Climate Change Discussion

Talk Science, Stats, Climate, Meteorology, or even Geology!
Post Reply
User avatar
Typeing3
Weather Psycho
Weather Psycho
Posts: 12090
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: Coquitlam
Elevation: 25M./80Ft.
Has thanked: 20133 times
Been thanked: 22587 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Typeing3 »

Glacier wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:59 am How are they deriving 119 years worth of data when no station in the Vancouver area has been around that long? The general trend is true, but the magnitude is way off. I mean, if they are comparing YVR to an further inland station prior to YVR, then the data would be skewed.

In 82 years the snowfall has decreased by 21.8 cm (0.266 cm/ year) according the YVR graph. Your graph shows a rate of almost double this amount!

BTW, the amount of snowfall at YVR has been increasing at a rate of 0.26 cm/year since 1997, mind you, that's only 23 years, so only 6.1 cm more snowfall at YVR today than 23 years ago, which doesn't make up for massive drop in the 1970s.

yvrsnow.png
The general trend is still pretty obvious though. Snowfall has decreased by a significant amount in the period of record.

You could do another one with # of days with a temp below -10C at YVR and you'll probably see another significant decrease per year.

How about Agassiz? Data goes back to 1889( no station change unlike Vancouver).

Ps...I don't think your graph is correct. YVR got around 30cm in 2016 but the graph shows close to 0cm. On the flip side, the graph shows around 80cm in 2017 when the true amount was around 40cm.
:typing: :type3:
East Coquitlam
Elevation 25M (80Ft)
#MrJanuary :geek: 8-)
User avatar
Weather101
Weather Enthusiast
Weather Enthusiast
Posts: 4907
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2019 7:27 am
Location: Richmond
Elevation: 3 Ft
Has thanked: 4620 times
Been thanked: 6807 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Weather101 »

Ovonucks wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 10:54 am Too many facts in there. No way anything is true. :roll:
Why have facts when we can just make up our own stuff ? :roll:
All about them Cowboys !!! 🤠 🤠👌
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Glacier »

Typeing3 wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:26 pm
Ps...I don't think your graph is correct. YVR got around 30cm in 2016 but the graph shows close to 0cm. On the flip side, the graph shows around 80cm in 2017 when the true amount was around 40cm.
It could be that they were going Jan to Dec. I was defining a year as August to July.

I will check into Agassiz tomorrow
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Glacier »

Typeing3 wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2020 2:26 pm The general trend is still pretty obvious though. Snowfall has decreased by a significant amount in the period of record.

You could do another one with # of days with a temp below -10C at YVR and you'll probably see another significant decrease per year.

How about Agassiz? Data goes back to 1889( no station change unlike Vancouver).
The really frustrating thing is that the data quality has really sh** the bed starting in the 1990s, so many long term stations have too many missing datapoints to accurately graph showfall. For agassiz, the data quality went downhill starting in around 2010, so I can only graph to about that point.

The interesting thing about the decline in snowfall is that it was declining before climate change kicked in. It's hard to tell just by looking at the graph how much is human caused and how much is natural.

P.S. I know the graph says to 2020, but I had to delete the past 10 years off the chart because it was missing a lot of the snowfall amounts. I didn't notice this at first.
snowfallAgassiz.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Typeing3
Weather Psycho
Weather Psycho
Posts: 12090
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:02 pm
Location: Coquitlam
Elevation: 25M./80Ft.
Has thanked: 20133 times
Been thanked: 22587 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Typeing3 »

Glacier wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:54 am The really frustrating thing is that the data quality has really sh** the bed starting in the 1990s, so many long term stations have too many missing datapoints to accurately graph showfall. For agassiz, the data quality went downhill starting in around 2010, so I can only graph to about that point.

The interesting thing about the decline in snowfall is that it was declining before climate change kicked in. It's hard to tell just by looking at the graph how much is human caused and how much is natural.

P.S. I know the graph says to 2020, but I had to delete the past 10 years off the chart because it was missing a lot of the snowfall amounts. I didn't notice this at first.

snowfallAgassiz.png
Thanks!

And agreed re. the station data quality. It's too bad a station going back so far has so much missing data these days. I remember checking the data for Dec 2016 and more than half the days were missing if I remember correctly.

FWIW I believe the other (newer) Agassiz station is a lot better through.
:typing: :type3:
East Coquitlam
Elevation 25M (80Ft)
#MrJanuary :geek: 8-)
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Glacier »

Typeing3 wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:18 pm FWIW I believe the other (newer) Agassiz station is a lot better through.
Better on temperature, but terrible with precipitation. Plus, no snowfall data.

