Canada Warming At Twice the Global Rate, Report Finds (www.cbc.ca) 245
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CBC.ca: Canada is, on average, experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with Northern Canada heating up at almost three times the global average, according to a new government report. Entitled "Canada's Changing Climate Report (CCCR)," the study was commissioned by the Environment and Climate Change Department and was slated to be released officially on Tuesday. That release date was moved up to Monday after CBC published its story about the leaked report.
The leaked copy of the report says that since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia. In Northern Canada, the annual average temperature has increased by 2.3 C. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), since 1948, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.8 C. Along with these temperature increases, the CCCR says Canada is experiencing increases in precipitation (particularly in winter), "extreme fire weather" and water supply shortages in summer, and a heightened risk of coastal flooding. The document says that while warming in Canada has been the result of both human activity and natural variations in the climate, "the human factor is dominant," especially emissions of greenhouse gases.
The leaked copy of the report says that since 1948, Canada's annual average temperature over land has warmed 1.7 C, with higher rates seen in the North, the Prairies and northern British Columbia. In Northern Canada, the annual average temperature has increased by 2.3 C. According to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), since 1948, global average temperatures have increased by about 0.8 C. Along with these temperature increases, the CCCR says Canada is experiencing increases in precipitation (particularly in winter), "extreme fire weather" and water supply shortages in summer, and a heightened risk of coastal flooding. The document says that while warming in Canada has been the result of both human activity and natural variations in the climate, "the human factor is dominant," especially emissions of greenhouse gases.
heat rises (Score:5, Funny)
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
Re: (Score:1)
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
So your saying my dream/vague goal of becoming an expat and getting accepted into Canada due to my software engineering skills thus allowing me to finally live some place where Trump's approval is around 25%, meaning that most people are slightly more sane is looking better all the time? (It will be warmer.)
Re: heat rises (Score:1)
Fun fact, both the US AND Afghanistan have more female representatives in government than Canada.
Afghanistan mate....
Good luck with the move.
Re: heat rises (Score:1)
APRIL FOOLS!!! Canada is freezing cold as EVER!!!
Re: (Score:3)
"colder than an anti-vaxxers kid".
That joke's older than an anti-vaxxers kid.
Re: (Score:2)
USA is generating all that heat, and heat rises, and Canada is above USA, so...
You joke, but that's more or less how it actually works. Global warming due to CO2 mostly warms the poles, because the effect is to even out temps across the globe. For a little bit of warming at the equator, you get a lot of warming at the poles.
This effect is why there's a worry about the ice at the poles melting with only a small average increase in temperature. It works the other way too: with a smallish decrease in temperature, Canada will be under 1 km of glaciers, which has been the most common co
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might find it interesting to look at the glacier maps from the last glaciation. A big chunk of modern Europe was under the ice sheet. One of the bigger mysteries of climate is why that's not the current condition - it should have been, had the pattern for the last million years or so held (and probably a lot longer, but that's as far back as we have ice core data). It's no coincidence that human civilization arose when the usually-brief warm period lasted 10,000 years instead.
Re: (Score:2)
All of Canada was under glaciation in the last ice sheet. All of it. The warm-water stream up along the east coast of the US to the UK makes such a fundamentally huge difference that it shouldn't be a surprise either, it also explains why half of Europe wasn't under the ice sheet, or most of Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Poles? Poland is in Eastern Europe. No where near North America. Check Apple maps. Unless you're talking about Poles who have emigrated to North Americza; they'll get some of the warming.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why Alaska was so warm this winter. And a lot of the Arctic ocean was not covered in ice.
Re: (Score:2)
technically, Colorado has higher mountains than BC does, even if they're part of the same mountain chain, so it's all the extra emissions from Colorado flowing downhill to Canada, eh?
Re:heat rises (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, about that:
https://www.popsci.com/alaska-... [popsci.com]
https://www.smithsonianmag.com... [smithsonianmag.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Alaska is above what? Pacific Ocean, right? Not so much heat there, other than Fukushima excrement. But as the oceans warm, so will Alaska.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that's not how heat rises? Standing on the South Pole the heat won't go straight into the earth because North is up. It will go "up" into outer space, just like it would anywhere on the earth.
