Global Cooling News: Deep Freeze Hits Canada
0NBZ0
Hanneke Brooymans, Gordon Kent and Chris Zdeb, Canwest News Service
April 21, 2008
http://www.nationalpost.com:80/news/story.html?id=461865
Spring has turned into a cruel joke in Western Canada, where a
late-season blizzard dumped heavy snow on much of Alberta Sunday and a
cold snap may have devastated fruit crops across the border in B.C.
As much as 60% of the apricot crop and 50% of the sweet cherries and
peaches could be lost to the freezing temperatures of the last few days
in B.C.'s Okanagan Valley.
"It is very, very serious for us right now," said Hank Markgraf,
horticultural manager for the Okanagan Tree Fruit Company.
"I'm born and raised in the industry and I can remember the last 20 to
25 year pretty well and I've never seen it like this. This is pretty
bad."
Over the weekend some of the interior saw snowfall. But it was really
Monday night's drastic dip to -11C in some places that was the death
knell for soft fruit.
According to Environment Canada there is little relief for the next few
days as nighttime temperatures continue to dip to as low as -3C in some
areas.
Christine Dendy, owner of a cherry orchard in Kelowna, is looking at
losing up to 50% of her crop and she says less fruit going to market
will also likely mean higher prices at the grocery stores.
"I would think it would be a premium this year, for sure," said Dendy.
Back in Alberta, the RCMP closed a portion of the southbound lane of
Highway 2 Monday to investigate a fatal collision. A tractor-trailer
crashed near the off-ramp for Didsbury, about 233 kilometres south of
Edmonton. Road conditions may have been a factor in the crash.
Further north on the same highway, a Greyhound bus slid into a pickup
Sunday night about 40 kilometres south of Edmonton.
The pickup came to rest in one ditch, the bus in the other. There were
16 passengers on board the bus at the time. There were no reported
injuries. Road conditions were considered a factor in the crash.
The Edmonton region has been struck with its worst April snowstorm in
almost 20 years.
One of the hardest-hit areas in Alberta was near Wainwright, about 200
kilometres east of Edmonton, which has received about 36 centimetres of
snow, Environment Canada said Monday.
Lloydminster, which is about 250 kilometres east of Edmonton, received
30 centimetres.
Pam Larocque of the Husky Lloydminster Travel Centre said travellers
were stunned by the ferocity of the storm, with drifts building along
roads and wind gusting to 60 km/h.
"It's worse if you're driving in from the east," she said. "We've had a
lot of people decide to stay the night in [Lloydminster]."
Roads south of Edmonton were also in poor condition, while busy Highway
63 to Fort McMurray suffered partial whiteouts, ice and blowing snow.
In Edmonton, the city had about 60 vehicles plowing and sanding main
roads during the weekend, said city transportation spokesman Randy
Kilburn.
"It's a total aberration," he said. "I have basically lived here my
whole life and I can't remember it being this heavy this late."
The road clearing is costing the city about $100,000 a day, he said.
Environment Canada meteorologist David Wray said another 10 to 15
centimetres could fall on Edmonton before snow tapers off Tuesday
morning.
Add in the 10 centimetres that came down on the weekend and you're
looking at the city's biggest April snowfall since the one-day record
43.4 centimetres on April 23, 1990, he said.
The current weather in the Edmonton region is unusually cold, with an
Arctic ridge pushing temperatures down 15 to 20 degrees below normal,
Wray said. The temperature in Edmonton Monday afternoon was -10C, with a
wind chill of -20C.
People who didn't have to travel were taking winter's return in stride
Sunday, hauling out inner tubes and toboggans for possibly the season's
last slide.
Donald Gross, with Jude, 5, and George, 3, said he felt "pretty
demoralized" when he looked out the window in the morning.
"Honestly, I had to make a pretty big effort to drag myself out the
door. But the kids are having fun."
The Calgary region coped with 20 centimetres of snow and a wind chill
hovering around -18C over the weekend. City crews worked feverishly
through Saturday and Sunday to get roads cleared for Monday's commute.
Calgary was expected to see light snow Monday, tapering off by Tuesday
morning. Some parts of northwestern Saskatchewan were hard hit, with
snowfalls in the 15- to 25-centimetre range.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
(analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
John Black
@doooooooooooooooodoooooooooo.com says...
> So much for mythical global warming!!!
>
>
>
> Hanneke Brooymans, Gordon Kent and Chris Zdeb, Canwest News Service
>
> April 21, 2008
>
>
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com:80/news/story.html?id=461865
>
>
>
> Spring has turned into a cruel joke in Western Canada, where a
> late-season blizzard dumped heavy snow on much of Alberta Sunday and a
> cold snap may have devastated fruit crops across the border in B.C.
>
>
>
> As much as 60% of the apricot crop and 50% of the sweet cherries and
> peaches could be lost to the freezing temperatures of the last few days
> in B.C.'s Okanagan Valley.
>
>
>
> "It is very, very serious for us right now," said Hank Markgraf,
> horticultural manager for the Okanagan Tree Fruit Company.
>
>
>
> "I'm born and raised in the industry and I can remember the last 20 to
> 25 year pretty well and I've never seen it like this. This is pretty
> bad."
Someone should tell Gore his 15 minutes are up.
John Black
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
z
wrote:
That's odd, i was just in montreal and it's like 80 degrees there.
must be a plot by al gore.
z
> Someone should tell Gore his 15 minutes are up.
the probability of somebody attempting to "debunk global warming" by
insulting al gore rapidly reaches one in any discussion.
