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, their model program computes a faster rate of warming, than the previous 100 years, the comming decade if all the emissions stopped today.

    How lucky, err convinient, that we can’t stop the emissions then.

    Maybe they shouldn’t strip down the models too much, lest the CAGW proponents start thinking that the removal of coal-fired power plants will accelerate the warming bazillion folds. :p

  39. rilfeld says:

    It’s OK. They play hockey indoors nowadays. Of course, the same computer model probably shows Toronto winning the cup.

  40. Kelvin Vaughan says:

    CodeTech says:

    March 7, 2012 at 4:42 am

    Well this is GREAT news! Heck, the only thing wrong with it is that this is her “best case”.

    Speaking as a Canadian, I can’t wait for the warming! Imagine the lengthened growing season, the reduction in snow days, less shoveling of the driveway, no more need for winter tires, and if we’re really lucky, we can stop wasting all that money for Natural Gas to heat our homes!

    Don’t get too excited, I’ve been waiting for the same thing in the UK since the 1960′s but nothing has warmed up yet to any noticeable degree..

  41. Charles.U.Farley says:

    Surely, you can only accurately model something when :
    A) You understand the system/event/behaviour in its entirety.
    B) Have accurate data to model with.

    Since none of the above is true they might just as well read the tea leaves….should be quite accurate compared to their models predictions if past performance is an indicator… Duh!

  42. Mr Lynn says:

    Sermon for Today:

    “Repent all ye polluters, for according to the the Holy Writ of I-Pee-See-See and the Gospel According to the Models, even if you cleanse the breath of your foul smokestacks, the demonic Greenhouse Gasses will still roast our Northern Climes. Your children will trade their skates for rollers, and our hardy trappers of fur will have to trek far in pursuit of the disappearing game. With the Great Warming will come implacable Deniers from the avariscious South, intent on despoiling our once-snowy lands to feed the shirtless hordes in their soulless cities.

    “Ye, though the Heretics might attempt to frighten you with shouts of ‘Science! Science’, know that there is no true Science that may countervale the prescient Gospel of the Models, which contain all Truth, past, present, and—Praise to Gaia and her Prophet the Algoracle!—the Future of our Earth. Let none dispute the glorious truth of the Models, lest all True Prophecy fail, and Doubt enter the hearts of the Faithful of the Climate.

    “Can we hear an Amen?”

    /Mr Lynn

  43. pete says:

    Dear Canadians
    Just a note to ease your concerns a little.
    I live in Australia where the weather is perfect,(drought + flood/2 = perfect on average) and the temperature is way more than 2C hotter than Canada. Your gunna luv it, but if you can, try for a bit more than 2, just to be sure.
    This study, done by a geographer should be accurate because she used data from the IPPC.How could you go wrong.

  44. Kaboom says:

    We’re already tracking below scenario C from Hansen’s “no emissions of CO2 after 2000″ paper from 1988. Actually cutting them will undoubtedly hurl us into the next ice age within 5 years.

  45. Chris S says:

    What this article fails to mention is… Man Made Climate Change is BULLSH*T! The earth has been warming and cooling for BILLIONS of years! As cold as ice ages and back up to tropical weather. There is a VERY good reason for this temperature change. It’s the same reason, In Canada Monday could be -10 degrees, and Tuesday could be +13 (and change of 23 degrees in 24 hours!) It’s called THE SUN! In virtually ALL so called “climate change models” The SUN is always used as a “constant” where the sun in reality is the single largest variable regarding Global climate (as well as the other planets in our solar system) This little “oversight” in “climate science” is a deliberate deception to place undue negative scrutiny on C02. If we were to DOUBLE our C02 emissions it would not have an affect on our global temperature! C02 is AIR to plants. Regardless of how large you think cities and developed areas are, they still represent a TINY FRACTION of the total land mass of our planet. The overwhelming vegetation is MORE than capable of using that extra C02 growing larger and more dense, and providing more oxygen in return. C02 is not even really a “Green house gas” as you are led to believe. Methane is a good example of a greenhouse gas because it is not used by nature. Why do they want to control C02? SIMPLE! Controlling C02 allows them to control the emitters of C02… HUMAN BEINGS! The end game goal is to use C02 regulations to “tax” enough billions from each country to fund a GLOBAL CLIMATE COURT. That will be able to draft GLOBAL standards (laws) that all countries will have abide by. A true, unelected, unaccountable WORLD government. That will be able to regulate how much food you can eat or how much gas/electricity you can consume (without having to buy more “carbon credits”) Think I’m “Crazy”. You can search to very simple things to prove everything I have said is true. 1) As the Earth started documented warming in the early 1990′s so did the temperature of other planets like Mars. (obviously the Sun and not our C02 emissions is responsible for that.)

    As for the “Carbon Allowance” /World government scheme…. simply check out CCX or “Chicago Climate Exchange” Created by non other than Al Gore who is set to profit in the tens of billions if this ever catches on as they have been trying so desperately since the Club of Rome met in 1991 and decided “man made global warming” would be the easiest way to unite mankind against ITSELF and allow for control of the general population. “”The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” (just before the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 where Maurice Strong announced the biggest threat to mankind…. Global Warming. (now called “climate change” because the Earth had stopped warming for almost 10 years so they had to change the name to make it sound legitimate!)

    So the next time somebody talks to you about it being hot or cold… Tell them to shut up and look up. That big orange ball in the sky, the sun… it has the equivalent to millions of nuclear explosions going off at once in random sections in random orders due to so many uncalcuable factors… and THAT’s what determines the temperature on our planet Earth (as well as the other planets of our solar system.) NOT our SUV’s!

  46. Chris B says:

    Having chosen UBC over SFU I feel a little vindicated this morning.

    I have a final solution for CAGW research involving predictions. Place the money in trust for the duration of the prediction. If the prediction is accurate the money is awarded. If the prediction is wrong the money is refunded to the sucker, er, funder. This would eliminate the “guessing” and fake science.

  47. Mark F says:

    I heard part of the interview on a Vancouver talk show. I wanted to scream! The host (Bill Good) still seems to believe in the evil tooth demon. The Engineering programs at that university (Simon Fraser) are truly great, and it seems a tragedy that another branch of technological academics should have two left feet to walk in lock-step with the artsy crowd there in the social “sciences”.