No no no. Earth is FLAT, but standing up like a pancake in a flapjack stand. For heat to go into the Earth it would have to travel laterally. Some is conducted, for sure, but otherwise it rises, up, to the north. That's why Antarctica is so cold- the heat moves up away from the South Pole.
Okay, seriously, for whatever reason your post has me laughing uncontrollably with eyes watering. I just love how you explained it so simplistically and I'm sorry I made you do that but I keep laughing every time I lo
Re: (Score:2)
OhMyGosh. Well, you can study and take tests and get all the way to a PhD. but have no common sense, or just never have good broad knowledge. And some never really learn- they figure out how to get by and not really absorb stuff. Good on you to explain Earth's orbit, tilt, etc. You might look into teaching someday. I always thought I would, but it hasn't happened yet (plus the education system is so broken...) Don't bottle up all that knowledge. You're gifted with a motivation to spread truth and inf
Re:heat rises (Score:5, Informative)
> We have higher personal income taxes than the US
No we don't.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0411/do-canadians-really-pay-more-taxes-than-americans.aspx
For most people, defining "most" as "at and below the median", you pay less tax in Canada. That, of course, has many caveats and exceptions.
Frying all those donuts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the positive side of things (Score:2)
On the positive side of things... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Canada will soon be a livable country.
If they get rid of Justin Trudeau that is...
Re:On the positive side of things... (Score:5, Interesting)
Canada will soon be a livable country.
At which point they'll have to build a wall because the USA won't be sending their best people?
Re:On the positive side of things (Score:5, Interesting)
Some places are not warming at all [climate.gov]. Look at the white blob in the north Atlantic. This is possibly a sign that the Atlantic Ocean’s Meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) may be weakening [wikipedia.org] as a result of increased fresh water due to Greenland glacier melt. This was the premise of "day after tomorrow".
If the AMOC were disrupted, it could divert the Gulf Stream waters that usually flow northward, past the British Isles and Norway, and cause them to instead circulate toward the equator. If this were to happen, Europe's climate would be seriously impacted
Urban heat? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Urban heat? (Score:5, Informative)
We generally find weak and statistically insignificant relationships between monthly, seasonally or annually averaged T max and urban fraction (Figure 3). When T max is averaged annually, the linear relationship between this and urban fraction is insignificant (at a 97.7% confidence level) at 0.25±0.42 K. The strongest relationships are observed in the winter months with December having an urbanisation effect of 0.67±0.34 K.
How much are you being paid to spread lies?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:3)
Average is (Tmax + Tmin) / 2 ??? Damn, you lost me there. That's one hell of a simplification, not mentionning 100% wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are getting climate information from a website on collecting postage stamps ?
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how you compute a population average.
Consider a classroom quiz. Take the lowest grade, and the highest, and find the average of those two. Now - what does that tell you about the combined average of everyone in the class? Almost nothing. It could be a classroom full of brilliant students and one dunce, or full of dunces with one brilliant student, or anything in between. Same thing with temperature - the details matter immensely.
To find the average temperature, you must record the temperature
Re: Urban heat? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
the powers-that-be determined to heat the past rather than cool the current.
Since these are temperature anomalies, the effect would have been the same.
Besides, it's not a matter of preference. By examining dozens of stations at the same time, you decide which is the odd one out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So for those two graphs presented (all blue = corrected, red + blue = original) you would say the anomaly from 1960 until now would be the same? Really?
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm referring to your comment about "determined to heat the past rather than cool the current".
I assume you agree that the step error needs to be corrected. We can either do that by pulling up past temperature, or lowering the recent ones. But in either case, the slope of the blue, corrected curve would stay the same. The slope determines the anomaly. The vertical offset of the entire curve is not relevant for the anomaly calculation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Urban heat? (Score:4, Informative)
"Anomalies"? Really? Not "conflicting data"?
No. Please educate yourself: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/moni... [noaa.gov]
Anomalies vs. Temperature
In climate change studies, temperature anomalies are more important than absolute temperature. A temperature anomaly is the difference from an average, or baseline, temperature. The baseline temperature is typically computed by averaging 30 or more years of temperature data. A positive anomaly indicates the observed temperature was warmer than the baseline, while a negative anomaly indicates the observed temperature was cooler than the baseline.
