By 2080, Climate Change will Force Canadians to Endure Warm Conditions Like Today’s Minnesota

Artists impression of Minnesota after global warming.
Artists impression of Minnesota after global warming. Source Minnesotans for Global Warming.

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t TomRude – will nobody think of the children?!

By 2080, the climate in these Canadian cities will look nothing like it does today

A study looked at 540 cities across Canada and the U.S.

Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News · Posted: Feb 12, 2019 2:14 PM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago

The average summertime temperature in Edmonton is around 15 C. It’s comfortable and familiar for residents. But in 60 years, that temperature is forecast to rise by almost 5 C, more reminiscent of the climate just outside St. Paul, Minn.

That’s just one of many specific geographic conclusions in a new study published in Nature Communications.

In an effort to improve climate change communication, the authors came up with an idea: what if they forecast the temperature and precipitation changes for cities in 2080, and matched them with a city that has a similar climate today?

“We wanted to answer the question: How do we communicate these expected changes in a way that’s relatable to people?” said Matt Fitzpatrick, associate professor at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and the study’s lead author.

The basic idea was to use this technique of climate analogue mapping, which isn’t a new technique … and to do that in a comprehensive way, so we can better communicate what these changes mean.

Read more:

The study is available here.

No offence to Canadians, but myself, I suspect a lot of people who read WUWT, would find the Minnesotan climate to be a little on the chilly side, especially after some of the brutal winter weather Minnesotans have experienced this year.

Even if the predictions are true, is a gradual rise in temperature from bitterly, bone chillingly cold to be careful of exposed flesh cold really a problem worth spending trillions of dollars to reverse?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
E J Zuiderwijk
February 13, 2019 10:07 am

No they won’t.

David A
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 13, 2019 2:58 pm

I predict, yet another failed prediction.

The post said, ” Even if the predictions are true, is a gradual rise in temperature from bitterly, bone chillingly cold to be careful of exposed flesh cold really a problem worth spending trillions of dollars to reverse?

Perhaps better to say …really a problem worth spending trillions of dollars on, especially when those expenses would make zero discernable impact on the local or global climate!

Charles Higley
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 13, 2019 3:15 pm

Where do they think that the Canadians are in love with their cold climate. They might just love a slightly warmer climate and crops would do much better. The verbiage saying that they would be “forced to endure” a slightly warmer climate is couched purposely to indicate that such a change would be bad or damaging to the residents.

Reply to  Charles Higley
February 14, 2019 12:34 am

Yes, that’s how you can tell that it’s nothing but warmist propaganda.

Reply to  Charles Higley
February 14, 2019 9:32 pm

I’m a Canadian. I live 300 km south of Edmonton, in Calgary about 200 km north of the US border. Edmonton is in bug country, an ex HBC outpost and their winters are worse than ours. We at least get “Chinooks” to break winters up, this year most of October to the end of January was one big Chinook. Today, not so much. Tonight’s temps are headed down to -26 C. Hardly really “cold” when this cowboy has lived and worked in parts of northern Canada where temps get to -60 C with day time highs of -30 C. We lived in tents, for months at a time. Geologist by trade.

Most Canadians hate winter that’s why they scheme to head to Florida or Arizona to “escape”. Well, citified folks do. I don’t mind a warmer climate up here, considering that we are 51 degrees latitude in Calgary, more than half way to the North Pole, or equivalent to the bottom of James Bay, north of most of “settled” civilized Canada who exist at latitudes of Oregon equivalence. Two thirds of Canadians live there and they aren’t aware of their relative location to where most of the rest of the country lives.

If the climate warmed I’d venture that some of Canada would become more dry in the south out on the prairies, but the jet stream blowing all that snow/moisture from Pacific weather systems through Edmonton would supply plenty of moisture to move the needle on agriculture further north. That process will not change until the Rockies get worn down, or this continent moves far enough to effect any change in major air movements.

We’ll be long gone before that happens.

Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 13, 2019 3:34 pm

I am unable to understand Canadian’s fixation on Global Warming!

Along with Siberia, Outer Mongolia and Norther Russia, they should be excited about the wealth of currently unused land that is made impossible for occupation because of the latitude.

Don’t they realise that Canada has a larger land mass than the USA and with unused land coming on stream, their economy, population and power could one day equal or exceed that of the USA!


Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 13, 2019 6:08 pm

I think we should advise these frauds to observe traffic heading south on I75 from Canada to Florida in December and January. Most of my in-laws neighbors in the Tampa-St. Petersburg are Canadian.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Mohatdebos
February 14, 2019 12:01 am

Build a wall!

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
February 14, 2019 6:25 am

You don’t need a wall for Canucks. They are nice and polite and will ask if they can come over.

PS. Don’t mistaken their politeness as wimpiness. Just watch some ice hockey games and you’ll see what I mean 🙂

Reply to  Mohatdebos
February 14, 2019 12:06 am

My folks have been Floridians for 2 decades.. supposedly there is a bumper sticker out there that says: “Happiness is watching a bunch of Snowbirds head north with a couple of Canadians in the Trunk!!!! 😂🤣😂🤣

Karl Compton
Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 14, 2019 11:28 am

5C warmer by 2080, only 61 years in the future? I’m wondering where they found THAT climate model… Waaaay more than what even the IPCC would suggest.

Reply to  E J Zuiderwijk
February 14, 2019 12:09 pm

Uh, just a couple weeks ago Minnesota set ALL TIME RECORDS FOR COLD. Temperatures in the -50’s not counting the wind chill!

Mark Luhman
Reply to  bruce
February 14, 2019 4:01 pm

Wrong the record is -60 last few weeks the coldest I saw was -56, the third lowest every measured.

Bryan A
February 13, 2019 10:08 am

Sorry Canada, It looks like you will be doomed to … wasn’t it just a balmy -40 there

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bryan A
February 13, 2019 12:07 pm

And at the other end of the world, ……. to wit:

Antarctic ‘time bomb’ waiting to go off

So, be afraid, be deathly afraid, ……. because ……

His team created state-of-the-art computer models that showed how Antarctic ice responded to warm ocean temperatures during the Eemian.

David A
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
February 13, 2019 3:16 pm

Well Samuel, Then Edmenton need not be concerned with a cold-heatwave, as they will be underwater.

Rich Davis
Reply to  David A
February 13, 2019 5:21 pm

Edmonton under water? So sea level is going to rise more than 671 meters? (Compared to the 0.3 m in the past century).

