It defies my understanding how a whole article in the Feb. 16 St. Albert Gazette (“Look south for city’s climate future”) can be full of conjectures and penned without asking a simple question: Is it based on facts or statistics? Turns out: Best guesses.
What is climate analog mapping, exactly? Taking a bunch of numbers, applying a fancy computer program and voila: a new study. Statistical manipulation of numbers is not science. But let me have a look at what this so-called study actually says.
The object of the study is to “improve public engagement” in climate change. In other words: advertising and promotion. Footnote No. 11 says the numbers are for North American urban areas. However, the urban heat island effect has not been used in the calculations. (Why Not?,)( study notes)
What is the highest temperature ever recorded in Edmonton? 37.2 C. Lowest ever? -46.1 C. According to my phone calculator, that makes a total temperature swing of 83.3 degrees. I am definitely not an engineer, but I figure the St. Albert infrastructure can handle most temperature swings. And I do not have to be an engineer to know that yes, weather is unpredictable. And what is wrong with warmer weather? Wouldn’t it be fun to have -25 C instead of -30 C?
Are people in Houston or Miami complaining because they live there instead of St. Albert? Perhaps Mr. Ma can tell us how we will heat our homes, clean the streets of snow, truck groceries to his favourite store without fossil fuels?
Finally, this study together with the footnotes and the bibliography used, have some interesting qualifications.
I like to read the papers mentioned in the bibliography of the study, one by one, to see if there are any oddities. As an example, this study uses the weather numbers of 1960–90. The inquiry of footnote (24) uses the years 1950-2000.
Why the difference? Well, for those of us old enough to remember, the years 1950 to 1960 were pretty cold. And the warming that occurred between 1970 and 1980 mostly stopped around 1991. Which means, if you are mathematically inclined, the general temperature trends of 1950-2000 are less dramatic than the temperature trend of 1960-90. And since the purpose of this study is to try to scare you with numbers, intimidating figures work better.
Quoting from various papers referenced in this study:
1) The RCPs (Representative Concentration Pathways; computer guess) should not be interpreted as forecasts or absolute bounds, or be seen as policy prescriptive. The RCPs describe a set of possible developments in emissions and land use;
2) There are uncertainties in the translation of emissions profiles to concentrations and radiative forcing. In other words, there are so many unknown variables, adjustments, changes and homogenizations that no one can really make use of it.
Hopefully, nuff said.
One positive note: the author included the computer codes so that one can check the actual program.
Joe Prins, St. Albert