Re:Urban heat? (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you been to Northern Canada? Or any part of Canada that is not with in 100 miles of the US border?
I don't think Urbanization is the problem here.
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/04/17/canada-empty-maps_n_5169055.html
Re: (Score:2)
Edmonton, Calgary... (Score:2)
Or any part of Canada that is not within 100 miles of the US border? I don't think Urbanization is the problem here.
Yes, I live there and I have to say that urban heat definitely exists in Edmonton as well as Calgary. Not every large city in Canada is within 160km of the US border but since we have a population about half that of the UK and a land area about 40 times greater it is true that urbanization is not going to account for any significant effect on the average temperature.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most data is collected by satellites ...
Re:Urban heat? (Score:5, Informative)
Not for this report. See chapter 4 for where the data was collected [changingclimate.ca]. It was individual stations. A grand total of 32 stations - located in towns - across both the NWT and Nunavut. That is for an area of 3.1 million km^2 - a bit more than Western Europe as a whole (Germany through Ireland, not including Scandinavia).
As far as satellite data, it shows the predictions are all pretty much wrong [drroyspencer.com], and lends evidence to the sensitivity of CO2 being about half the value as used in modeling.
Re:Urban heat? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Satellites don't measure surface air temperature, unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
So not merely the 1m temps of a Stephenson Screen, but the bottom x00m or more
Right, the air temperature at 1meter above surface is what we are interested in. Satellites measure the bottom hundreds of meters, which is not the same. There's a huge gradient just above the surface. Thanks for confirming and elaborating.
So you know you're wrong but refuse to accept it (Score:2, Insightful)
You claimed that satellites don't measure air temps. YOU WERE WRONG. So when this was pointed out WHOOSH!!!! went your goalposts and suddenly it has to be 1m. Except that isn't where our weather is, you fucking lying idiot. Nor most of our livable area: we normally use two or more storey houses, both for living and work.
So the stephenson screen doesn't measure surface air, only spot temperature.
Unlike satellites which that is all they do: the surface air. All of it. A volume, not a point in space.
Nor does t
Re:So you know you're wrong but refuse to accept i (Score:5, Insightful)
You claimed that satellites don't measure air temps.
No, I claimed that they don't measure surface air temperature. There's a standard definition for that, and it doesn't mean the bottom half kilometer of the atmosphere. It means the temperature a small distance above the surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not sure if you're trolling or stupid, but at least this conversation can help to educate others, so I guess it doesn't really matter either way.
Re: (Score:2)
The Royal Metrological Society [wiley.com] in the UK found that 1 deg of the increase was from urbanization, not CO2?
Ah, I see you don't understand the paper you referenced. The paper says that the temperature in urban areas has increased. But measurement of global temperatures does not rely on such figures from urban areas. In fact, as BEST showed, if you remove urban temperature figures and those areas that changed from rural to urban, the trend in temperatures is higher. The effect of urban areas on the figures is anyway pretty low as only a very small proportion of recording stations are in urban areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest warming is in the middle of nowhere. I'm from the northern Canadian prairies. There isn't any asphalt.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
There is high correlation between stations up to 1000 km apart:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs... [nasa.gov]
What you call "precious little data" is actually quite abundant for a climate scientist.
What a good thing! (Score:1)
What a good thing! What a wonderful thing!
I live in Toronto. The winters here are frickin freezing. Just a few days ago we had snow, and it's April already, for Christ's sake.
I welcome global warming with open arms.
Re: (Score:3)
The winters here are frickin freezing. Just a few days ago we had snow, and it's April already, for Christ's sake. I welcome global warming with open arms.
Unfortunately for you, global warming is only adding a few degrees to average temperature. That's never going to be enough to make winters in Canada disappear.
Re:What a good thing! (Score:4, Interesting)
It makes them a lot milder though. It's been years since we had a good run of -50C.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how a news report about temperatures between -20 and -27 is some kind of proof against my statement "it's been years since we had a good run of -50C."
It has been a while since I took formal logic though. Care to explain?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say I was from Edmonton, nor a major (or any other kind of) city.
You know what they say about assumptions.