Reply to  Rich Davis
February 13, 2019 5:59 pm

Good point. All the ice on the planet melted would raise sea levels about 67 metres.

February 13, 2019 10:09 am

I live in Saskatchewan, -24 degrees Celsius and has been for the last 2 weeks

David S
Reply to  Jungle
February 13, 2019 11:54 am

Would it make you sad if the temperature rose to -19C ?

Reply to  David S
February 13, 2019 1:13 pm

Nope, I ‘m all for global warming. I’ve ages are more damaging to ecosystems.

Reply to  joe
February 13, 2019 2:18 pm

sorry meant to say ice ages are more damaging to ecosystems

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Jungle
February 13, 2019 1:25 pm

Just you wait! In 50 or 60 years you will be forced to migrate to Yellowknife just to find winters cold enough to freeze your nards off.

Reply to  Jungle
February 13, 2019 6:18 pm

Re: “I live in Saskatchewan, -24 degrees Celsius and has been for the last 2 weeks.”

Yup, it’s about the same here in Calgary. The car block heater is plugged in, as the in-cab car warmer. Maybe I’ll get a plug-in battery-blanket next.

Not sure how anyone thinks we enjoy this cold – it’s too cold to ski, hike or skate. When you butt hits the cold leather car seat every morning the discomfort is tremendous.

Sadly, there will be NO significant global warming, because climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2 – the warmist computer models grossly overstate future warming – quelle dommage!

My friend in Thailand wants me to visit, and complains that his pool is too hot at +31C. I have a hard time understanding the concept of “too hot”, being more familiar with MINUS 31C.

February 13, 2019 10:10 am

Well, first up, the article is from the CBC, so few people take them seriously – the only reason they still exist is because of the $1.5billion the government gives them every year (on top of ad revenue). From personal experience, they are notorious for getting even the most basic facts wrong – like the name of a place, or what it is.

Secondly, this Canadian would LOVE to have some warmer temperatures and a longer growing season!!

Bill Powers
Reply to  The Re-Farmer
February 13, 2019 11:10 am

Isn’t that just the problem with all the alarmists’ “chicken little” alarms. Their hobgoblins are just too appealing to the average dolt on the street.

February 13, 2019 10:11 am

Wish it would happen sooner, I won’t be around that long.

But I think I’ll put the probability of these predictions coming to pass in the same category as all the other climate change predictions.

Reply to  Art
February 13, 2019 3:49 pm


Evidently you need only survive another 12 years. Well…… 11 now that it’s 2019, although the 12 year prediction will undoubtedly roll on for another 20 years, so perhaps 32 years, or perhaps 44, maybe even 56.

John Robertson
February 13, 2019 10:18 am

Why wait? Maybe CBC can tell us how to speed the process up?
The Constantly Biased Corporation, a fully funded agency of the Federal government of Canada, are most amusing.
A shining example of wasted taxpayer dollars as only a public propaganda agency can demonstrate.
I notice CBC has never asked;”What is the perfect temperature?”
Or just how cold does Canada need to be?

The coverage of C.A.G.W now called CC by CBC will be a textbook example of poor journalism,playing into mob hysteria,when the history of this Idiocene is written.

John MacDonald
Reply to  John Robertson
February 13, 2019 11:30 am

I note the irony that, conventionally, conservatives are cautious about change, while liberals love change. But, curiously, warmists hate climate change. Does it logically follow that the CBC should now be called the Conservative Broadcasting Corporation?

Reply to  John Robertson
February 13, 2019 6:58 pm

“The Constantly Biased Corporation”. I prefer “The Constantly Biased Collective”

Reply to  terrence22
February 15, 2019 10:18 am

Communist Broadcasting Corporation

February 13, 2019 10:18 am

If true, and that’s a massive “if”, people and animals will adapt as they always have.

February 13, 2019 10:19 am

Nonsense, not bad enough, by 2080 Canada should be as warm as Florida and Florida should be as hot as Venezuela, that’s what we should expect from a decent climate change./sc

Reply to  vukcevic
February 13, 2019 10:51 am

That’s what I paid for, and I demand my money’s worth.

Nick Werner
February 13, 2019 10:22 am

Oh dear. Our children won’t know what snow shovels are. Or snow blowers. Or snow plows. Or snowmobiles. Or snowpeople…

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Nick Werner
February 13, 2019 11:09 am

Or Yetis.

Now the sasquatches will have unfettered dominion over our sparsely populated regions!

Reply to  Pillage Idiot
February 13, 2019 6:04 pm


Reply to  Nick Werner
February 13, 2019 11:12 am

But think of all the ice fishermen that will fall through the ice or not be able to drive their cars out to their fishing shacks! Our children won’t know what it’s like to freeze your butt off while you’re drinking and waiting for a fish to bite!

Reply to  Bear
February 13, 2019 8:38 pm

Something to really worry about in 2080 when I will be 142. My main worry is what this will do to the pike and musky fishing?

John in LdB
Reply to  Nick Werner
February 13, 2019 1:20 pm

Yeah. But they’ll still know who the snowflakes are.

Nick Werner
Reply to  John in LdB
February 13, 2019 1:46 pm

Well, at least the ones that learned what a snow job is.

Reply to  Nick Werner
February 14, 2019 12:40 am

… or dead people that died of hypothermia.

February 13, 2019 10:23 am

Even if the predictions are true….

…the predictions were that they would be growing bananas by now

Bruce Cobb
February 13, 2019 10:24 am

Over and over again, it’s all about the “climate communication” with these climate numpties. They think that “if only we can communicate climate change so that the dimwit proles can understand, then they will see the light”. It is both laughable and sad at the same time.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 13, 2019 1:02 pm

I don’t really understand your point.

(maybe it’s because you don’t have my complete attention … maybe it’s because I’m selfish … maybe you should threaten my grandchildren ….)

February 13, 2019 10:31 am

Is this some more RCP 8.5 porn? I am pretty certain that anything dealing with RCP 8.5 will never exist anywhere outside the fever dreams of climate doom modelers.

joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  OweninGA
February 13, 2019 11:23 am

I made a similar comment regarding RCP 8.5 over at skeptical science (before I was banned).

The overwhelming response from other commentators was that RCP 8.5 was really too conservative.

Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
February 14, 2019 12:46 am

Being banned there is a kind of badge of honour.

