Some very important points need to be considered in the “Heat Wave" article on page 5 of the Aug. 31 Gazette. Look at the study and at least get an idea as to the limitations of this research. The results of this go from 2006 to 2095. Do we need to wait till 2095 to find out this study is bogus? Nope! Remember ... we only have till 2030. After that, all goes to the loo.
In the hope of getting some answers I went to the website: climateatlas.ca. On the home screen is a very misleading statement: Earth is now warmer than it had been for over 10,000 years. First, the whole concept of one temperature for the planet Earth is conceptually nonsense. Second, about 13,000 years ago, a sudden massive global cooling occurred. No one yet knows why. So grabbing the low point of the last 14,000 years is not exactly totally honest and complete disclosure type of science.
From the same website, under Data sources and Methods, it cites the maps, charts and tables are from the pacificclimate.org website in Victoria, B.C. Guess what? The educators at Winnipeg University used the data from that website to make their own. But with a twist.
What they did: Take averages of all temperature data from the B.C. website, increase the grid size from 10x10 x1 km high to about 25x40x1 and 100x160x1 km3. Use average rainfall, use averages for practically everything. And if they do not have the data? Well, the computer can guesstimate as to what it should be. Any engineer can tell you that adding global error to regional error and then calculate it out to the future ... Error upon error upon error calculates the result to garbage out. No self respecting engineer would agree to sign off on a project where the variables used contain errors that are continuously compounded over and over again.
Why is the most extreme and thus most unlikely model RCP8.5 used instead of the current correct model RCP2.6? Why did they start the scenarios in 2006? Why not start in 1900 and see how well the simulations work?
Interestingly, the groups doing these studies show no financial data except for some pie charts. No income and expense statement. If these organizations in Winnipeg and Victoria B.C. are non-profit organizations, are they not required to disclose their funding? Does Alberta send money to Winnipeg and B.C.? Do Al Gore and George Soros chip in? Or is it the taxpayer, again?
How much has the City of St. Albert spent in the last decade on various climate type studies, charging stations or electric buses and by how much have all these funds changed the climate so far? In other words, are we getting value for money spent?
Or should we use these funds to help the economically disadvantaged in this city?
Joe Prins, St. Albert