Permafrost bomb (Score:5, Insightful)
When the permafrost thaws, the carbon in it starts getting converted to CO2 and methane. There's enough carbon in the permafrost to torch the planet.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-... [phys.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Geoengineering options include increasing albedo through deforestation.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Torch the planet"? Really? Do you guys never listen to yourselves?
Re: (Score:1)
Reminder: Atmospheric carbon PPM is all that separates Earth and Venus. The more you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're basically saying is that someday it'll be better to live on Venus.
OK. Better than what? Florida?
Re: (Score:1)
This is wrong. The forcing effect of CO2 diminishes with increasing PPM. Earth will not become Venus from SUV exhaust. Stop spreading lies.
Re:Permafrost bomb (Score:5, Informative)
While that's technically true, the difference is so vast that it's a meaningless comparison.
Earth CO2 concentration, current: 0.04%, 20 C
Earth CO2 concentration, worst-case model: 0.2% (est)
Venus CO2 concentration, current: 96.5%, 462 C
Also worth pointing out that
Mars CO2 concentration, current: 95.3%, -125 C to 20 C
The more you know...
Re: (Score:3)
Concentration is meaningless. You need to compare absolute numbers (on a log scale).
Inconvenient Truths (Score:2)
Reminder: Atmospheric carbon PPM is all that separates Earth and Venus.
No, not at all. First, there is the distance to the sun: Venus is about 100e6 km vs. Earth 150e6 km which means Venus receives about twice the intensity of solar radiation. Then there is the atmospheric pressure on Venus which is about 90 times higher than Earth's.
You cannot generate a runaway greenhouse effect on Earth by burning all the fossil fuel reserves because they simply do not contain enough carbon, which is not surprising since this carbon originally came from the atmosphere in the first place
No surprise: Same results in Norway (Score:5, Interesting)
All the climate models show that temperatures should rise faster closer to the arctic, here in Norway we have measured the same rise as in Canada, i.e. about twice the global average.
Norway starts at 58N, North Cape is 71 degrees North. Except for the Gulf Stream Norway would not be habitable at all.
Terje
Re: (Score:2)
All the climate models show that temperatures should rise faster closer to the arctic,
Makes sense too, because water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, with a spectrum that overlaps CO2. Since the arctic region has low water vapor, the effects of extra CO2 are stronger.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 and H2O's spectra don't overlap
Here you can see that the CO2 and water vapor spectra overlap between the 15-20 micrometer wavelengths.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.... [wordpress.com]
In the dry arctic air, the greenhouse effect is mostly caused by the CO2. And yes, as the temperature rises, and the ice cover shrinks, more water will evaporate, adding a positive feedback.
Re: (Score:2)
They overlap like your FM stations overlap. They occupy the same band, they do not occupy the same frequencies.
Wrong, the spectral 'lines' are not actually thin lines, as you can see in the explanation here:
http://www.barrettbellamyclima... [barrettbel...limate.com]
'Lines' overlap
Pressure broadened lines or bands overlap so that over the spectral range there are no instances of 100% transmission. This is illustrated by spectra of CO2 with 100 m and 200 m path lengths respectively that show that over the spectral range there is some absorption at all wavenumbers. Please note that the spectra have been replaced with their correct titles. The previous titles were for 100 m and 200 m path lengths in error, pointed out by Brenden O'Connor.
Also: http://www-star.st-and.ac.uk/~... [st-and.ac.uk]
So does Denmark... (Score:3)
But getting longer warmer summers and less ice and snow in the winter makes up for it! :)
Canada is the second worst polluter per capita (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweden too (Score:3)
Temperatures in Sweden, on roughly the same latitudes as Canada, have also been reported as rising twice as much as the global mean.
The press release [www.smhi.se] (Swedish) from the Swedish meteorological institute was posted last Friday, and in the newspaper this mornin.
That temperatures would be rising faster near the poles than the global mean, is right in line with expectations. So nobody around here who is the least bit in the know about climate change is surprised one bit.
Amazing. (Score:2)
To our neighbors to the north... (Score:2)
Canada is, on average, experiencing warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, with Northern Canada heating up at almost three times the global average, according to a new government report.