  48. rumleyfips says:

    Good records of river freeze/breakup dates in the Northwest exist from the mid eighteenth century to mid twentieth century. The Hudson Bay factors were quite interested in river ice. Factors ( remember, the ” mountain men ” of Montana were mostly Hudson Bay employees from the Orkneys) were not self sufficient. Their flour, salt, sugar,tea,wine,beef,pork ,candles,wool pants etc.
    were supplied from Montreal by canoe., When starvation threatens if the river doesn’t thaw , you keep accurate records.

    The archives show winter breakup becoming a month earlier and freezup a month later over the 2 centuries.
    The Hudson Bay Company did sell hockey sticks, but not until the twentieth century.

    John McManus

  49. steveta_uk says:

    In the northern hemisphere that peak temperature would be closer to 2 degrees higher. The reason is that the warming is not distributed equally over the globe, and is amplified at high latitudes.

    That’s odd – I always though the Earth was round, and that ‘high latitudes’ were just as common in the south.

    You live and learn, eh?

  50. alcheson says:

    If the warming caused by CO2 is so hideously dangerous but yet it can be easily negated by just a small addition of relatively harmless aerosols, why don’t these catastrophic warmists simply propose that we increase the aerosol production just a little more if temperatures start going back up to much? It would be a simple, inexpensive and very quick fix. We all know the answer to that question but still couldn’t help but pointing it out.

  51. DavidA says:

    And just as the constipated mathematician did, she worked it out with a pencil.

  52. Mickey Reno says:

    Some academicians need to publish in order to qualify for their tenure. Ergo, another crap paper.

    To the silly Canadian Warmista geography people, we don’t expect much from you, but at least TAKE a frickin’ GEOLOGY course! It might give you a tad bit of perspective. You might learn that only a few short millenia ago, your entire nation was covered in ice a mile thick! Gigantic continental glaciers roared down from the north and swallowed up all the wooly mammoths. You’ve already gained a huge amount due to existing warming, and have the most to gain from future warming, not to mention the most to lose from future cooling. You ought to be praying for warming.

  53. observa says:

    Kirsten had me really ‘petri-fried’ there for a minute until I worked out she wasn’t a climatologist(slams forehead and promises to concentrate harder in science lessons in future)

  54. Timothy Sorenson says:

    “Achievements: In her doctoral thesis on the impact of human activities for
    the climate system, they found that the additional
    Increase in air pollution with suspended particles -
    GPMT by fire, the consumption of fossil fuels and
    Deforestation that the summer monsoon, India
    precipitation supplies could fail. Also the global warming causes the
    North Atlantic circulation, the mild climate in Western Europe and
    causes weaker or even dried up and
    Northwest Europe has a relatively sudden drop in temperature
    experiences.”

    Achievements = various claims of catastrophe! How sad that ‘chicken little’ism is
    praised. I hope in another 15 years that we (and they) will clearly see how wrong
    and silly they were. The Boy who Cried wolf, paid for his sins by being eaten alive.
    Perhaps we can get these people to retract their silly papers in the future.

  55. TerryS says:

    According to the graphs in the supplementary information, available here the 2.0C rise only occurs if just the emissions of aerosols are reduced to zero. If non-CO2 greenhouse gasses are eliminated then the temperature drops by between 1.5 and 2.0C. Finally if just CO2 is eliminated then the temperature increase by 0.5C uniformly over the entire world except for Antarctica.

  56. John Phillips says:

    A red flag for anyone who is tempted to believe in CAGW should be that according to CAGW orthodoxy, nowhere on earth is better with warming. Not northern Canada. Not Siberia. Nowhere.

    If there were significant warming in Canada, that country would not suffer. It would likely become a super power with habitable land area similar to the US.

  57. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    The duo used an earth system climate model developed by the University of Victoria to study the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the world’s climate. The study was based on emission levels that are consistent with data from the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    This study is the first to find that if all greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions were halted now the Earth’s temperature would actually continue to rise by a few tenths of a degree over the next 10 years. Then it would begin to cool by a few tenths of a degree, coming down to its current level after about a century.

    Well obviously they were using the model wrong. Just look at what came out of the U of Victoria just last year:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/abandon-all-hope-ye-who-read-this/

    Climate change to continue to year 3000 in best case scenarios

    New paper in Nature Geoscience examines inertia of carbon dioxide emissions

    New research indicates the impact of rising CO2 levels in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause unstoppable effects to the climate for at least the next 1000 years, causing researchers to estimate a collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet by the year 3000, and an eventual rise in the global sea level of at least four metres.

    The study, to be published in the Jan. 9 Advanced Online Publication of the journal Nature Geoscience, is the first full climate model simulation to make predictions out to 1000 years from now. It is based on best-case, ‘zero-emissions’ scenarios constructed by a team of researchers from the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (an Environment Canada research lab at the University of Victoria) and the University of Calgary.

    “We created ‘what if’ scenarios,” says Dr. Shawn Marshall, Canada Research Chair in Climate Change and University of Calgary geography professor. “What if we completely stopped using fossil fuels and put no more CO2 in the atmosphere? How long would it then take to reverse current climate change trends and will things first become worse?” The research team explored zero-emissions scenarios beginning in 2010 and in 2100.

    The Northern Hemisphere fares better than the south in the computer simulations, with patterns of climate change reversing within the 1000-year timeframe in places like Canada. At the same time parts of North Africa experience desertification as land dries out by up to 30 percent, and ocean warming of up to 5°C off of Antarctica is likely to trigger widespread collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet, a region the size of the Canadian prairies.

    Last year, based on climate modeling at the U of Victoria, we shut down all emissions and there’s still enough “climate change” in the pipe to affect the globe for a thousand years.

    This year, based on climate modeling at the U of Victoria, we shut down all emissions and get a blip of a rise, which won’t be evenly spread across the globe, and goes away in a century.

    Over one year, they go from “We are screwed for a thousand years!” to a Canadian “Eh.”

    Is this progress?

  58. G. Karst says:

    It is nice to know, that when it comes to climate science… Women can get just as naked as men. It truly is an equal opportunity phenomenon.

    Yes Canada warmed more than other locales and when cooling manifests, it will cool faster than most locales. Who ever said it was easy living in Canada?

    Since warming brings real tangible benefits to our northern friends and cold takes these benefits away just as fast… Surly warming is preferred? Even now, Canada is one big skating rink, and does not lack ice. GK

  59. dp says:

    This has to be the result of a rogue gene from the British gene pool. The same madness has over-run Oz as well. Climate guilt is epidemic in the English speaking world almost exclusively.