Reply to  Hivemind
February 14, 2019 9:57 am

I made one very moderate comment several years back, pointing out some factual inaccuracies (not matters of interpretation) in a published study. Out came the ban hammer within 15 minutes. Confirmed to me that it’s all about emotion with them, rather than reason and science, but that wasn’t news to anyone…

February 13, 2019 10:39 am

One person commissions a study that only makes sense as political propaganda. Another member of the gang conducts the scientifically useless study. A government dependent broadcaster spreads the information.

It’s like living in any one of a number of authoritarian countries we could name.

Tom Abbott
February 13, 2019 10:40 am

“Even if the predictions are true”

You beat me to it, Latitude! 🙂

The CAGW Predictions are pure speculation. There is no reason to assume they will come true. There is no evidence that CO2 is having any net effect on the Earth’s atmosphere. None.

Jim Veenbaas
February 13, 2019 10:42 am

The avg high in Edmonton is 23 in July. The avg low is 12. I don’t know how they come up with 15 degrees. By the way, the temp here hasn’t been above -20 since Jan 31.

Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
February 13, 2019 11:37 am

The idea of an average temperature for a city is bogus. A summer’s day temperature can have a range greater than the “average” temperature.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  PaulH
February 14, 2019 3:51 am

So, what range does the average temperature have?

Robert Wager
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas
February 13, 2019 1:40 pm

Yeah but that’s a ‘warm-cold’

joe - the non climate scientist
February 13, 2019 10:46 am

95 % of canadians live south of the northern border of 49th – which is the Minnesota/canadian border

Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
February 13, 2019 11:43 am

We live just north of Niagara Falls at latitude 43.0896°. Minnesota is situated at 46.7296° so this would suggest a cooling trend for a lot of Canadians. Global Warming would be better!

Nick Werner
Reply to  joe - the non climate scientist
February 13, 2019 1:43 pm

Joe… I know there are a lot of “snowbirds” spending their winters in AZ, CA, HI, and Mexico but it’s not THAT many.

Close to 1/3 of Canadians live in the four western provinces.
Victoria BC [on Vancouver Island] is the only sizable [western] city that’s south of 49.

Reply to  Nick Werner
February 14, 2019 5:46 am

After a warmer than normal December and January, Victoria BC is enjoying record snowfalls this month (55 cm as of Feb 12), shattering the record set in … 2014 (39.6 cm). And they are expecting another 5-10 cm today. For those of you not familiar with the metric system, that’s about 21 inches so far, and are expecting another 2-4 inches today.
Schools in the Greater Victoria area have been shut down all week.

February 13, 2019 10:55 am

In an effort to improve climate change communication, the authors came up with an idea: what if they forecast the temperature and precipitation changes for cities in 2080

…when they’re long dead. In an effort to improve ‘climate change’ communication, the authors will resort to any old rubbish. And they have.

David A
Reply to  fretslider
February 13, 2019 3:12 pm

I predict, yet another failed prediction.

The post said, ” Even if the predictions are true, is a gradual rise in temperature from bitterly, bone chillingly cold to be careful of exposed flesh cold really a problem worth spending trillions of dollars to reverse?

Perhaps better to say …really a problem worth spending trillions of dollars on, especially when those expenses would make zero discernable impact on the local or global climate!

CD in Wisconsin
February 13, 2019 10:55 am

“…The average summertime temperature in Edmonton is around 15 C. It’s comfortable and familiar for residents. But in 60 years, that temperature is forecast to rise by almost 5 C, more reminiscent of the climate just outside St. Paul, Minn…”

I’m not a scientist, but here goes anyway.

The UAH satellite temperature record says the Earth has been warming over the past 40 years by about 0.13 degrees C per decade or about 0.52 over the 40 year record according to what I’ve read. The year 2080 is 61 years or 6.1 decades from now.

6.1 times 0.13 degrees C = 0.793 or about 0.8 deg. C.

A forecast increase of a 5 deg. C anywhere on the Earth in 61 years times seems to me like a pretty radical departure from what the UAH satellite record says is going on with the climate. This of course assumes that the rate of warming will not increase or decrease over the next 61 years. In addition, we are talking about a logarithmic effect that GHG’s have on climate rather than a linear one, aren’t we?

Maybe I am missing something here. If so, anyone is free to point it out to me. At any rate, my B.S. alarm is sounding off…big time.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
February 13, 2019 9:49 pm

Yes your BS alarm is working fine. In fact the actual trend is more like 1C per century, Don’t forget the UAH trend includes the start period 1979 that was in a cold period in relation to the temp cycle. In another 10 years you should see the UAH trend drop to about 1C increase per century.
Clouds overwhelm the Downward Infrared Radiation (DWIR) produced by CO2. At night with and without clouds, the temperature difference can be as much as 11C. The amount of warming provided by DWIR from CO2 is negligible but is a real quantity. We give this as the average amount of DWIR due to CO2 and H2O or some other cause of the DWIR. Now we can convert it to a temperature increase and call this Tcdiox.The pyrgeometers assume emission coeff of 1 for CO2. CO2 is NOT a blackbody. Clouds contribute 85% of the DWIR. GHG’s contribute 15%. See the analysis in link. The IR that hits clouds does not get absorbed. Instead it gets reflected. When IR gets absorbed by GHG’s it gets reemitted either on its own or via collisions with N2 and O2. In both cases, the emitted IR is weaker than the absorbed IR. Don’t forget that the IR from reradiated CO2 is emitted in all directions. Therefore a little less than 50% of the absorbed IR by the CO2 gets reemitted downward to the earth surface. Since CO2 is not transitory like clouds or water vapour, it remains well mixed at all times. Therefore since the earth is always giving off IR (probably a maximum at 5 pm everyday), the so called greenhouse effect (not really but the term is always used) is always present and there will always be some backward downward IR from the atmosphere.
When there isn’t clouds, there is still DWIR which causes a slight warming. We have an indication of what this is because of the measured temperature increase of 0.65 from 1950 to 2018. This slight warming is for reasons other than just clouds, therefore it is happening all the time. Therefore in a particular night that has the maximum effect , you have 11 C + Tcdiox. We can put a number to Tcdiox. It may change over the years as CO2 increases in the atmosphere. At the present time with 411 ppm CO2, the global temperature is now 0.65 C higher than it was in 1950, the year when mankind started to put significant amounts of CO2 into the air. So at a maximum Tcdiox = 0.65C. We don’t know the exact cause of Tcdiox whether it is all H2O caused or both H2O and CO2 or the sun or something else but we do know the rate of warming. This analysis will assume that CO2 and H2O are the only possible causes. That assumption will pacify the alarmists because they say there is no other cause worth mentioning. They like to forget about water vapour but in any average local temperature calculation you can’t forget about water vapour unless it is a desert. A proper calculation of the mean physical temperature of a spherical body requires an explicit integration of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation over the entire planet surface. This means first taking the 4th root of the absorbed solar flux at every point on the planet and then doing the same thing for the outgoing flux at Top of atmosphere from each of these points that you measured from the solar side and subtract each point flux and then turn each point result into a temperature field by integrating over the whole earth and then average the resulting temperature field across the entire globe. This gets around the Holder inequality problem when calculating temperatures from fluxes on a global spherical body. However in this analysis we are simply taking averages applied to one local situation because we are not after the exact effect of CO2 but only its maximum effect. In any case Tcdiox represents the real temperature increase over last 68 years. You have to add Tcdiox to the overall temp difference of 11 to get the maximum temperature difference of clouds, H2O and CO2 . So the maximum effect of any temperature changes caused by clouds, water vapour, or CO2 on a cloudy night is 11.65C. We will ignore methane and any other GHG except water vapour.