BTW, Same problem at Fort St. James, the longest running station the interior. The station started in the 1890s, with good data, but then suddenly they stopped recording precipitation and temperature on the weekends, so it's now totally useless. At least the automated station works more often.
User avatar
Radar
Weather Nut
Weather Nut
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:23 pm
Location: West Abbotsford
Elevation: 290ft
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 1476 times

Re: Winter 2020-2021

Post by Radar »

West Abby. Elev. 290ft
PWS: https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/IABBOT57/
23/24 snow total: 48 cm
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Winter 2020-2021

Post by Glacier »

Interesting. The obvious answer is that YVR is sitting right on the water so is moderated by the ocean a lot more. From 1945 to 2011, YVR warmed 1.1C and YXX warmed 1.8C.

yxxyvr.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
PortKells
Storm Chaser
Storm Chaser
Posts: 6384
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:08 pm
Location: Port Kells
Elevation: 78m
Has thanked: 554 times
Been thanked: 11019 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by PortKells »

Glacier wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2020 9:54 am The really frustrating thing is that the data quality has really sh** the bed starting in the 1990s, so many long term stations have too many missing datapoints to accurately graph showfall. For agassiz, the data quality went downhill starting in around 2010, so I can only graph to about that point.

The interesting thing about the decline in snowfall is that it was declining before climate change kicked in. It's hard to tell just by looking at the graph how much is human caused and how much is natural.

P.S. I know the graph says to 2020, but I had to delete the past 10 years off the chart because it was missing a lot of the snowfall amounts. I didn't notice this at first.

snowfallAgassiz.png
Thats weird the ipcc says that considering that ghg levels started upward at the dawn of the industrial revolution, so therefore the 1800s. Ive seen climate change linked to warming a lot earlier, even dating back to the dustbowl years and further. Makes sense considering how much coal was burned, forests slashed and things like ww1.

The cooling period of the 60s has been linked to a temporary aerosol cooling effect on caused by rapid economic expansion, but thats very difficult to prove.
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Glacier »

PortKells wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 4:27 pm Thats weird the ipcc says that considering that ghg levels started upward at the dawn of the industrial revolution, so therefore the 1800s. Ive seen climate change linked to warming a lot earlier, even dating back to the dustbowl years and further. Makes sense considering how much coal was burned, forests slashed and things like ww1.

The cooling period of the 60s has been linked to a temporary aerosol cooling effect on caused by rapid economic expansion, but thats very difficult to prove.
The IPCC says that the amount human emission weren't enough to make a measurable difference in temperature until 1950. The previous warming was recovery from the Little Ice Age. That's why we can look at the rate of warming, and see that warming from 1880 to 2050 and compare it to 1950 to 2020 and see that the warming was slower before 1950. The conclusion being that the increase in the warming rate is from GHG emissions.
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Glacier »

From here: https://climateknowledgeportal.worldban ... historical

Monthly averages:
canadamonthavg.png
Top hottest years on record:
1) 2010 = -2.64C
2) 2006 = -2.98C
3) 1998 = -3.00C
4) 1981 = -3.18C
5) 2016 =-3.35C

Top coldest years on record:
1) 1972 =-6.98C
2) 1917 =-6.52C
3) 1933 =-6.37C
4) 1950 =-6.30C
5) 1982 =-6.14C
canadatempature.png


Wettest years:
1) 2005 = 561.62 mm
2) 1999 = 556.39 mm
3) 1996 = 550.93 mm
4) 1980 = 550.17 mm
5) 2008 = 549.54 mm

Driest years:
1) 1928 = 475.11 mm
2) 1922 = 477.44 mm
3) 1929 = 480.35 mm
4) 1943 = 483.19 mm
5) 1924 =490.17 mm

Notice how 4 of the 5 driest years on record in Canada occurred in the 1920s.
Canadaprecip.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
moonshadow0825
Weather Nut
Weather Nut
Posts: 514
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2019 5:51 pm
Location: Ladner
Has thanked: 3670 times
Been thanked: 1145 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by moonshadow0825 »

I wondered what happened to David Jones, I recall him from years ago on global.
Interesting that he is not spouting the party line for climate change causing the heat dome but taking a longer term view of the event.

I d/l the paper he referenced, should be an interesting read (assuming I understand it :? :lol: )
:wsnow: :13snow:

Ladner, elevation 4m
User avatar
Glacier
Model Rider
Model Rider
Posts: 1631
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:21 pm
Location: Vernon
Elevation: 545m/1788 ft
Has thanked: 400 times
Been thanked: 3654 times

Re: Climate Change Discussion

Post by Glacier »

I feel like David Jones is in some sort of feud with Johanna Wagstaffe. Or is at least taking swipes at her without naming her directly.

But he is right in the sense that a one-time event is not a trend. Almost all warming has taken taken place at night.
Post Reply