  60. cd_uk says:

    I think it is a bit unfortunate in the way this women has been referred to as a “geographer”, as if she is somehow unqualified to speak on matters of science. Yes geography on the whole is the softest of all Earth Sciences, tending to be less embedded in the core sciences than say geology or meteorology, but it does add to our understanding of the Earth. What’s more, a visit to her web page reveals that Kirsten Zickfeld’s background is in physics and not geography – not that that should matter.

    My problem is that she uses a model to make statements about the future. Firstly, a model is nothing but a hypothesis that needs testing and given that most models do pretty badly beyond their training sets I wouldn’t place too much confidence in this one either. Then there is reference to IPCC data? What data? Are these outputs from models, then they’re not data (in the empirical sense) they are results from simulations.

    There is something fundamentally wrong in this field of science; models are accepted as evidence. I think the post makes too much of the article when it refers to the paper using definites such “…2 degrees would…”.

  61. Mashiki says:

    There’s this joke in Canada that we only have two seasons(unless you live in southern BC), winter and construction. I fully support a warmer Canada, and this thing called “summer” that Americans and the rest of the world talks about.

  62. Bob says:

    Apparently, the education bubble is world-wide, and encompasses much more than cost. As these programs proliferate, standards decrease, the number of degrees granted increases, and the overall quality of education drops, and the quality of research is diluted. That must be why we get studies done with unverified models, based on other unverified models, with no recognizable science involved.

  63. More Soylent Green! says:

    Is there some sort of geographical map showing the average temperate of North America over the last 30 years? I don’t mean the average of the whole continent, but region by region, something like the daily highly temperature map that appears in the USA today.

    Take your map, and for anyplace in Canada, just move southwards to a location that is two degrees warmer in average. Does civilization flourish there? Is abundant native flora and fauna there, or is it a desert wasteland?

  64. juanslayton says:

    Zickfeld and Matthews found emissions to date will lead to about a 25 centimeters sea level rise in 2200….

    That’s if there were no further emissions.

    If emissions continue, “The Impacts of Sea Level Rise on the California Coast” published May, 2009, by the California Climate Change Center, with generous taxpayer support, prepared by Matthew Heberger, Heather Cooley, Pablo Herrera, Peter H. Gleick, and Eli Moore of the Pacific Institute, informs us:

    Under medium to medium-high greenhouse-gas emission scenarios, mean sea level along the California coast is projected to rise from 1.0 to 1.4 meters (m) by the year 2100.

    http://pacinst.org/reports/sea_level_rise/report.pdf

    If Dr. Gleick’s scenario were credible, Zickfeld and Matthews’ 200 year figure would be completely negligible. Of course, there seems to be some question of the Pacific Institute’s reliability….

  65. The amazing thing about these people who write dramatic and apocalyptic accounts of what will happen with quite minor temperature changes is that they probably watch the same weather reports for Vancouver that I do. Every morning one forecaster shows the record highs and lows for that date. They are usually 20 to 30 degrees (C) different. Although sometimes the dates are decades apart, surprisingly often (twice in the past month) the dates are only one year apart. If nature can accommodate a 25 degree change in one year, why would 2 degrees over a century cause such havoc? Political indoctrination trumps simple observation.

  66. John K. Sutherland. says:

    Maybe we won’t have to evacuate the far North then? That’s been the only sensible solution to the intense winter cold for the last hundred years.

  67. Chuckles says:

    SFU? usually excellent advice in any circumstances. Pity they didn’t follow it.

  68. Werner Brozek says:

    In the northern hemisphere that peak temperature would be closer to 2 degrees higher. The reason is that the warming is not distributed equally over the globe, and is amplified at high latitudes.

    According to today’s Edmonton Journal, the lows in the following three places way up in northern Canada: Iqaluit, Inuvik,and Yellowknife are respectively: -35 C, -29 C, and -33 C. With these temperatures on March 7, are they supposed to be worried about an extra degree or two?

  69. RobW says:

    “will warm 0.25 degrees per decade” Um not the last decade it didn’t!

  70. Shevva says:

    Amen.

  71. HenryP says:

    The estimate I get, and most others
    including Roy Spencer,
    is 0.14 degree C warming per decade
    but it is natural warming.
    You can all stand on your heads,
    but it is not going to change the facts.
    More CO2 is not going to make it any warmer
    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  72. Paul Linsay says:

    What’s this woman going on about? My late mother in law lived in Miami just north of Miami Beach. In the winter the place was so full of people from Quebec I had to learn how to say ‘Ay’ in French.

  73. TRM says:

    They must have us confused with another Canada somewhere warm. They know that trying to scare Canucks about rising sea levels and warming temps won’t work but “an end to outdoor hockey?” oh no we must do something. What a crock. The FACT that is hasn’t warmed in the last decade seems to be missing from their models. What will they do when/if the PDO/AMO stay negative and some real cold (ie 1960s & 70s) hits?

  74. Shooter says:

    Wait a few months or years and you’ll see that their claims are BS. I hope everyone gives them a heart-warming message.

  75. hunter says:

    It is interesting that if believers from a soft science like geography write a paper that promotes AGW hype, it gets published in Nature as a great breakthrough. But if physicists or geololists write a paper doubting AGW alarmism, they are dismissed as non-experts and paid schills.
    The lack of critical thinking, and the obvious rent seeking by scholars like Zickfeld in tying her specialty- geography to climate predictions only shows that Gleick, and the sad support he receives from believers, is a symptom of a deep failure of ethics and norms.

  76. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Before I read any comments, let me say that the temperature here in Ottawa varies from -30C to +30C each six months, so two degrees is diddly squat … Hey, we’ll just move North a couple of hundred miles. And, what’s more, the second largest country, and one of the largest agriculture producers, might even get two growing seasons, and have vastly more land become arable.

    Wot’s up with that!

  77. ferd berple says:

    John F. Hultquist says:
    March 7, 2012 at 5:42 am
    The local B.C. area is a hotbed of the hot-house (aka greenhouse) industry and they use . . .

    Bud long ago replaced lumber as BC’s number 1 export crop. Nothing to do with global warming. The softwood lumber agreement forced the BC lumber industry to close and sell their mills and timber rights to the US. Unemployed BC loggers responded by converting their attics to hydroponics and driving the California pot industry out of business. This saved the housing market in BC while California lead the collapse in the US. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

  78. Tom in Florida says:

    rilfeld says:
    March 7, 2012 at 5:51 am
    “It’s OK. They play hockey indoors nowadays. Of course, the same computer model probably shows Toronto winning the cup.”