So from the above URL link clouds represent 85% of the total temperature effect , so clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .85 * 11.65 C = 9.90 C. That leaves 1.75 C for the water vapour and CO2. This is split up with 60% for water vapour and 26% for CO2 with the remaining % for methane, ozone ….etc. See the study by Ahilleas Maurellis and Jonathan Tennyson May 2003 in Physics World. Amazingly this is the only study that quantifies the Global warming potential of H20 before any feedback effects. CO2 will have relatively more of an effect in deserts than it will in wet areas but still can never go beyond this 1.75 C . Since the above study by Maurellis and Tennyson gave CO2 overall 26% effect, I am in this 1st analysis giving too much effect to CO2 by splitting up the effect into desert and wet areas. However since I am ignoring the other GHD’s like methane… etc, the global warming potential overall is probably a wash. However in the 2nd and 3rd analysis below I give the CO2 a straight 26 % and ignore the desert analysis.
Since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of 10% of 1.75 + 90% of Twet. We define Twet as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. There is an argument for less IR being radiated from the world’s oceans than from land but we will ignore that for the purpose of maximizing the effect of CO2 to keep the alarmists happy for now. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.175 C + (.9 * Twet). So all we have to do is calculate Twet. Reflected IR from clouds is not weaker. Water vapour is in the air and in clouds. Even without clouds, water vapour is in the air. No one knows the ratio of the amount of water vapour that has now condensed to water/ice in the clouds compared to the total amount of water vapour/H2O in the atmosphere but the ratio can’t be very large. Even though clouds cover on average 60 % of the lower layers of the troposhere, since the troposphere is approximately 8.14 x 10^18 m^3 in volume, the total cloud volume in relation must be small. Certainly not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG. So of the original 15% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have for CO2; .26 * (1.75 -.175) =0.41 C to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto the 0.41 and we get 0.43 C. CO2 therefore contributes 0.43 C worth of the DWIR in non deserts. Add this to the .175 that CO2 contributes for deserts and we have a total for CO2 of 0.605 C . That leaves 1.75 – 0.605 = 1.145 C for the water vapour. We will neglect the fact that the IR emitted downward from the CO2 is a little weaker than the IR that is reflected by the clouds. Since, as in the above, a cloudy night can make the temperature 11C warmer than a clear sky night, Twet contributes a maximum of 0.477777 C . That is calculated by the equation 0.175C + (.9 * Twet) = 0.605C . So the maximum temperature effect of CO2 is a little less than the actual warming we have seen.

As I said before; this will increase as the level of CO2 increases, but we have had 68 years of heavy fossil fuel burning and this is the absolute maximum of the effect of CO2 on global temperature. So how would any average global temperature increase by 7C or even 2C, if the maximum temperature warming effect of CO2 today from DWIR is only 0.605 C? However, since both CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases, we cannot say that all the warming we have seen since 1950 is due only to CO2 because the above analysis was for a local area with clouds. Any actual global warming would have an H2O as part of the warming. This means that the effect of clouds = 85%, the effect of water vapour = 9.8 % and the effect of CO2 = 5.2 % locally. Sure, if we quadruple the CO2 in the air which would be 1644 ppm which is represented by the Keeling net CO2 in atmosphere curve that is approximated mathematically by the formula:
ppm = 0.013 t^2 + 0.518 t + 310.44 where t = the time in years since 1950. Setting this equation to 1644 ppm and using the quadratic formula of (-b +/- ( (b^2 -4ac)^ 1/2)) / 2a

Solving this gives 301 which added to 1950 gives the year 2251 which is 232 years from now. Setting the equation to 5000 ppm which is the workplace safety limits of both the UK and USA gives 511 years before we choke on the CO2. Since in the last 68 years we have had a 90ppm increase and a 0.605 C max CO2 temperature effect this gives us 0.0067222 C per ppm. However we must take 26 % of this to realize that water vapour does the rest of the warming. that means we have 0.0067222 * .26 = 0.00174777 C per ppm for the CO2. Extrapolating to the future quadrupling gives for a level of 1644 ppm which is a 1314 ppm increase from the 1950 levels of 320 ppm gives us 1314 * .00174777 = ~ 2.3 C which gives us a maximum 0.009899 C per year or 0.9899 C warming per century; which is a little under the UAH long term trend. However since the UAH trend started at a low point in temperature calculation in 1979, the long term temperature effect of CO2 is probablly very close to the above calulated number of ~ 1C warming per century which is not scary.

NASA says clouds have only a 50% effect on DWIR. So let us do that analysis. So according to NASA clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .5 * 11.65 C = 5.825 C. That leaves 5.825 C for the water vapour and CO2. This is split up with 60% for water vapour and 26% for CO2 with the remaining % for methane, ozone ….etc. As per the above. Again since the desert areas are 33% of 30% (land vs oceans) = 10% of earth’s surface , then the CO2 has a maximum effect of (10% of 5.825 C) + 90% of TwetNASA. We define TwetNASA as the CO2 temperature effect of over all the world’s oceans and the non desert areas of land. So CO2 has a maximum effect of 0.5825 C + (.9 * TwetNASA). Since as before we give the total cloud volume in relation to the whole atmosphere as not more than 5%. H2O is a GHG.
We don’t even have to calculate Twet because even if the total effect og CO2 on the GHG effect is 26% then we have; So of the original 50% contribution by GHG’s of the DWIR, we have .26 * 5.825 = 1.5145 C to account for CO2. Now we have to apply an adjustment factor to account for the fact that some water vapour at any one time is condensed into the clouds. So add 5% onto this and we get 1.59 C . CO2 therefore contributes more warming in this scenario than the measured warming to date. Clearly this does not make sense therefore NASA must be wrong.