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
You're an idiot WindBourne That's not how it works (Score:2)
firstly [skepticalscience.com]
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time [theguardian.com]
This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.
So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.
This is a much more appropriate timescale [ourworldindata.org]
If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.
If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.
So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.
The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.
Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. [ourworldindata.org] You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the
Vancouver Sewage (Score:2)
https://www.thestar.com/vancou... [thestar.com]
Report Timing (Score:2)
The report was timed to come out the same day our carbon tax came into effect. It's designed to freak Canadians out so that they will fully accept the carbon tax.
Re: (Score:2)
wait, you actually expect pollution to be unlimited and free?
Re: (Score:2)
where is all that CO2 over Canada coming from (Score:2)
No doubt, we will see Chinese trolls here shortly blaming New York and Chicago for this.
Re: (Score:2)
firstly [skepticalscience.com]
Individual carbon dioxide molecules have a short life time of around 5 years in the atmosphere. However, when they leave the atmosphere, they're simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.
You're a bit thick so again, CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time [theguardian.com]
This means that once in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can continue to affect climate for thousands of years.
So it isn't just last years CO2 emissions that are warming Canada.
This is a much more appropriate timescale [ourworldindata.org]
If we extend our timeline back to 1750 and total up how much CO2 each country has emitted to date, we calculate each nation’s ‘cumulative emissions’.
If we fast-forward to the accumulated totals we see today, the US and Europe dominate in terms of cumulative emissions. China’s rapid growth in emissions over the last few decades now makes it the world’s second largest cumulative emitter, although it still comes in at less than 50% of the US total.
So in fact America is responsible for over twice as much CO2 as China.
But wait it gets better.
The key drawback of measuring the total national emissions is that it takes no account of the nation's population size. China is currently the world’s largest emitter, but since it also has the largest population, all being equal we would expect this to be the case. To make a fair comparison of contributions, we have to therefore compare emissions in terms of CO2 emitted per person.
Let's just say, per person American's have been, and still are extremely bad.
Let's look here starting in 1950 to match the timescale in the summary and report. [ourworldindata.org] You can slide it yourself to see that the US is bright red on the
Re: Is it bad (Score:1)
Nice try Canada, but we're not falling for that one again! There are more Canadians hiding from polar votexes in Florida than there are Floridians. It's the only reason Florida has not just one, but TWO hockey teams for Pete's sake!
https://youtu.be/5CsGexs8ar0
Re:Is it bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, the biggest risk Canadians face from global warming is probably Americans deciding we need to expand our borders as our own territory goes to hell.
A word of advice - take a good hard look at our track record of treaty violations and genocide with nations who offered to share before making any decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
we mostly do okay amongst ourselves, but can you name a single treaty with the original owners of this continent that we honored? They shared their land, helped us survive, probably even made a decisive difference in our fight for independence. And then as soon as it was convenient, we tore up the treaties and did our best to exterminate them. When they fought us to a standstill we made new treaties - and then violated those as soon as we had the advantage again.
You really, really don't want to own anyth
Re: (Score:2)
No one on either side can TRUTHFULLY prove their point!
Climate change is science. Proof is for mathematicians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you missed the point. Instead of labeling someone and dividing people, lets try and have a conversation.
Claiming all studies (on both sides) are fake, discredited, and falsified, doesn't really sound like an attempt to unite.
Of course if a study doesn't prove the funder's narrative,
Who's funding NASA now, and what's their narrative ?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't trying to unite anyone. I'm not stating one side or the other. When a person labels someone, it usually dividing. That was my point. Also, I don't see any connection with "claiming all studies" (your words not mine) can be faked and falsified has anything to do with dividing people. So it happens? Both sides do it. Statistics lie. Etc... In fact, I don't blame some of them. Tough choice to make.
NASA? Your kidding!! The huge dump of money into a black hole? Massive government contracts
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Nazis, AKA the National Socialists, and the fascists were against the International Socialists, AKA the Communists. Their platforms in terms of demands had about 90% overlap. They mostly differed in terms of who should be in charge, them or the other guys, not in what they promised to do once they were in charge.
It was more like an argument between Southern Baptists and the Baptists General Convention over whether to marry homosexuals or not. Beyond that one issue, they're basically the same, with very