    Probably the same models that said Tampa Bay could never win a Cup. Perhaps ya’ll up there should follow Vinny, Marty, Stammer & Guy and come on down.here. Another Cup coming soon to this area!

  79. Beesaman says:

    Is this the same alarmism language used about the oceans getting more acidic, when they are in fact only becoming more neutral.
    As in, Cananda is not really getting warmer just not as damned cold.
    I guess it is all relative to your baseline for panic and alarm!
    Or the need to gain green grant dollars………………..

  80. fadingfool says:

    Surely “Climate response to zeroed emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols” should have been entitled “University of Victoria’s climate model response to IPCC 2007 simulated data input and modelled responses to non-increases/decreases in programmed variables” I know it’s not as catchy but at least it’s accurate?
    Perhaps I could get a grant on modelling the survival vectors dependant on starting criteria in Valve’s Left 4 Dead computer programme? I’m sure I could add in climate change somewhere……..

  81. YES! A warmer Canada coming up and there’s beggar-all anyone can do anything to stop it anyway, so let’s drill, burn and be merry!

  82. Paul Linsay says:
    March 7, 2012 at 7:43 am
    What’s this woman going on about? My late mother in law lived in Miami just north of Miami Beach. In the winter the place was so full of people from Quebec I had to learn how to say ‘Ay’ in French.

    Clearly, hockey puck close watch on that word of yours. The spelling of the Canucklehead Sigh is “eh”, eh? Perhaps the Quebecois Twinge puts a bit of a zonk on your perceptions, eh? No worries, eh? Be thankful that those Miami invaders weren’t Newfoundlanders…becuz, Large e’s, ye’d be havin’ a toime of ‘er, eh?

  83. reason says:

    I did a quick experiment using the deep-freezer out in my garage. I nudged the thermostat in it up two degrees.

    Lo and behold, the stash of deer-meat from my brother-in-law that I keep out there REMAINED FROZEN.

    I was gobsmacked.

  84. Joe says:

    The constant focus on the arctic region as being “hard hit” by climate change is preposterous. I don’t know of a single living thing in the Arctic that feeds on ice and thrives on cold. All animals in the arctic that even bother to stay in the arctic during the winetr, like all animals in the Antarctic, use the summers to bulk up in order to withstand the long winter hardship.

    Milder winters in the arctic would result in the exact same reaction in polar species that a mild winter has with species all over the globe: population boom. Polar winters are an obstacle to survival that polar species have adapted to, but polar winters don’t, and never will, AID in any living thing’s survival.

  85. geography lady says:

    I have read this article and the comments thereafter. Many of the commenter seem to like to slam the field of geography. Unfortunately, the field has been populated by many in the non-hardcore science fields in the past 40 years. But many geographers have very technical science in their backgrounds. They usually go out into the working world and apply their training. These “geographers” reflect the modern academic world. This is why students are not learning good scientific methods and applications. It also reflects where the money is.

    I am trying in my “retirement” to give the ability of college students to be able to look at thing critically in all aspects of their lives. This includes looking at all sides of an issue. Then to make their own view points. But look at things very very logically (difficult for most to do) and critically.

    I see from the comments that geography is thought of as a “soft science”. But realize that almost all sciences (including the hard sciences) have originated from geography in the past (beyond anyone’s life time here).

  86. jeff says:

    A red flag for anyone who is tempted to believe in CAGW should be that according to CAGW orthodoxy, nowhere on earth is better with warming. Not northern Canada. Not Siberia. Nowhere.

    That makes perfect sense. When you perform a cost/benefit analysis, just be sure to leave out the “benefit” portion. I don’t think I’ve seen a single study or article that attempts to take into account or quantify benefits that could result from increased temperatures.

    Unrelated question: What is the response to the argument that the temperature rise is being masked by aresols?

  87. Sticker Printing Services says:

    “Give up”? I would think they would celebrate!

  88. Charles.U.Farley says:

    I figured it out!
    I KNOW why Canada will fry!
    I KNOW why the Artic ice cap will melt and pitch cuddly wuddly poley bears into the wasser!
    Its obvious isnt it?
    Dont be unkind to me, its only cos you didnt think of it first.

    Its because …………hot air rises…. muhahahaha!
    I could be a climate scientist at UEA or Penn State!
    Fame, riches and fortune now await!

  89. Reading between the lines of this study I think there is a greater worldwide disaster brewing.

    It appears temperatures are dangerously climbing within computers. Having just experienced overheating of my own computer which resulted in constant crashing and loss of data, this could be the precursor for a complete global computer meltdown over this next century.

    Maybe this is what the models are trying to tell us in their own way, and we’re simply misinterpreting their signals to us.

    A global computer meltdown would be even more catastrophic than a few warmer winter days in Canada.

    Proof of how serious this situation is? My computer just told me (via a quick Google search) there are 149,000 results for “computer is overheating” while there are only 7,130 hits for “world is overheating.”

    What more proof do we need?

  90. Coach Springer says:

    Just looked up the temps for my favorite Canadian fishing hole. Record high was in 2001. Record Low in 2003. Based on the same scientific standards as this report, there is a sharp downward trend detected.

    Seriously, this looks just like the Austrailians hyping drought. But in the event they are right, there will be even more arable land and chaper food for more population. Worst case is it balances out. How disappointing.

  91. reason says:

    “I don’t know of a single living thing in the Arctic that feeds on ice and thrives on cold.”

    http://tinyurl.com/7dtagy6

  92. ManitobaKen says:

    Here in southern Manitoba, where we’ve had one of our warmest (and most enjoyable) winters in many years, probably 4-5C above normal, most of the outdoor rinks are still in use. As is the Real longest ice skating rink in the world on Winnipeg’s 2 major rivers, not Ottawa’s Rideau canal. Theirs is wider, ours is longer so it all comes back to that size thing. :) So should we worry about an imaginary long term 2C? Certainly not here. Most of us would welcome it.

  93. W.O.P.R. says:

    “Maybe this is what the models are trying to tell us in their own way, and we’re simply misinterpreting their signals to us.”

    Finally. After. All. These. Years. One. Of. You. Understands.

  94. pat says:

    What me worry?
    Seriously, everything ‘predicted’ is within normal variability.