Now since the above analysis dealt with maximum effects let us divide the 11C maximum difference in temperature by 2 to get a rough estimate of the average effect of clouds. Therefore we have to do the calculations as per the above by substituting 5.5C wherever we see 11C.
So we have then 5.5C + 0.65C = 6.15C for the average effect of temperature difference with and without clouds. So according to NASA clouds have a maximum temperature effect of .5 * 6.15 C = 3.075 C. That leaves 3.075 C for the water vapour and CO2. Since we again take 26 % of this, we have .26 * 3.0765 = 0.8 C which again is greater than the warming we have seen. Since this temperature number is greater than the complete temperature increase of the last 68 years, NASA is ignoring water vapour’s role which is 60% of the effect of GHGs. So we must conclude that NASA is wrong and that the difference effect of temperature with and without clouds must be due mainly to clouds which makes intuitive sense. Thayer Watkins number must be closer to the truth than the number of NASA.

Christopher Simpson
February 13, 2019 10:56 am

Okay, gang, here’s our latest great idea to better communicate the totally scary prospects of Global Warming. We’re going to take northern cities and show that in the future they will become more like other cities somewhat further south. Cities that are doing fine. Cities that have not collapsed under the ravages of a warmer climate. Cities that are thriving and — uh.

Huh, it’s almost like there’s something wrong with this idea. And yet there can’t be. It was vetted by our best communication experts.

February 13, 2019 10:57 am

Snow Birds (the nickname for Canadians who winter south of their border, even to Gringolandia) will be a thing of the past. Economies must come to terms with this changing – or stop their cows from farting now.

February 13, 2019 10:59 am

The Climate Alarmists are recycling old talking points. Nineteen years ago, a Met Office scientists warned people that snowy winters were a thing of the past.

February 13, 2019 11:03 am

Well….no more winter “climate refugee’s” heading south in winter!!!

I absolutely sure we would rather it was -10C instead of -20C in winter.

Andy Pattullo
February 13, 2019 11:11 am

One day perhaps we can collect all the stories of wasted effort, wasted money, false prophecies and scientific misconduct that are wrapped up in the Global Warming religion/policy push. It would make a lesson of unparalleled scale with which to warn future generations about the ramblings of the end-of times street hawkers who want you scared, want your money, and want to control every aspect of your life.
It does seem however that the misconduct will go on for a long time no matter how many falsified predictions and wasted resources and likely, the curtain won’t be pulled back on the collective wizards of doom till long after they have escaped any repercussions other than historical excoriation.

Doctor Gee
February 13, 2019 11:11 am

Today’s E&E News’ ClimateWire has a similar article about finding your “climate analog.” It claims NYC will be 8F warmer and 10% wetter, which most closely resembles Jonesboro, Arkansas today; Chicago will be like Lansing, Kansas. The average analog is apparently located about 500 miles away. Clearly using RCP8.5 to support its nonsensical tripe.

Phil R
February 13, 2019 11:17 am

Climate-analog mapping is a statistical technique that quantifies the similarity of a location’s climate relative to the climate of another place and/or time. When considered in the context of assessing and communicating exposure to future climate change, climate-analog mapping can be viewed as a form of forecasting by analogy.

Didn’t we tell you to keep the Communications numpties away from the statistics?

Kevin McNeill
February 13, 2019 11:19 am

The CBC “a fully funded agency of the Federal government of Canada,” no they are not! They are fully funded by the taxpayers and only answer to the Liberal Party and spout any leftie loony theory they can find. Haven’t watched or listened to them in more than twenty years.

John Robertson
Reply to  Kevin McNeill
February 13, 2019 4:40 pm

I was trying to be polite.
However I have come to believe that we actually only have one government party in Canada.
A party devoted to stealing everything everything it can.
Just has 3 or 4 different political branches and a fully integrated bureaucracy.

February 13, 2019 11:22 am

How is it possible that these folks don’t realize how incredibly dumb this is. Really can’t be understood in a normal context.

John Tillman
February 13, 2019 11:23 am

The horror!

That Manitoba should suffer the climate of Minnesota. But that means that Minnesota will endure the climate of Iowa. Children won’t know what ice fishing is anymore.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
February 14, 2019 6:02 pm

Land of 10,000 Fetid, Stinking Swamps Infested with Alligators and Chiggers.

Phil R
February 13, 2019 11:23 am

For 2080’s climate, we selected two emission trajectories or Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)25, unmitigated emissions (RCP8.5) and a mitigation scenario (RCP4.5)26, and 27 different earth system models (ESMs), for a total of 2 RCPs × 27 ESMs = 54 future climate scenarios (Supplementary Table 1). Here we emphasize results for the ensemble means of 2080’s climate calculated by averaging across the 27 climate projections for each RCP.

For the unmitigated emissions scenario (RCP8.5), the scenario most in line with what might be expected given current policies and the speed of global action27, the climate similarity surface shifts further south and climate novelty increases. Under this scenario, the pixel with the lowest dissimilarity (2.89σ) is located near Greenwood, Mississippi (Fig. 1b), but all locations exceed the 2σ threshold, which is to say none are a very good match.

Climate novelty? they’re just making this sh*t up.

February 13, 2019 11:25 am

“Nicole Mortillaro · CBC News · Posted: Feb 12, 2019 2:14 PM ET | Last Updated: 4 hours ago
The average summertime temperature in Edmonton is around 15 C. It’s comfortable and familiar for residents. But in 60 years, that temperature is forecast to rise by almost 5 C, more reminiscent of the climate just outside St. Paul, Minn.”

Way to go, Nicole!
Those kinds of specious claims will frighten… Nobody.

Which does bring up the question, why make such an outrageous claim?
Is this one-upmanship? A scarier claim than another reporter is working on at the eco-loon greenie bar? After how many losses at drinking games?

Instead, all Nicole has done is given thousands faint hope that weather will moderat, more crops will grow and for a few summer days around June 20th one can suntan, briefly, with goosebumps.
Faint elusive hope, because most people are well aware that all predicted climate dooms have utterly failed.