Badabeck
> > "I'm born and raised in the industry and I can remember the last 20 to
> > 25 year pretty well and I've never seen it like this. This is pretty
> > bad."
>
> Someone should tell Gore his 15 minutes are up.
What does Al Gore have to do with the overwhelming scientific evidence
of global warming? Except in the clouded and confused minds of
senile, partisan rightwing imbeciles.
Suddenly snow in Canada is not only unusual, it also represents a
"deep freeze" too. Meanwhile Toronto and most of the east are in
record temperature highs.
Only a scientifically illiterate fool would believe that a freak snow
storm in a tiny sliver of the planet refutes the evidence of global
warming.
You rightists are very gullible. No wonder why you appear to be so
easily fooled.
Why do you love pollution and hate the environment?
Poetic Justice
How can we ignore the Nobel winner and movie genius of Al Gore the
scientific wonder of the century.
He deserves his attention, as he has put himself in front on the issue,
Al Gore is a key personality that is credentialed and so many pay homage
to Gore's genius. We need to understand his genius, if we can't
understand him then his genius will be wasted.
Ouroboros_Rex
Can't, the lying denialists have to have something to talk about besides
the actual subject. =)
V-for-Vendicar
Ahahahahahahahaha
MMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"John Black" <jbl...@texas.net> wrote
> Someone should tell Gore his 15 minutes are up.
Oh, you are going to be hearing from Gore for the rest of you short life.
V-for-Vendicar
V-for-Vendicar
> "Attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to
> trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine
> (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water
> vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel,
> which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut,
> which represents the human contribution." Dr. Timothy Ball, Chairman of
> the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP.com), Former Professor
> Of Climatology, University of Winnipeg
And once again you are caught lying. Timothy Ball isn't a former professor
of climatology, and the University of Winnipeg has no climatoloty program.
Ball is a former geography professor with no training in climatology who
couldn't make it as a university professor (pubishing a total of 4 papers in
his entire career), who then cashed in by jumping on the big oil Gravy
train.
You should ask Ball about the little incident concerning the
Misappropriattion of University Resources at the University of Calgary by
his propaganda group - Friends of Science
V-for-Vendicar
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote
> How can we ignore the Nobel winner and movie genius of Al Gore the
> scientific wonder of the century.
I suppose the Nobel Prize was awarded to Gore because the Nobel Committee
felt obliged to
grant an honour to Gore because his own country foolishly refuses to do so.
Mike Dobony
What is so scientific about total fantasy? The inconvenient truth is that
there is no funding unless a problem is reported. The inconvenient truth
is that the whole base of support for GLOBAL warming is corrupted ground
based measurement stations. Move them to uncorrupted locations and the
problem goes away. The inconvenient truth is that the dumbocrats need a
problem to justify destroying this country.
Mike D.
kT
Cuz yous sez souz, on the usenet, of course.
Phil Hays
> What is so scientific about total fantasy? The inconvenient truth is that
> there is no funding unless a problem is reported. The inconvenient truth
> is that the whole base of support for GLOBAL warming is corrupted ground
> based measurement stations. Move them to uncorrupted locations and the
> problem goes away.
Which is why satellite MSU shows the atmospheric temperature rising, why
the glaciers are mostly melting, why the ocean level is rising and so on.
> The inconvenient truth is that the dumbocrats need a problem to
> justify destroying this country.
And thanks Mike, for the wonderful demonstration of toxic politics.
Priceless.
Tunderbar
When the Grand Profit of the movement is found to be a hypocritical
liar, it debunks the entire movement. Especially when the koolaide
drinkers in this group try their darndest to defend him.
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike Dobony" <sw...@notasarian-host.net> wrote
> What is so scientific about total fantasy?
Scientists OK Gore's Movie for Accuracy
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
(06-27) 18:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --
The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al
Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.
The former vice president's movie - replete with the prospect of a flooded
New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening
droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets - mostly got the
science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read
the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.
The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone
for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate
change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited
release, or read the book.
But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed
the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade
catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of
Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important
material and got it right."
Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow
presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.
"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said.
"After the presentation I said, `Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a
lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."
Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took
a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."
The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and
less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician
explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of
the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at
the Climate Institute in Washington.
One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming.
That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited
five recent scientific studies to support his view.
"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and
unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts
associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific
consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology
and oceanography.
Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of
the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the
Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link
between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.
While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden
warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was
too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the
problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in
habit - such as changing light bulbs - the world could help slow or stop
global warming.
While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May,
that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President
Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency
and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie
is on his to-see list.
"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if
you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives
you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global
warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere
every day."
As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences
professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I
was on the edge of my chair."
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike Dobony" <sw...@notasarian-host.net> wrote
> The inconvenient truth is that the whole base of support for GLOBAL
> warming is corrupted ground
> based measurement stations.
Which is why the Sea Surface measurements and the satellite data shows
warming as well.
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNN
Meanwhile back here in the reality based community...
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
V-for-Vendicar
"Tunderbar" <tdco...@gmail.com> wrote
> When the Grand Profit of the movement is found to be a hypocritical
> liar, it debunks the entire movement. Especially when the koolaide
> drinkers in this group try their darndest to defend him.
Where are those WMD again?