  95. Jim G says:

    A little warmer in Canada? This would mean that Canada might be able to grow a little more of their own food. So, what’s not to like about that? Warmer has historically always been better than colder. Better hope the sun cycle does not accomplish what it looks like it’s going to or we may actually be in for a real climate disaster.

  96. jeff said: “I don’t think I’ve seen a single study or article that attempts to take into account or quantify benefits that could result from increased temperatures.”

    Jeff, jeff, you need to take climate sciece a little more seriously and to at least pretend to have some sympathy for us Canadians up here as we howl with terror at the immanent arrival of warmer winters. By a whopping two degrees, no less. And yes, there are studies and disaster projections, such as millions of additional hectares of wheat polluting our landscape and catastrophic social disintegration with the predicted loss of outdoor ice rinks in Southern Ontario.

  97. Johnny L says:

    So Zickfeld is from SFU. Perhaps she should SFU.

  98. But … she looks so sincere …
    By the way, where are all the alarmist trolls who should be jumping to her defence, has she even embarrassed them?

  99. saltspringson says:
    March 7, 2012 at 8:42 am

    It’s worse than we thought. Overheating PCs is one thing, but overheating laptops is where the danger lurks. When placed in the manner suggested by their name, these devices have been over-heating many a family jewel, leading to lower sperm counts.

    Enjoy your beautiful SSI, btw. Haven’t been back in 3 years, but have inlaws there on the water side of Roland Road. If wife and kids cajole me into joining them for their annual trip there, I’d love to meet for a beer in Ganges!

  100. HenryP says:

    Jeff says
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/07/give-up-canada-youre-toast/#comment-915170

    Henry@Jeff

    Jeff, independent studies of the pattern of wearming show that the reason of warming is due to
    1) more intense heat from the sun
    and/or
    2) less clouds
    and/or
    3) less ozone shielding, especially in the SH
    and/or
    4) more greening of the earth
    and/or
    …..

    But clearly not an increase in GHG’s!!!!

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming

  101. TomRude says:

    It’s the Zickfeld’s follies!!!!

    But seriously SFU is spewing AGW rhetorics, from Jaccard (Carbon Tax in British Columbia) chastisising fellow warmist Weaver in a pathetic op-ed in the Globe & Mail, to Clague (sea level rise) and now to Zickfeld. SFU links to all good eco funding partners such as ACT http://act-adapt.org/partners/ … All the roads lead to Romm… or so.

    Last week we had the Concordia garbage study about outdoor hockey rinks, and now, with the help of complicit media, we’ll suffer Rhamstorf’s clone and her model…

  102. Clive says:

    It is all very funny..and sad. We’ve had a glorious winter here in southern Alberta…and most of western Canada. I’ve not spoken to one single person all winter who is not enjoying this mild winter, especially after last year’s spate of ice age. Warm is good…we all love it. The polar bears will be fine, as always.

    The doomsayers keep telling us we are going to hell in a handbasket, and the local left-wing rag, The Leftbridge Herald, keeps telling us just how bad it is. The miserable greenies and leftist media want us to suffer in some way like some plebes in a religious compound. Suffer and repent! They want us to be punished for having comfortable life styles, good health care, safe and inexpensive food and good education. Canadians live longer than ever (and longer than in most countries…in the top ten), we have decent standards of living and enjoy many amenities in our lives all because of developments in industry, food production, medicine and health care and leisure products. Much of which is energy and fossil fuel based.

    What is with “these” people who want us to suffer in the cold? ☺

  103. benfrommo says:

    What I do not get is how anyone can think of all the studies like this as real science.

    What happened to science?

    Here we have yet another person from ANOTHER field telling us about our future climate and this is not challenged by every climate expert out there, but God Forbid a climate sceptic come out and say that AGW is not happening….it really is a double standard. Whenever Mr. Watts comes out and says something about the climate, its “that wacky weatherman” as my uncle always says about him. But here we have a non-climate expert talking about AGW and its perfectly OK because as long as you toe the party line you are an expert.

    Talk about your double standards, double speak and above all your hypocrisy. I for one can’t wait until this entire house of cards falls down. Maybe it sounds like I am ranting, but I see studies like this and the usage of computers and other resources that are literally being wasted on garbage models that are not only wrong but are being used to tell our politicians what to do.

    So we are wasting even more money on even more waste. Its an endless cycle of just waste. And it starts with hypocrisy and ends with it. It all starts with studies like this which start with this:

    If we warm by X, then Y.

    But the problem with these models is that they ignore the fact that we stopped warming 10 years ago. Its almost like they think they can rewrite history and I know why they do it of course, and I think most sceptics likewise do as well.

    They are thinking that if the warming trend continues they will just rewrite history to show a gentle warming trend forever. They will rewrite history as many times as possible because they read 1984 like it was a how-to manual instead of a warning. These people see Orwell as a visionary.
    /end rant

  104. Allen says:

    The X-files shot their FBI building scenes at SFU. The troof is out there.

  105. bill says:

    Hey, wait a minute, we didn’t stop CO2 emissions 15 years ago, and temperature rise has stopped. Are these climateresarchers some kind of totally idi***ts.

  106. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Johnny L said on March 7, 2012 at 9:04 am:

    So Zickfeld is from SFU. Perhaps she should SFU.

    Secure Fresh Underwear?

    Seriously, this ain’t a tenth as bad as some of the dreck we’ve seen, it’s actually a noticeable quieting down from the expected alarmist shrillness. At the rate things are going, ten years from now she may quietly keep leaving this off her list of publications and pretend it never happened.

    So do as your momma should have taught you, and stay classy when talking about a lady. Okay?

  107. Eric in CO says:

    Sorry, I work in a business we models are validated by testing, the rocket business. I can tell you none of the climate models come close to being validated. In our case, we would cancel the launch.

  108. Jim G says:

    Food grows much better in warmer climates with more CO2. Climate disasters usually are caused by drought and/or cold. Lower food production is followed by disease and/or war. AGW fanatics are worried more about beach houses or perhaps grants and political control of the population. More people have have already died in the name the “green” causes, such as elimination of pesticides, and the resultant reduction of food crops and spread of insect born diseases such as malaria than CO2 “pollution” will ever cause.

  109. Ken In Canada =) says:

    Woohoo!!!!

    Time to start cornering the market of palm trees in Calgary.

    I knew there was an upside to this whole CAGW BS.

    If any of you are thinking about reneging on producing your quota of CO2. Please think of the poor Canadian children playing hockey outdoors in -30, or having to walk to school(uphill both ways).