Nicole completely forgets where in this interglacial climate cycle Earth is proceeding, as the planet cools.

Phil R
February 13, 2019 11:25 am

The geographic location with the minimum sigma dissimilarity identifies the best contemporary climatic analog for a given city’s future climate. However, the best contemporary climatic analog does not necessarily imply an analogous climate.

Oh, come on now…!

Ron Tuohimaa
February 13, 2019 11:29 am

Alarmism 10.1 – this is how advocate science, if you can call it that, performs dishonest and deceitful studies on anthropogenic global warming.

Studies now show no proof of temperature rise, storm numbers or increasing intensities, flooding or droughts or any other climate change consequences. These advocates merely pick this information from the latest suspect United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and run with it as it’s the environmental gospel.

Here we have a study of what temperatures and precipitation will be like in certain cities 61 years from now. The beauty of this study is that its lazy researchers will not be alive when their predictions fail.

These people call it “climate communication”. It’s essentially the idea the peasantry is too dumb to understand the terror and alarmism we constantly report, let’s just make it really simple for them to get scared.

Joel O'Bryan
February 13, 2019 11:34 am

St Paul bills itself as “The most livable city in America.
That is the city’s official motto.

Shudder the thought of them losing that billing to Edmonton.

On the Reality-bites Front:
St Paul yesterday (Feb 12th) declared a snow emergency.

More the point of how ridiculous this study is:
While both cities (Edmonton and St Paul) have major rivers running through them, the Saskatchewan River and the Mississippi River, St Paul has an elevation of 795 feet MSL, but Edmonton nearer to the Canadian Rockies is at 2,100 feet MSL. That elevation difference, and the much drier air on the lee side of the Rockies means the daily temperature swings will always be much greater in Edmonton. So from a physical climatology view, it would be impossible for Edmonton’s climate to ever be anything like St Paul.

Gary Doyle
February 13, 2019 11:36 am

Being from Phoenix, Minnesocold is still really cold. Not much different than Canada that I can tell, aye. On the other hand, we have a lot of Canadians around here, so they must like the heat too.

February 13, 2019 11:45 am

Well, from where I sit (Mississauga, Ontario). The man-made global warming threat is not in question.

Along with the media our political and academic elites consistently avoid explaining the uncertainties surrounding the issue. There is no doubt, the consensus is “proof”….”thousands” of scientists agree. To think otherwise is to be a fool…Trump, for example.

The ignorance on this issue is dominant and there is no excuse for it. Here in Ontario the damage done from implementing “The Green Energy Act” is horrific. The waste is approaching $100 billion. A fiscal boondoggle of irresponsible spending unmatched in Canadian history.

Shutting down coal…for no reason other than the fervid imaginations of some very influential people. For jurisdictions without access to natural gas, coal is by far the safest, least expensive and quickest route to base load power for the grid. But try telling that to any of our academic, media and governing elites and they will perceive you as a conspiracy nut.

Not only did these people shut down coal, they spent double digit billions refurbishing old nukes that should have been decommissioned, then unbelievably investing multiple billions in wind/solar parks along with the required conventional back-up and creating an almost daily requirement for excess “alternative” power to be sold to the spot market for a fraction. On top of all that…a carbon tax.….total $fiasco and no reason for it.

All they had to do was hook up to the hydro power available from Quebec. By making gasoline and electricity more expensive these people think they can change the clouds, and they have the blessing from our educated, political and media elites.

Furthermore we have elected a new government and “The Green Energy Act” is not yet up for discussion. In this neck of the woods if you are not on board with the politically correct man-made climate change alarmist narrative you are irrelevant.

Good grief.

February 13, 2019 11:50 am

Treating a warmer Canada as if that would be a bad thing is like a skit out of Monty Python.

February 13, 2019 11:55 am

As Phil R. pointed out, this article is based on RCP 8.5. In the article it is referred to as the scenario where “global emissions stay more or less the same.” That is not a good description of RCP 8.5. If instead they had said that the world embraces coal, gives up on renewables and nuclear, reverses the trend of lower birth rates with population exploding, and finds it difficult to innovate to find new solutions–then that might be closer to the pathway described. If they had mentioned that the models run 2-3 times too warm, even better.

We will be lucky to get even half of the temperature increase predicted/projected if the world continues to warm and if that warming is a consequence of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations.

Pat Frank
February 13, 2019 11:56 am

Minnesotans for Global Warming:

Need we say more? 🙂

Reply to  Pat Frank
February 13, 2019 12:57 pm

Great video. Didn’t know Mickey Man has a good singing voice 🙂

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Pat Frank
February 13, 2019 1:52 pm

M4GW has the art of skewering CAGW ideology down to a science.

David S
February 13, 2019 12:01 pm

Who said the temperature is going to rise 5C in 60 years?

Caligula Jones
Reply to  David S
February 13, 2019 1:53 pm


Probably. At least one of them. Once. If you tortured it.

Then took the garbage that came out of it, and poured it into another model.

Sort of like a garbage climate model turducken.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  David S
February 14, 2019 10:30 am

I think if you dig into the ICPCC documents, you will find that kind of predicted temperature rise is in the “Low Confidence” area. For “High Confidence” you have to stick to 2 degrees C, but that doesn’t sound as scary. But for me, living in Minnesota, even 5C sounds inviting; I imagine it’s even more-so to Canadians.

Reply to  David S
February 15, 2019 11:48 am

Them? In order get people involved and empowered, you need to ride this greenhouse stuff so that ‘we’ can overturn the capitalist system. Lying is called efficient communication by these good people.

John Sandhofner
February 13, 2019 12:23 pm

“By 2080, Climate Change will Force Canadians to Endure Warm Conditions Like Today’s Minnesota” So how many Canadians would object to that? Minnesota is cold enough and it only gets colder the further north you go. Canada’s cold environment does place a limitation on their way of life. Probably, also, limits who would be willing to live the country.

Nick Werner
Reply to  John Sandhofner
February 13, 2019 3:49 pm

Forced to endure warm conditions like today’s Minnesota? Gentlemen, start your engines and bring it on, I say. Even though I’ve been known to shovel six feet of snow off my roof when it was -35 in Prince George, I’m so rugged and adaptable – and I’m not making this up – I have been able to endure warm conditions like today’s Hawaii!

D Anderson
February 13, 2019 12:33 pm

“more reminiscent of the climate just outside St. Paul, Minn.”

I live just outside St. Paul, Minn. Does this mean we’ll be moving up to the climate just outside Chicago?


February 13, 2019 12:40 pm

So, one the more southern cities in Mid western Canada will have a similar temperatures to one of the more northern cities in mid western US. OMG, the horrors!

February 13, 2019 12:57 pm

As a Canadian I am disappointing. I would rather have weather like Georgia.
Turn it up.

February 13, 2019 1:06 pm

5°C in 60 years would represent an extraordinary acceleration in warming. To make such a prediction, even though the annual CO2 forcing increase has been hardly more than linear for the last 40 years, and is likely to drop below linear in the next few decades, seems crazy. You can see how nearly straight the log(CO2) [i.e., CO2 forcing] graph is, here:

Land temperatures have been rising between 0.2 and 0.25 °C / decade, depending on whose numbers you believe:

+5°C in 60 years would be +0.833 °C per decade, which is about 3½ times as fast as temperatures have been rising for the last forty years. That seems crazy.

However, it’s not as crazy as the claims that Antarctica is going to melt. It averages more than 40 degrees below zero, but climate activists think a couple of degrees of warming will melt much of the ice, and raise sea-levels catastrophically. “Because physics.” 🤔

Climate Science is one of those fields, like “gender studies” and “critical race theory,” in which the lunatics have taken over the asylum:

February 13, 2019 1:43 pm

Well only 5 degrees C warmer near Edmonton is a ripoff. We’ve have now had weeks of being in the deep freezer, and came the earliest I can ever remember, by starting in September.

February 13, 2019 1:53 pm

From equator at 35C to Pole at -35 C is 10,000 km, which is about 150 km per degree. So if there is an average of a degree C of warming coming, then most cities will have to adapt to the climate presently experienced by cities 150 km or about 100 miles further South. Which for the most part is pretty much zero practical difference.

February 13, 2019 2:03 pm

This amounts to cruel taunting of Canadians with forecasts worth less than a Bolivar.

Kevin A
February 13, 2019 2:10 pm

12 hours of snow so far, predicted to snow for three days, I spent the last 4 hours grading my 1.5 mile driveway by feel, white out. Can we have those 5° now? Did I mention the 6 foot piles of snow along side the road? Currently bouncing from -13° to -2°C, can’t wait for the wind to start blowing, again.

Coeur de Lion
February 13, 2019 2:44 pm

But wot happens when it gets colder?

Ryan S.
February 13, 2019 2:57 pm

As a Canadian, I really really hope this is true. Based on other climate predictions though, it won’t be…
High of -17C today, and that is an improvement over the last 23 days.

February 13, 2019 3:10 pm

Minnesota would hardly be an improvement: The summers are already similar so -25 to -20 aint much of a difference

michael hart
February 13, 2019 3:32 pm

Poor Canada.
I was also browsing a website about Russian weather today, and was struck by an assertion that “The average yearly temperature of nearly all of European Russia is below freezing.”

Even if that is just close to being true, it really is worth remembering that that is mostly the smaller, more comfortable part of Russia. A bit of global warming for Canada and Russia really will work wonders for the world, and the human race in particular.

February 13, 2019 4:07 pm

Well i live in Québec, Canada and this winter will probably bust the 2008 record of snow. In six months that year, we received 558 cm of snow. Yes five meters and a half of snow in six months. Today we had another snow storm (i lost count) and got another 30 cms in a night.

I can’t wait to get a warmer climate, sadly i know this is all frauds and lies.

Douglas Proctor
February 13, 2019 4:21 pm

I live in Calgary, 300km south of Edmonton. Summer is cooler here. 5C warmer would be excellent. Then our vegetables would ripen properly and going swimming . .. well, still a problem.

February 13, 2019 4:45 pm

Oh dear, what a pile of fuming crap. We got in Ontario one of the coldest winter in a very long time. It started vey early (October) and we got very cold weather throughtout November, January and February. This is not even the end of it. Environment Canada had predicted an average to above normal temperature for this winter to the contrary of…the farmers Almanach. What the hell my taxes are used for?

Nick Werner
Reply to  Agamemnon
February 13, 2019 5:37 pm

In my area of BC, if you mention to any old-timer that the mountain ash trees sure have a lot of berries this summer, he’s likely to respond with “It’s going to be a cold winter.” Well, wherever I went last summer I was noticing that the mountain ash were loaded with berries, and communities throughout those areas have been setting new record minimums this winter. Including ski resort town Whistler, whose mayor recently wrote to oil companies asking for compensation because: climate change.
Just how many megaflops is a 20 foot-tall mountain ash capable of anyway? By last July they were producing a better forecast than Environment Canada’s supercomputer at the end of December:

February 13, 2019 4:50 pm

Minnesotans 4 Global Warming had it right with their song, ‘If we had some Global Warming’.

Enjoy… 🙂

Gerald Machnee
February 13, 2019 5:28 pm

I do not know who this out fit is but we have one much worse in Manitoba. SkepticalUnScience would love them.
The PCC (Prairie Climate Centre) is using the worst case scenario (RCP 8.5) for their “projections”. And they actually believe they are correct. They are projecting Manitoba will be like Texas, not Minnesota, by 2080.
Then they have produced a “Climate Atlas” for Canada so you can type in your location and see what you will have in 2080.
And they are funded by the gov.
Check it out.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
February 14, 2019 10:57 am

And remember RPC 8.5 is considered a “very unlikely” scenario.

Walt D.
February 13, 2019 5:56 pm

To bad the planet will be uninhabitable in 12 years.

Nobody left to find out if this prediction comes true or not in 20180.

Edward A. Katz
February 13, 2019 6:07 pm

The key word in the title is “Will”, which immediately undermines whatever credibility the article has in the first place. It might have had some if it had read “Could” , but in its original form it makes the claim that this is a certainty or guarantee that the authors know exactly what the climate will be like 60 years into the future. And even if they’re right, the cities that the Canadian ones are compared to have larger populations and at least as much economic activity, so what’s the big issue? If anything, Canada will benefit from the higher temperatures. So this is just another variation of the climate alarmism that’s being promoted to try to convince citizens to accept carbon taxes and higher prices for everything. Whether these will affect the climate is immaterial as long as governments have more revenue to play around with and dish out to their supporters looking for handouts for hit-or-miss Green initiatives.

February 13, 2019 6:47 pm

By 2080 Canadian cities will be warmer. Also ice sheets and glaciers will melt. The sea level will rise. Oceans will warm. New and perhaps harmful weather events will emerge. There will be droughts and floods and heat waves. The biota will be affected by these changes and not all species will fare well.