    As a Canadian we should be suing the IPCC for breach of contract.

  110. benfrommo (March 7, 2012 at 9:29 am), let me explain. A climate scientist is anyone who gets a nod from the UN-IPCC, its approved NGOs and associated reps in academia. Ultimately, the buck stops at Pachauri’s desk…and many a buck has stopped there, we hear. Furthermore, unlikely the lowly weatherman, who has trouble forecasting even a week ahead, the climate scientist can see hundreds of years into the murky future and can “project,” with awesome accuracy and deadly certainty, future temps to the tenth of a degree. But wait, there is more. Climate scientists can tell us with deadly certainty that for the first time in humanlind’s history, if not Earth’s history, this projected warming will be bad for everyone. And don’t go away yet; as a free gift for you and your family, they can tell you whether you’ll be drowned by rising seas, parched by spreading deserts, blown cross-country by a super-tornado or exsanguinated by mosquitos the size of dachshunds. Be impressed.

  111. bubbagyro says:

    Because their failed energy policies will make it prohibitive, refrigeration costs will escalate in short order. What they meant was that indoor ice hockey will be a thing of the past.

  112. rilfeld says:

    @ Tom in Florida –
    “Probably the same models that said Tampa Bay could never win a Cup. Perhaps ya’ll up there should follow Vinny, Marty, Stammer & Guy and come on down.here. Another Cup coming soon to this area!”

    I am a Lightning season ticket holder! And I too wish for that two degrees of warming, so my oranges and Mangos don’t freeze every fifth year.

    This is the most amazing thing about the wamristas to me ….not that they cling to their pseudo-science but that they don’t see that for the majority of the globe inhabited by humans, a couple of degrees of warming would have more positive than negative impacts.

  113. Jay Curtis says:

    I hope her model is right.

    During the last period of glaciation, the Laurentide ice sheet covered virtually all of Canada to thousands of feet thick. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/01_1.shtml

    From what I understand about this cycle, time’s up.

  114. PaulsNZ says:

    Apple Ad “monkey see monkey do”

  115. Mike says:

    This whole thing is just a sublte Apple advert

  116. kirkmyers says:

    As Dr. Pierre Latour, PhD and PE in chemical engineering and PE in process control engineering, notes:

    “CO2 only absorbs and emits specific spectral wavelengths (14.77 microns) that constitute a tiny fraction of solar radiation energy in Earth’s atmosphere. The first 50 ppm of CO2 absorbs about half of this tiny energy, each additional 50 ppm absorbs half of the remaining tiny fraction, so at the current 380 ppm there are almost no absorbable photons left. CO2 could triple to 1000 ppm with no additional discernable absorption-emission.”

    Also, noteworthy is the fact that CO2 levels were relatively stable, while global temperatures went up during the Roman Warming and Medieval WarmPeriod. Then temperatures fell during the Little Ice Age, again while CO2 levels remained stable. During the 20th century, from 1900 to 1940, the planet warmed while CO2 levels remained relatively flat or increased slightly. Then temperatures cooled from from 1940 to 1970 as CO2 levels rose. Recently, over the past 15 years, global temperatures have nearly flat-lined, despite a rise in CO2.

    Antarctic ice core data shows rising and falling temperatures, at the same level of CO2 in the atmosphere. These up-and-down fluctuations occurred consistently over four consecutive ice ages and inter-glacial warm periods.

    There is simply no discernable link between rising CO2 and global temperature.

  117. A picture of her pointing to a Mercator (!!) Projection tells me all I need to know about this Canadian Geographer.

    To further compound the offence, she is pointing to a computer monitor for Pete’s sake! The Equirectangular projection is becoming the standard computer display because lat and lon easily convert to x,y on the map. The Equirectangular maps distort area by making objects at high latitudes (like Canada and Greenland) bigger than they should be, but it doesn’t commit the egregious sins of the Mercator.

    Compare Mercator to a Cylindrical Equal-Area projection. In the Equal area projection, as in the real world, Africa is 14 times larger than Greenland. In the Mercator this geographer is pointing to, Greenland is bigger than Africa! The Equirectangular projection might get neither area nor shape right, but makes reasonable compromise at both for a computer screen.

    Maybe my reaction is over the top. Maybe the photographer talked her into putting a big map on the monitor. But using a Mercator in any connection with climate just makes you look foolish.

  118. Anything is possible says:

    O Canada!
    Our cold, but warming land
    Rising CO2 will make our winters grand
    As temperatures will soar and rise
    The True North turns ice free

    From far and wide
    O Canada, our lands becomes ice-free
    God keep our land, warming and snow free
    O Canada, our land becomes ice-free
    O Canada, our land becomes ice-free

  119. Kidding aside, though, it’s worth pondering about whether Ms Zickfeld’s paper is an early indicator of a change in direction among outlying apartchiks and a handful of the brighter rent-seekers; a growing pattern of qualifying, hedging and positioning for the inevitable and messy collapse of the CAGW theorem. The paper contradicts the familiar alarmist claims, but claims to be on board. We saw a similar curiosity in the waning days of communism as scholars presented some very non-communist positions, but always ended with a pro forma declaration of undying loyalty to Marxism. CAGW is dead; long live CAGW!”

  120. Tom Murphy says:

    Clive says:

    “What is with ‘these’ people who want us to suffer in the cold?”

    That’s a question with a complex question, but staying with an (overly) simple answer in the next paragraph (the other paragraphs are a more detailed extrapolation of the first):

    Since its modern inception in the 1960s, the Environmental Movement has been developed, implemented and maintained by ideologues. And an ideologue is, “an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of… integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program,” or says Webster.com. The Environmental Movement has little to do with Nature (although it is a useful tool) but does advance the means by which humanity must interface with Nature (i.e., it dictates the acceptable format of the sociopolitical program needed to “preserve” Nature, as is which the best of all possible outcomes).

    This is a fine if the ideologues confine such a program to their lifestyle, but a distinct line is crossed when they mandate that humanity solely accept their sociopolitical program, which is ostensibly for the “good” of humanity. And herein resides the logical fallacy of the assertions of the Environmental Movement (CAGW being one – albeit vocal – component). While “the Movement” (more commonly termed “the Cause” by CAGW apologists and sympathetic scientists) is infamous for fallacious reasoning in the forms of Appeals to Belief, Emotion, Fear and Ridicule, the Questionable Cause is the logic upon which the mandate for humanity is constructed.

    Questionable Cause asserts that it is illogical to conclude that one thing causes another because the two are often associated or observed together. Humanity exists within Nature and Nature is destroyed by humanity; humanity, then, is destroying itself, which is bad. Therefore, it is “good” that humanity adopts a sociopolitical program that prevents Nature’s destruction. The problem here is that Nature readily, poignantly and dramatically destroys itself without any assistance from humanity, but ideologues are either unable or unwilling to accept this truth. However, ideologues are steadfastly able and willing to ensure that you “accept” (voluntarily or not is irrelevant) their sociopolitical program because they know what’s best or good for humanity – more so than even you.

    In the end, it is impossible to reason (logically debate) with an ideologue. Accepting them for this intractability is far more useful when formulating responses. The frustration comes from wasting time, effort and sometimes money in determining whether or not a person (or scientist) actually is an ideologue. Unfortunately, the iDetector has yet to be marketed by Apple.

  121. George Lawson says:

    How clever of them to create a climate model on the results of someone elses climate model.

  122. Alexej Buergin says:

    UAH for 2011 was about 0.15°C. Do I understand correctly that this lady forcasts UAH for 2020 to be between 0.4 and 0.65°C (actually even higher since CO2 will continue to rise)?
    That is something that we wil be able to observe ourselves. And comment upon, should anybody still be interested in AGW in 2020.

  123. TRM says:

    “rilfeld says: March 7, 2012 at 5:51 am
    It’s OK. They play hockey indoors nowadays. Of course, the same computer model probably shows Toronto winning the cup.”

    Ha ha, ya made me laugh. The “Toronto Make Believes” should be in the finals any decade now.

    What do Houston, Texas and Toronto, Ontario have in common?
    Neither one has a PROFESSIONAL hockey team!

  124. pwl says:

    To echo the other Canadians who’ve posted eloquent comments, Canada wants warming!!! 2c? Nah! Bring the tropics to the great white north please! If they won’t make The Turks and Caicos Islands part of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_and_Caicos_Islands#Proposed_union_with_Canada) then bring the tropics on with this imagined Canadian Warming! PLEASE!

  125. pwl says:

    By the way a 2c warming in Canada wouldn’t even melt a snow man let alone an ice rink. While it would warm Vancouver up a bit, 2c isn’t much at all, we’d need more like a 10c winter warmup. Other parts of Canada would need a 20c to 30c warmup or more just to get to a balmy 0c.

  126. Bad Apple says:

    As long as there is public funding of research like this. The research will ALWAYS end up with a result that will require more public funding.

    They will never allow a result that says “Nope, nothing really going on here.”

    This is Big Science

  127. Alec Rawls says:

    Anybody who uses IPCC-type models to forecast climate (and all Zickfeld is doing is playing with the aerosol forcings) is committing omitted variable fraud. They assume in the parameterization of their models that the sun has 1/14th the effect on climate that CO2 does, despite the mountain of evidence that solar activity is the primary driver of climate, evidence that is not even mentioned in the IPCC reports. All they look at is the evidence for particular possible mechanisms by which a solar driver might operate, declare this evidence to be slight, and use that as an excuse for omitting the massive evidence that some such mechanism is at work.

    In other words, they use their opinion of particular theories as a grounds for dismissing evidence, exactly inverting the scientific method, which demands that empirical evidence always trump theory. They are pure definitional anti-scientists, and this Zickfeld woman is typical of the breed. They are like amoebae dividing in a culture dish, fattened from the alarmist-establishment’s tens of billions to proliferate applications of the established fraudulent model, extrapolating it to new supposed threats or, in Zickfeld’s case, adapting it to try to evade the ever more obvious falsification of the alarmist model as the lack of global warming continues.

    Aerosols are hiding the warming! It’s old and busted, but more importantly, the underlying model is already falsified by its total failure to account well evidenced solar effects on climate. It is a FRAUD, and so is everyone who uses it.

  128. Louis says:

    But once that aerosol-based blanket is removed the temperature will rise.

    If that is true (which I doubt), then the solution to warming is obvious: add more aerosols to the atmosphere to counteract additional CO2. Wouldn’t that be a better solution than shutting down industry and plunging us all back to the stone age? We seem to be doing just fine with the “aerosol-based blanket” we have in place now. Why remove it?

    “Doctor it hurts when I do this.”
    “Then stop doing it!”

  129. nc says:

    She also predicted in thirty years time skiing on the mountains above Vancouver and at Whistler will get a might rocky. Might not be a good idea to buy one of those overpriced condo’s at Whistler.

    This is also the area of Andrew Weaver, David Suzuki and the carbon tax which diverts money to fancy resorts for energy efficiency. Also the BC government gives out 5000 dollars to the buyers of 100,000 dollar electric vehicles.

  130. Bad Apple says:

    “Wouldn’t that be a better solution than shutting down industry and plunging us all back to the stone age?”

    You are thinking rationally. Enviro-activists (which is what this study is, it’s not science) do not think that way. To them Man and Nature cannot co-exist. Only by diminishing man, can Nature truly be ‘protected’. So shutting down industry and plunging us all back to the stone age IS the goal. In their utopian fantasy minds, that was the only time in history that Man and Nature truly co-existed

    They WANT to destroy industry, that is the whole point behind this AGW hysteria. Before you can destroy something, you must control that something.

  131. Joe Prins says:

    My first question would be: why all of a sudden all these reports coming out of my native land?
    Would it have something to do with the federal budget and ways and means coming at the end of this month? Does it have something to do with “adjustments” to funding and the tax free status of certain institutions? In fact, the Univ. of Victoria has a whole bunch of institutes and “Centres”:
    UVic Research Initiatives

    Some of the campus research institutes that emphasize sustainability include:
    BC Institute for Cooperative Studies
    Office of Community-Based Research
    Centre for Earth and Ocean Research
    Centre for Forest Biology
    Centre for Global Studies
    Climate Modelling Group
    Community Health Promotion Research
    Innovation and Development Corporation
    Integrated Energy Systems
    NEPTUNE
    POLIS Project on Ecological Governance
    Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium
    Pacific Institute For Climate Solutions
    VENUS
    Water and Climate Impacts Research Centre From their website: http://web.uvic.ca/sustainability/research.php

    Most of these “Research” facilities are funded at least in part by Environment Canada.
    Since their budget will almost certainly get a “haircut”, guess what is going to happen to all these institutes of lower learning? Not only in Victoria but across this warming country.

  132. Reply to ‘Anopheles’, re. Canadians moving north (4.55 am):
    “Land is cheap up there, and there is a lot of it.” No, actually the earth gets thinner as you approach the north pole (scientific fact). Not only will Canadians be dying of heatstroke, they’ll be crammed together. It’ll be like Bangladesh up there.

  133. ntesdorf says:

    Seen from Australia, an extra 2 or 3 degrees of temperature seems to be just what Canada needs to make its climate more liveable. They could do with a fair bit more in winter too. Bring on the SUV’s and A/C Units, I say.

  134. Paul R says:

    This lady is pictured wearing a cardigan while pointing to either Iran or Canada displayed on a very sophisticated computer screen with an implement which demonstrates she can use the writing and numbers. I’m convinced.

  135. dwb says:

    the question not one single person can answer is this: why did emmissions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gasses not decline during the great recession. Industrial production, vehicle miles, etc etc all declined the most (%) in 70 years. So wheres the blip in CO2 from 2008-2010?! None. not there.

    At best, this means that even if humans are causing CO2 to rise, carbon taxes and cap and trade wont effect it because the largest decline in energy use in a generation did nada.zip zilch.

    At worst, it means no one has any idea why CO2 is rising.

    Incidentally, the rate of rise (about .42% annually) is lower than population growth or world GDP growth.

    I’d love to hear some serious theories. This is a serious, serious flaw.

  136. RoHa says:

    Most Canadians I know, and plenty in this comment page, would love a bit of Warming.

    As for ice-hockey, the kids can find something else to do, and why grown-ups should care is beyond me.

  137. Paul Coppin says:

    Hasn’t anybody told geographers yet that since the advent of GPS and Google Earth, they”re now completely irrelevant?

  138. PaulC says:

    The worst thing is that she may actually believe all she says in the paper

  139. JRR Canada says:

    Its Gaia’s will, or something. If we Canadians would only repent and clean up that massive oilspill at Fort McMurray all will be forgiven. Tough decision who can we sell the waste oil to? After all someone needs to pay for our saintly conduct in clensing the stained sands of this foul pollutant.Once we do this sanity will return to our deranged allocades of Muther Erff. and ice hockey can return to the frozen ponds. Do I need sarc on/off?

  140. TomRude says:

    @geography lady.
    Good points! Indeed the new science has parachuted “climatologists” everywhere usually with no degree in the field but an appetite for revolution. It is in fact hilarious to see that it was geographers such as Martine Tabeaud who debunked the claims of water shortage due to himalayan glaciers melting against the IPCC BS…

  141. Ian H says:

    Let’s not poke fun at the pencil. This is almost certainly just some photographers idea of what would make a good picture. We are all vulnerable to photographers with strange ideas about what makes a good picture getting us to do silly things.

  142. Wayne Delbeke says:

    The geography lady is relying on people at the University of Victoria like Andrew Weaver, whom I believe is one of the folks suing Tim Ball. Andrew Weaver a strong warmist advocate and a Climate Modeller. Listening to him talk is frightening, and not because of his technical knowledge. At least that is my personal opinion, having heard him a number of times.

    Anyone relying on UVIC information on climate has been sniffing the Lotus blossoms.

    Just back from skiing in 44 inches of fresh snow today in Banff, Alberta and heading out again tomorrow. Got 18 inches on the farm this week. Looks like “weather” to me.

    I used to live in Vancouver – we used to say that the rain causes brains to get covered with moss and go mouldy – it’s why we call the Lower Mainland Lotus Land – the people in the Vancouver Metropolitan area live in a climate that is conducive to a different way of seeing the world.

  143. Mike Smith says:

    Just hope the Harper Conservative government doesn’t get to hear about this or they’ll be shutting down the Alberta oilsands, rejoining Kyoto, teaming up with the Brits by floating wind turbines across the North Atlantic and inviting the Liberals to come back and bring their carbon tax with them.

    I guess the only way to get ahead in our universities now is to be firmly on the AGW bandwagon, even if it has lost 3 of it’s 4 wheels and all the horses are lying down dead.

    And my son wants to go to UVIC. I just hope he doesn’t get tangled up with this bozo.

  144. Mike Smith says:

    Just hope the Harper Conservative government doesn’t get to hear about this or they’ll be shutting down the Alberta oilsands, rejoining Kyoto, teaming up with the Brits by floating wind turbines across the North Atlantic and inviting the Liberals to come back and bring their carbon tax with them.

    I guess the only way to get ahead in our universities now is to be firmly on the AGW bandwagon, even if it has lost 3 of it’s 4 wheels and all the horses are lying down dead.

    And my son wants to go to UVIC. I just hope he doesn’t choose to join this bozo’s department.

  145. John Trigge says:

    As CO2 is supposedly 95%+ natural and we could only stop producing the remaining 5% or so, how would this stop the world from heating/cooling as she is predicting (or is this another ‘scenario’?).

    Also, as the IPCC does not perform any original research, why is this supposed professional using secondary sources as inputs to her model? Shouldn’t she be quoting the original sources?

  146. James Bull says:

    The picture reminds me of the test card picture the BBC used many years ago…. Ah in the days of good telly. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=test+card&view=detail&id=127B88FBE0F2CF0E8ED12C3FE370C2FAF3EAC928&first=0

  147. Alan Watt says:

    Anything is possible says:
    March 7, 2012 at 10:35 am

    O Canada!
    Our cold, but warming land
    Rising CO2 will make our winters grand
    As temperatures will soar and rise
    The True North turns ice free

    From far and wide
    O Canada, our lands land becomes ice-free
    God keep our land, warming and snow free
    O Canada, our land becomes ice-free
    O Canada, our land becomes ice-free

    Very nice! (minor correction above).

    May I suggest you complete this and send to Minnesotans 4 Global Warming?

  148. reason says:

    Ice Road Truckers is gonna get a lot less interesting…

  149. Brian H says:

    Oooo, yes, please!!

    We need a wee group of performers to start a copy-cat group, “Canucks 4 Global Warming.” Bring it on!

  150. I suppose they have to keep churning out this utter rubbish to keep the money coming in from the gravy train. Oh yes, and getting it published in the comic book Nature is supposed to make it believable! Is there ANYONE out there who is taken in by it… seriously?

  151. Andrea says:

    There’s a new group at SFU called the Adaption to Climate Change Team, complete with website. They are currently on a media blitz here in BC. I wonder if Ms. Zickfeld is part of that group?

Comments are closed.