All of these things and all the other changes cited as reasons for cutting fossil fuel emissions are simply the way interglacials progress.

The only information content in these fears is that we are in an interglacial – and not a particularly active one at that in comparison with prior interglacials climate change events.

Hats off to the propaganda geniuses who has taught the world to fear interglacials – the brief balmy warm periods in between 100,000year glaciations.

Taylor Pohlman
February 13, 2019 7:39 pm

5 degrees C rise in 60 years? Do I detect another RCP8.5 outlandish scenario? RCP8.5 should be outlawed, or at least come with a warning: “caution, contains RCP8.5. Continued reading will cause your brain to rot”.

February 13, 2019 8:56 pm

All temperatures are in degrees Celsius.

– coldest month = -15.0
– average temperature = +4.1
– hottest month = +23.5

– coldest month = -5.4
– average temperature = +12.1
– hottest month = +30.5

Canada’s temperatures would have to increase by about +7.0 to +9.6 degrees Celsius, to match America.

This is just a little bit higher than the +2.0 degrees Celsius temperature limit.


Have a look at the graph in this article:

Find the rectangle for America. It is above the label “USA”.

Then find the rectangle for Russia. It is above the label “Russia”.

Now find the rectangle that is just to the right of Russia, that comes down to -15.0 degrees Celsius. That is the rectangle for Canada.

Now compare the rectangle for Canada, with the rectangle for America.

You should be able to see, that they are completely different to each other.

It is very unlikely that Canada’s climate will become like America’s climate is now.

February 13, 2019 11:39 pm

I think the Canadians will be happy when the temperatures rise a bit, because it gets freezing cold especially in winter!

Steve O
February 14, 2019 4:20 am

Maybe the writer secretly converted to being a skeptic and wanted to highlight how ridiculous the scaremongering has become?

Leave it Canadians to build expensive (and mostly useless) wind turbines and raise taxes so that they’re cities don’t become “warm like in St Paul, Minnesota.”

February 14, 2019 5:55 am

I suggest all the progs go to Canada and buy up the available muskeg at bargain prices. Then wait for the prediction to come true.

Tom Johnson
February 14, 2019 7:18 am

I actually grew up in Minnesota – Northern Minnesota. It was common to get to -40, and even colder at the time in the 60s. I learned in my freshman chemistry class that chlorine gas liquifies at -39 F. To test this, I bubbled chlorine gas into a gallon apple jug and set it out on the back porch to see if the light green color would disappear on -40 mornings. Alas, it was early March by the time I did this, and we had no more -40 mornings. On one -35 F morning, the green color was still there.

Now, I have implemented my own Catastrophic Climate Change. I spend the winters in Southern Texas. We’ve had a brutal winter this year. We’ve actually had five mornings with frost. I will attest that a +28F (16 C) change in climate is quite livable.

February 14, 2019 7:21 am


University of Tennessee, 2008, Ph.D., Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Montana, 2003, M.S., Environmental Science
Pennsylvania State University, 1997, B.S., Mechanical Engineering

They don’t even pretend to have the first bit of education in weather or climate, anymore.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  ToddF
February 14, 2019 9:42 am

Yes, whenever I see “model” in this regard, I don’t bother to look for anyone with a degree in computer science, math or statistics.

Best case: some sciencey stuff, sometime.
Worst case (and usually): philosophy, polysci, gender studies, sociology, “environmental” anything, etc.

I’ll take a weatherman or a guy with a double-degree in math, thank you Mr. Watts and McIntyre.

Nick Werner
Reply to  Caligula Jones
February 14, 2019 1:25 pm

Yes, the study really amounts to little more than an “if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle” exercise.

Reasonable Skeptic
February 14, 2019 9:44 am

I am a Canadian living in Quebec and on my street you will find a palm tree.

For an alarmist it screams climate change but for a rational person like me it speak to the amazing resiliency of living organisms as I never would have thought that a palm tree could manage to survive 3-4 months of below freezing temperatures, yet there it is.

What it tells me it that it can’t compete in this environment, not that it can’t live in this environment.

February 14, 2019 6:21 pm

I build model cars.
I play with model trains.
Models are not real, they are a fake reality.

Reply to  Davis
February 15, 2019 7:30 am

Oh, it’s not that the models aren’t real. Its that what they’re presenting as “models” aren’t even models or modele.

They’re altered false correlation non-linear progression projections with fabricated effects that violate the fundamental principals of re-emissive gasses.

February 15, 2019 7:28 am

I dunno if anybody’s noticed but your current exposure survival scenario in Minnesota is roughly the same right now as in Ontario.

February 16, 2019 12:04 am

“Climate Change Communication”. Isn’t that where activists try to work out the most compelling way to deceive people into believing their religion?

I’m told that we’re having a record hot summer here in Nelson Bay, NSW, Australia. This is our fourth summer here, so I don’t have enough data to say whether or not that’s true. It’s been slightly warmer than last year. We’ve had perhaps 10 or 15 days when we’ve had to turn the AC on for a few hours in the middle of the day, but that’s mostly because of the humidity.

I checked the climate before we moved here. According to the official data, Nelson Bay’s maximum temperature had never reached 40C since records began. I looked up the same data a month or so ago and now it says that we’ve had many days over 40C in the last few years. Interesting.

My home page is the local weather forecast. Many times it predicts that it it will be e.g. 32C in a few days time and the bureau talks about heatwaves. (For me, having lived in Melbourne for many years, over 40C for a week is a heatwave. 32C for one day is an opportunity to enjoy a warm day.) When you actually get to the day of the predicted heatwave, we get 25C or 28C. But the heatwave meme continues.

I’ve never been to Minneapolis or St Paul or even Minnesota, but I’m a big fan of the author John Sandford and his Lucas Davenport and Virgil Flowers characters. I thought that many of the novels were set in the depths of winter until I discovered that they still have snow on the ground in March. The thought that the climate in St Paul is warm is more than ludicrous.

I was sent a link to an article in an Edmonton newspaper a few years ago. It talked about how the Edmonton International Airport was closed that morning because the temperature was -44C. However, by lunch time, they were able to reopen the airport because it had warmed up to -40C. I have a great deal of respect for the fortitude of anyone who can use “warm up” and “-40C” together. It’s insanely cold.

But, if the climate communicators get their way, -40 instead of -44 will be held up as an example of extreme climate change.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights