Maple belt moving North?

[BryanEx]

While I was working on my Sugarbush directory web site I ran across this map. It may have been around a while but it's the first time I had seen it. I gather the projection of sugar maples moving North are based on global warming? If it's correct it does not look good for Southern producers' kids and grandkids should they want to continue sugaring and I can't say as I associate maple syrup with Saskatchewan, Canada.

http://www.stonebriarfarm.com/hostedimages/maplesyrupmap.jpg

[peckfarm]

Coldest winter in the UK since 1659. Global warming is a political movement not one with any scientific consensus. Southern producers keep on keepin on.

[red maples]

yes I did here of this a few years ago. I believe there is global warming. but it has been goin on since the last ice age. Do we contribute? sure. but the earth goes through cycles and I am sure we'll all die off from some natural catastophy eventually leading to a new race...wonder if they will make maple syrup:rolleyes:

[BryanEx]

I'm not looking to argue global warming as much as I was wondering if warming is the basis of this map's projection or is it some other on going change taking place? I ran across it in an image search rather than information search so I don't know the context it was used in.

[red maples]

I know I was just joking around. I think it was used in the global warming article thats where I first saw that map.

[Maplepro]

I don't think you have to worry about the maple belt moving any farther north than it already is if and when all the snow melts up north it gonna be hard to grow trees on rocks but the map is neat none the less.

[SeanD]

A couple of things to keep in mind about global warming include its name. A more accurate name is climate change. It's not just about warmer temps for everybody, but changes to long-term weather patterns that differ from region to region. Some areas are seeing much wetter growing seasons while others are experiencing droughts, and yes average global temperatures are on the rise, but that's an average. Some regions are experiencing more dramatic temperature changes than others.

There actually is large agreement in the scientific community on skyrocketing CO2 levels and even temperature. However, the debate widens when they look for the causes. That said, there is darn near as close to consensus as you can get that the leading source of CO2 is human activity.

Rather than paint it as a whose side are you on discussion, we should focus on being good about our observations and record keeping. Farmers and outdoorsmen pay attention to details that most people miss. Most people think back and say it was cold last winter, but as maple producers (at least down here in the low lands) we can say that there were only two nights that dropped below freezing last March and neither was a hard frost.

By itself, it's a cruddy season and it might mean nothing. The year before that was cruddy too, but the one before that was a bumper crop. Each by itself doesn't say much, but after 15 or 20 years maybe we'll see a pattern in the frost dates that we need to adjust to.

Sean

[Ausable]

Coldest winter in the UK since 1659. Global warming is a political movement not one with any scientific consensus. Southern producers keep on keepin on.

Yep and Global Warming is a Religion with others that they accept with faith. Then there are the Global Warming Scammers who use it as a means to take our money and make it theirs and not go to jail in the process. Yep and soon the scammers will have us buying carbon credits from them cause our sap boiling is evil and contributes to ===Global Warming. At the moment - in my little part of Michigan - I'm looking out the window at a snow storm and I know this is all part of --You guessed it --- Global Warming -- Ahhh - soon we be tapping trees and boiling sap again--- Merry Christmas everyone...

[BryanEx]

Yep and Global Warming is a Religion with others that they accept with faith. Then there are the Global Warming Scammers who use it as a means to take our money and make it theirs and not go to jail in the process. Yep and soon the scammers will have us buying carbon credits from them cause our sap boiling is evil and contributes to ===Global Warming. At the moment - in my little part of Michigan - I'm looking out the window at a snow storm and I know this is all part of --You guessed it --- Global Warming -- Ahhh - soon we be tapping trees and boiling sap again--- Merry Christmas everyone...

Hey Ausable... get back to me once you form an opinion will ya? :lol:

[Ausable]

Ok Bryan --- Mike

[stoweski]

A more accurate name is climate change.

Sean


x2!

It's funny, in the past 6-8 years since I've lived in this area the number of wind warnings put out by the NWS has increased dramatically. It seems as though whenever there is a front coming through it no longer is 'just a front' but a 'high wind warning' front. Aaah, like today's front!

I just hope that climate change didn't lead to me having only five nights below freezing from February 22nd - March 22nd last year! Let's hope I get a few more this year!

[Goggleeye]

We'll run out of fossil fuels by 2070 anyway, and the pendulum will swing the other way. Then we can all sugar together in our Florida retirement community:lol:

While several of you have talked about the last couple seasons being warm, we've had several rather cold winters in a row. We've had regular hard frosts all the way through the beginning of March, and I'm in SE MO.

And I'll tell you I tell my kids at school when they ask if I think global warming is really happening. I say yeah, happens every day when the sun comes up. :mrgreen: Seems to me there is a lot of changing of the predicted effects of "climate change" to fit the observed climate trends. Not saying it is happening, not saying it's not, either way, it sure has been used as an excuse to tax and control us more. If they were really concerned about it, they would shut down carbon emissions, not just say it's OK as long as we pay.

[BryanEx]

Then we can all sugar together in our Florida retirement community:lol:
Never been to Florida. What do they shovel off their driveway in January... sand? :confused: I did have one season a couple years ago boiling in shorts and a t-shirt but it didn't seem right... enjoyable, but not right.

[Revi]

Great website on Stonebriar Farm! I think what we need to do is to treat maple syruping as ecotourism. People need to get out there and get their feet muddy and snowy, smell the boiling sap and really experience the sugarbush.

I believe in climate change, but don't see much we can do about it. We use half the fossil fuels we used about 10 years ago. I think we can do something about that. Peak Oil is the thing that will get people thinking differently. We'll all have to adjust our lifestyles and figure out a way to use less of what is really an amazingly precious commodity. We all know how much work and energy goes into making maple syrup. The price of oil should be at least as high as that of cooking oil. At $10 a gallon people would learn to conserve the stuff!

The maple belt has already moved. The producers in Northern Maine were a little too far north to produce much back in the 50's. Now they are in the sweet spot. Ohio used to be one of the biggest producers of maple syrup. New York is still pretty big, but I think it's dropped to third behind Maine and Vermont most years. I think we have already seen a change. Last year was pretty good around here, but people south of us got buried in snow and then had it warm up quickly. That's not good for sugaring.

We need those long slow springs that keep the temps between 40 and 20 for as long as possible. It might not happen with enough regularity for sugaring in a lot of places.

[BryanEx]

By looking at that map, I guess I better tell my former boilin' buddy to quit ordering syrup from me and tap his own trees in Alabama!! I never realized they grew that far south.
Your second sentence is the key... sugar maples growing and producing sap are two different issues. The map I posted is based on where sugar maples grow but temperatures may not be cold enough to get sap running enough for syrup production.


Great website on Stonebriar Farm! I think what we need to do is to treat maple syruping as ecotourism. People need to get out there and get their feet muddy and snowy, smell the boiling sap and really experience the sugarbush. .
Thanks very much Revi! As a very small producer (15 ~ 18 gallons) we're pretty happy with the business model we've developed and I have to say it's a ton of fun showing city dwellers how to make syrup.


New York is still pretty big, but I think it's dropped to third behind Maine and Vermont most years.
Yes, but isn't that more based on the number of producers rather than climate or availability of trees? I've read that New York State has more tappable trees than even Quebec, the world's largest producer by far, but there simply isn't enough NY producers to take advantage of that huge market share.

[Brokermike]

And much of those tappable trees are locked up in tree hugger territory. The Adirondack park is HUGE!, its also steep, nasty terrain. Nobody's anxious to tackle that. Especially when VT is still way under tapped and much easier hiking (at least the first day checking for leaks, as the days wear on the hills get steeper).

As for global warming. Don't care, I have a small "carbon footprint" because I can't afford to waste $ on things I don't need. Our carbon output would probably shrink by 20% if folks just learned to live within their means

[DrTimPerkins]

While I was working on my Sugarbush directory web site I ran across this map....

Just a few comments (to avoid writing a book).

1. Notice the title of this map is "Suitable climate for growth of sugar maple" It doesn't say that is the only place you can find sugar maple now, or the only place you'll find it in 2070. I know the research that this map is based on, and there are some very strong caveats in the work. First off, this distribution map depicts the worst case scenario projections. Secondly, it assumes that sugar maple trees have no barriers to migration...which is absolutely not the case. So no....this isn't where sugar maples will be in 2070. I don't think the original paper suggested that either. Given that maple trees can live 400-500 yrs, it is ridiculous to think that trees that are here now won't be here in 60 yrs. However IF the climate warms to the highest extremes that are predicted (probably not), then this map "may" reflect the areas that are most suitable for growth.

2. There is strong concensus among scientists that climate change is real. I hear time and again that there isn't. That is false. Yes, there are undoubtedly some scientists who disagree, but the vast majority of climate scientists do agree that it is happening. However, being scientists, they like to argue (debate) the nit-picky details of things. To those on the outside, this may seem like scientists don't agree, when in fact, they may agree about 99% of something, but can't help but argue about the 1% that is left (that is what we do...we debate the fine details). Most climate scientists, and most other scientists who do some work related to this field do believe climate change is real and that the actions of humans have accelerated climate change (but clearly are not the only things going on). The arguments are mainly over how fast it is happening, or will happen, and what the ultimate effects will be. Realistically, only time will tell for certain.

3. Although there will undoubtedly be some bad things, there will also be some positive effects of climate change. That is also true of the maple industry. However this doesn't sell newspapers, so you don't ever hear about it.

4. There is no question that the climate has changed in the past 50 yrs, and that it has affected the maple industry. All available records clearly show that the maple season starts earlier than it did 50 yrs ago, ends earlier as well, and is (on average) shorter in duration by about 10%. This reduction in duration has been greatly off-set by the increases in yield due to better sap collection technology and by industry growth (more taps). So there is no short-term threat that maple will go away, or move entirely into Canada.

[BryanEx]

Thanks for sharing that info Dr Perkins. Interesting - at least to me and certainly given I found a copy of that map with no references or context.

[3rdgen.maple]

Adirondack Park Broker Mike is huge but from what I understand and have seen is it is mostly pine. There was a bill in congress at one point to try to increase tap count in NY by giving some tax incentives to non-producers to allow producers to tap their trees. Not sure what happened to it. I do know that a person can currently get permission from the state to tap trees on state land. But what it does is allow that peice of woods to be opened up to all producers and not exclusive to one in particular. Had this discussion with the state forester last fall. Currently we have incentive to tap trees which would turn it into an agriculture peice of land. I just dont know how many eople take advantage and file it that way. When Im retired look out cause I will get that tap count for the state up lol.

[peckfarm]

What I find fascinating about this %99 consensus is that it is a lie. “We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” -- UN IPCC's Tom Tripp
"The amount of warming from 1881 to 1993 is 0.54° C. Nearly 70 percent of the warming of the entire time period — 0.37° C —occurred in the first half of the record — before the period of the greatest build-up of greenhouse gases." When the area of a sugar bush varies in temperature at one time in the day up to 5 degrees, how can < 1 degree C make any noticeable difference? That is <1 degree over 112 years... coming out of an ice age. To know this is a scam we can look at the history of the movement, 70's "global cooling" 80's "global warming" 90's "climate change" 2010 "Global Climate Disruption". Make up your minds wicked smart scientist guys.

[Bemis]

A quick google search leads me to Tom Tripp UN --
> Tom Tripp works for US Magnesium --> US Magnesium was until recently on the list of top 50 highest polluters nationwide. As far as I can tell, Mr. Tripp is an engineer by training. I'm more skeptical of underqualified people with vested interests making broad statements than I am of people in academia publishing peer reviewed research.

[DrTimPerkins]

Make up your minds wicked smart scientist guys.

As I said before....scientists do have a concensus opinion. Just because someone can trot out a "scientist" who disagrees on some points doesn't invalidate that fact. The very same thing happened with acid rain for over two decades. Although the majority of scientists felt it was real and causing damage, you could always find someone who would disagree. Typically these "experts" were paid by the electrical power industry, because it was cheaper to pay 100 "experts" than to agree to air pollution control technology. None of these "experts" ever did any research on the topic, they just did speaking tours to espouse their employers viewponts. As soon as the Clean Air Act of 1990 was passed, the power companies stopped paying the experts and they all disappeared. Twenty years later, acid rain is far less severe than it was, the problem has largely been mitigated, and our forests are healthier. As "Bemis" pointed out....it's important to find out who is paying these "experts." Often these "experts" turn out not to be "experts" in that particular field (Mr. Tripp is a metallurgical engineer, which means he is not a climatologist and not a scientist) and also turn out to have a rather vested interest in the outcome.

Global cooling was NEVER accepted by an overwhelming concensus of scientists. It was a minority opinion, and was in fact, wrong. That is how science works....the weight of evidence usually dictates the concensus. The weight of evidence did not support global cooling, and no concensus was reached. Right now the weight of evidence does point to a warming climate, and a (strong) majority concensus is evident (the paid "experts" notwithstanding).

Yes....there was an ice age in the northern hemisphere....12,000-15,000 yrs ago. And yes, in general the climate has been warming ever since. However it is the RATE of warming and the particulary rapidity that it is warming in the last 50 yrs, and the association of that warming with human-causes that is the issue. Nobody argues that ALL warming is induced by humans, but the majority of climate scientists do agree that a major component of recent warming has human causes. Nobody argues that every spot on the earth will warm evenly, or that every spot will warm at all, but the overall global temperature and some regional areas will definitely warm significantly.

You are confusing temperature with climate in your sugarbush analogy. Here is an example why your point is invalid. You have your car.....it gets 25 mpg on average when you drive it for a tank or two of gas. Next week you're driving down a long hill and look down and see that you're getting 75 mpg (you've got a dashboard info center that tells you this). So you conclude that the gas you just bought is way better than all the gas you ever bought before. That would be an incorrect conclusion to this observation. However, a long-term change in average temperature, even a very small change, can be quite significant. If you got 25 mpg in your car for a year, and then noticed you were getting 24 mpg the next year, and then started getting 23 mpg the year after that, you'd probably wonder what was going on. All along during that time you might be getting some brief periods where you were getting 75 mpg (downhill), and some periods when you were getting 4 mpg (uphill, heavy load). That doesn't invalidate that the long-term trend is towards a reduction in your gas mileage (maybe you didn't change your air filter for the past 5 yrs and it is getting progressively more plugged). Short-term point observations of long-term phenomenon just aren't useful or valid in this type of argument.

So, in effect, when people try to use a single cold month or new low temperature record to invalidate global climate change, you're comparing apples to oranges, and occasionally tossing in a coconut or a banana. Not a single valid comparison in the bunch. Scientists don't do that, but the general public, the radio, TV, newspapers, and the political talk-show pundits quite often do. Regardless of where/how you get your information, it's a good idea to know where it is coming from and how it was filtered before you got it.

Unfortunately this topic has been so politicized that there aren't any clear messages emerging from the sides. In that case, about the only thing you can do is to go to the original sources of information, the research papers, to fully understand what is being said. However I do understand that getting to the primary literature isn't the easiest thing for most people in the world to do (I have a hard enough time reading and understanding these papers sometimes myself). So the alternative for busy people is to get the stories from the newspapers, which have limited time/space and a primary interest in selling papers, so the stories are usually incomplete and like to tell the bad side, or to get the scoop from the TV/radio pundits, who mainly are selling their own books or advertising for their shows, so the message is typically extremely one-sided and exaggerated. Basically it's the Jerry Springer of the climate change world. They're providing (selling) excitement, not good information.

Now to be perfectly clear, I am not a climatologist either. I have no vested financial interest in this topic...I don't apply for or receive funding to study this. However I do read a lot of the research papers on climate, particularly as related to how predicted change will affect northern forests. I am reasonably convinced by the preponderance of evidence that the climate is warming, and that it is likely to continue to warm. Does that mean I won't change my mind if more information becomes available...no. Is the climate likely to change at the highest projected rates....probably not. Is climate change all bad....not at all. Is it all good....nope. Like most scientists, i don't think the (climate) sky is falling. Some people/processes/things will undoubtedly benefit, some will not. That's just what happens when things change.

[DaveB]

It's funny, in the past 6-8 years since I've lived in this area the number of wind warnings put out by the NWS has increased dramatically. It seems as though whenever there is a front coming through it no longer is 'just a front' but a 'high wind warning' front. Aaah, like today's front!

As a meteorologist (though I don't work in the field) I had to comment. The reason you did not see High Wind Warnings years ago is because they did not exist. There are a number of new "advisory" and "warnings" that have been added or removed over the years. You can see a current list here. (http://www.erh.noaa.gov/box/warningcriteria.shtml)

One example that is not used any more is a "Travellers Advisory". They used to issue those, but don't anymore.

I know that they are still making maple syrup in Virginia, so when they can't make it there, I'll be worried about it moving up the coast. I did have one producer about 5 miles north of me tell me that I was "on the border". I thought he was talking about being on the state border but he meant that he thought maple syrup could not be made much further south than me. :o Well, there are guys on the coast of CT and down by NYC so I know I'm good. :D

Dave

[Goggleeye]

Some very valid points Dr. Perkins. Will all due respect, though, I think we shouldn't necessarily assume that the base research we return to is lacking bias. While your work in maple seems very objective and unbiased, I don't think we can pass assumptions of that level of objectivity throughout the scientific community, especially in these more sensitive and controversial areas. It's very easy to subtly alter research techniques to favor one outcome or another. Special interests lie (pun intended) on both sides of the fence. And there are plenty of examples of ideas and theories that have promoted by peer-reviewed scientific papers that have since been abandoned in light of more valid empirical evidence (or changes in the source of endowments). Everyone has bias - even the most conscientious and objective of scientists.

Not standing up for Mr. Tripp, or his evidence, as he certainly seems to have a vested interest, but I don't think we should be quite so quick to dismiss information just because it doesn't come from an "expert" in the field. Example, if I were to keep immaculate records of my sugaring for the next 20 years and publish a paper on the topic, it should not be discounted simply because I am not a hardwoods silviculturist.

Is the global climate changing? I think it is, but we also must remember we're only looking at a 100 year snapshot. My issue comes with those who want to tout climate change as factual justification for carrying out various agendas that I find quite disagreeable.

Mark

[Revi]

Well I guess if you can make syrup in Missouri there still are people making syrup pretty far south. I am happy to be on the side of the map that will still be maple territory in 2070.

Right now it's 50 degrees outside and we just got 3 inches of rain. Now I know that's just because the storm went to the west of us, but it is nice to have the door open on December 13th. The furnace isn't going on, so I'm saving money. I think there may be some upsides to global warming.

I just hope it gets cold some time this winter, so it can warm up again in February like it did last year!

I guess I'm okay with the whole climate change thing after all. If it means easy winters and nice warm summers for Maine, I'm fine with it.

Of course that means that the desert starts to move up into the south like it did for the past couple of summers...

[DrTimPerkins]

...I don't think we should be quite so quick to dismiss information just because it doesn't come from an "expert" in the field.

Well...I wrote a lengthy discourse on this, but it keeps generating an "internal server error." Probably too long...or a protective function to keep all of you from having to read it. So....the gist of that response can be summed up very briefly......you don't call your plumber when you need a colonoscopy. :)

[Cardigan99]

Just one question:

Will there ever be another ice age?

Or have they become obsolete?

[DrTimPerkins]

Will there ever be another ice age? Could be. You'd have to ask a climatologist and maybe wait 15,000-100,000 years.

Or have they become obsolete? No, they've just gone out of fashion.

[Cardigan99]

Will there ever be another ice age? Could be. You'd have to ask a climatologist and maybe wait 15,000-100,000 years.

Or have they become obsolete? No, they've just gone out of fashion.

Most sources put the average interglacial at roughly 10k yrs.

The present interglacial is roughly that old.

The period between the interglacial and the glacial can be as few as 1k yrs.

Cause: a) Antroprogenic b) Otherwise.

:)

[DrTimPerkins]

Most sources put the average interglacial at roughly 10k yrs.

Old sources. More recent predictions are 28,000-50,000 yrs (give or take a millenia or two).

Good thing too....otherwise we're about 5,000 yrs overdue.

[3rdgen.maple]

Well...I wrote a lengthy discourse on this, but it keeps generating an "internal server error." Probably too long...or a protective function to keep all of you from having to read it. So....the gist of that response can be summed up very briefly......you don't call your plumber when you need a colonoscopy. :)

Lmao now thats funny right there. Can I call my doctor if my sink clogs?

[Goggleeye]

Well...I wrote a lengthy discourse on this, but it keeps generating an "internal server error." Probably too long...or a protective function to keep all of you from having to read it.

I had the same problem on the big govt. thread!


So....the gist of that response can be summed up very briefly......you don't call your plumber when you need a colonoscopy. :)

With the way things are going with the cost of health care, that might be an option I need to keep in mind:lol:

I was trying to make the point that before we accept something, we need to check the reliability of the source, regardless of which side of the fence it comes from.

[markcasper]

This thread has really gone off the deep end! I applaud those that submit to global warming as a fraud. It needs to be called for what it is.

It is now -25 below in west central Wisconsin after getting 20" of snow on Saturday. I never remember it being this cold this early in the season. My dad is 70 and he said "this reminds me of a few winters in the 50's". So things go in cycles, is it climate change?

No one here has mentioned the Lord God Almighty's hand in the whole thing. I will probably be hated by many: but many, not all scientists reject Jesus Christ and reject belief in him. The sun goes so far one way and so far the other...period!

Genesis 8:22, As long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.

As far as an ice age 1,000's of years ago? who knows? According to the Bible, there was a great flood that covered the earth. When all of that water left, it most likely moved mountains, and formed hills and valleys etc...deposited rocks in some areas and none in others. Because unbelievers can't believe this they think it didn't happen, so something scientific tends to get dreamed up that makes sense to mans sinful mind.

As far as peak oil.....ever heard of abiotic oil? Oil forming from rotting dinosaurs is a bit far flung to believe.

[DrTimPerkins]

I was trying to make the point that before we accept something, we need to check the reliability of the source, regardless of which side of the fence it comes from.

I completely and absolutely agree.

[Dennis H.]

Climatic changes are cyclic, the earth is a very dynamic "LIVING" thing.

As for global warming, I can beleive it but it is on a global scale not local scale. Put that along with cyclic climate changes and it is hard to make heads or tails out of what is happening.

Also remember you can beleive in GOD and also do science, Look at the Pope, he has an observatory and astronomer located right there with him.
Look Right Here (http://www.vaticanobservatory.org/)

[Ausable]

This site is great - Have read the replys and they really do a great job on both sides of this topic and show what a cross section of people from Canada and the USA make maple syrup. We have Maple Syrup in common and that -- ha -- binds us together. So I toss this little nugget out on the floor of discussion. No new Nukes or No new Coal Fired Electric Generating Plants. OK - so what remains is Hydro Electric, Natural Gas and Oil fired Peaking Plants and Wind Generators and some Water Pumped Storage Units. Question is this - What will take the place of and meet peak demands as the aging fleet of Nuclear and Coal Fired Plants shut down with No new ones being constructed? The Press is sold on - Choke -Wind Power as the fix all for all our Electric needs --- I fear --(hope I'm wrong) that massive blackouts will occur in both countries. What is your Opinion?

[DrTimPerkins]

... the earth is a very dynamic "LIVING" thing.

The diameter of the earth is roughly 7,900 miles. The biosphere, the part of the earth/ocean/atmosphere where life exists (and functions), is only about 12.5 miles thick. The vast majority of living organisms are restricted to less than half that thickness. Pretty amazing. In some ways it is extremely fragile, in other ways, quite resilient.

[Goggleeye]

Mark C – I’m glad you had the courage to throw the Bible into the discussion, here, especially considering that it does contain many scientific and historical references, not to mention prophetical references, none of which have ever been disproved!

As you said, many ideas have developed over the ages to sooth the mind of sinful man, and many attempts have been made, in the name of science, to do away with the God of the Bible so people would not have to deal with their conscience. A closer look at the scientists (Lyell, Hutton, Darwin, etc.) that developed ideas such as a billion+ year old earth, evolution, and the like, reveals that many had a bone to pick with Christianity and/or the Church. And just like many people today, some tried to explain away/run from/get mad at God due to some tragic event in their lives. All were excuses avoiding the God issue.

Scientists throughout the 1900’s and still today will only look at how existing data fits their pre-established notion of 4 billion year-old earth, and molecules-to-man evolution. A closer look at much of the empirical data provides tremendous support for a Biblical aged (6000 yr old earth). Many evolutionists grimace when asked just how the first proteins were assembled by chance? Or about the total absence of transitional fossils, or about non-decayed tissue inside the femur of various dinosaur fossils, and on and on. Find out more at Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), a very scientifically credible organization. I’ve done a lot of reading of PhD scientists, many of whom were evolutionists turned creationist once they really dealt with the evidence at hand, and where that evidence pointed.

Many in the scientific community will immediately turn up there nose as soon as creation is mentioned, and they refuse to deal the very credible information brought to the table by scientists coming from the creation view point. Some even say “you can’t mix science and religion.” Why not? Afraid the data might validate the religion? Or is it a pride issue? They like to set up straw men, poke fun, and dance around the topics, though. And I would beg the argument that TRUE Christianity is not religion.

Now, to tie this back to the original topic. I don’t put a whole lot of weight into extrapolating data back to a time where we don’t have accurate records. Depending on the viewpoint, we can coax the ice sheets into telling us what we want to hear. Yes, some recent data may show slight warming, but with our lack of long-term data, it’s hard to tell if it’s cyclical or long term. So, I don’t think climate change it’s something to get too worked up about, and it’s definitely something we shouldn’t let a national or global governance use as an excuse to rob us of freedom and finances.
And I really like the Genesis reference – it lets me know that I’ll probably be able to make syrup till the end!:)

[Revi]

I'm betting on the glacier. It may get started soon. If we keep turning up the thermostat eventually the landlord may just turn the heat off.

The north atlantic oscillation may be the thing that trips it. That's cold water coming off of a melting Greenland and cutting off the gulf stream. That plunges Europe into the deep freeze.

I'd say we are due for a glacial period. Global warming may hold it off for a bit, but we're due according to this chart:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

[Revi]

Here's a chart of peak oil. Whatever oil is formed from it looks like we hit the peak in 2005. By the way I am a religious person who happens to believe in scientific rationality as well. There are plenty of intangibles in maple sugaring for example. I can believe in science and pray to God as well. It seems to me that God is still the creator of heaven and earth, even if it's explained by science. There are lots of times where a little faith goes a long way.

We're going to need more than a little faith to get through the next 10 years if this guy is right. He predicts that oil will start to drop off sharply worldwide around 2013.

http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Global-Average-Annual-Crude-Oil-Production-in-kbpd-2001-2015-PROJECTED.jpg

[PATheron]

I thought nostradomous (not sure if that is right) says its all over in 2012. Plus the Aztec calander stops then too. Hows that all tie in? Should I quit putting more taps out? Theron

[allgreenmaple]

I thought nostradomous (not sure if that is right) says its all over in 2012. Plus the Aztec calander stops then too. Hows that all tie in? Should I quit putting more taps out? Theron....Nah, I'd keep putting out more taps. I just locked in another bush with 500-600 more, & am looking at one where 1/2 of it has 3-4 thousand. Only one being knows when time ends, & none of us has seen him yet.

[Cardigan99]

[QUOTE=Revi;121761]I'm betting on the glacier. It may get started soon. If we keep turning up the thermostat eventually the landlord may just turn the heat off.

The north atlantic oscillation may be the thing that trips it. That's cold water coming off of a melting Greenland and cutting off the gulf stream. That plunges Europe into the deep freeze.

I'd say we are due for a glacial period. Global warming may hold it off for a bit, but we're due according to this chart:




I'm with you Revi.. Take a look at a graph of the Vostok ice core and it appears we're on the edge of the next ice age.

[markcasper]

Matthew 24:36 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

There is one thing wrong with the peak oil chart, the data used in the chart came out of Washington.

I harvested wheat a number of years ago out in the western Dakotas. At the time, I witnessed hundreds and hundreds of oil pump jacks with only a smattering that were working. The farmers that owned the land told me the reason most were not working is because there was no money to be made. As well, I was also told that there were so many regulations being implemented, that many drillers just left the area. It was not because of peak oil!

It has been stated on record that the globalists will drive crude up to $150-$200 a barrel in the next 6-8 months. Alot of this is currently underway via QE2 (printing press) and the private federal reserve bank. Most of the price increase will be because the US dollar is going in the toilet bowl. They plan to devalue the dollar 30-50% over the same time frame. Little, if any of the price increase in crude will be because of "peak oil". http://futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/US/M

You see, as the dollar continues to be devalued, most commodities tend to rise in price because it takes more devalued dollars to buy the same unit of a particular commodity. Just the same as if you you keep pumping sap into the same tank long enough, it will eventually run over onto the ground. Denying this simple fact won't make the tank hold any more gallons of sap.

Finally, if carbon dioxide, the element that you and I exhale and the element that plants breath is going to extinct us all, I quote the following:

Isaiah 55:9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.

[Thiems sugarshack]

Speculation drives oil up and it is dirty politics

[markcasper]

While trading commodities is perfectly innocent, the same cannot be said for the Security Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. They are friends and the watchdog for the big banks and Wall Street, not the average Joe and his 401k. Or the guy that wants to trade one or two corn contracts.

[SeanD]

Mark and Goggleeye,

Right off the bat let me say that you both sound like men of deep faith and it clearly plays an important role in your lives. I have a lot of respect for that. I just don't see its relevance to your input on climate change. I don't think any of your old or new testament citations were originally meant to have any bearing on global warming or if they were, I'm just not seeing it.

You rail against science, but then use your own science picked up off the internet to support your argument. I'm not trying to knock you. I'm just saying it makes it harder for me to see your point. Stating your opinion and saying God is on your side and those who think otherwise are sinful, boxes people in and it makes it harder to share ideas on the topic. What happens when (not if) someone else thinks otherwise in the name of God?

I really and truly believe that people who study the earth and its climate and publish that data are not trying to do away with anyone's god. I'm sure some are people of faith and some are not. However, I am sure that they are all doing something they love and are sharing what they learn with others - like MapleTraders:).

Sean

[Grade "A"]

I don't know why people get so worked up over Global warming, all you have to do is send Al Gore some money for "carbon credits" and everything is all better.

[Thiems sugarshack]

Global warming or Natural earth cycle I think the 2nd one sounds about right

[PATheron]

IF the earth is millions or I think I saw on the history channell billions of years old or whatever how could we have any idea of a trend over a few hundred years. Thats not even a blip on mother natures radar I wouldnt think. What kind of a trend is 200 years over millions of them? I think Science is great and weve learned a lot about things as we progress and thats great but you hear these wild statements all the time and usually the wilder the statement the less apt that its accurate near as I can tell. Were probly warming up but who knows we may start cooling back down. 2000 I had to go sit in a substation all night becouse we thought everything computer wise was going to quit working. I heard people say it was going to be the end of the world, horrable things were going to happen nothing happened. I figure near as I can tell everything usually turns out to be about half way between the two extremes. I listen to everybody and I hear all the wild world coming to an end stuff and its usually about half right. Theres some problem that may or may not arise and if it does its dealt with and everybody moves on. Some people, and Im not knocking anyone on here, love to dwell on worst possable scenerios. Not me, Im an optimimist, every day is the best day of my life, the glass is always half full and usually when I think the best is going to happen it usually does. I think perception is everything. Im living everyday to the fullest, Ill try to be the best person I can be and do right by people and Im not going to get all bummed out about things I cant change. Everything will work out. Heck, if you believe in God your really golden, who cares about peak oil you have eternal salvation. Thats never hurts. Theron

[waysidemaple]

I find it intresting to see how this thread has evolved from the maple belt moving north to the bible and the thought that the world will end in 2012. So I figure I might as well put my two cents in.

As far as the maple belt moving north. I dont doubt that it could and over time(alot longer than 60 years) may happen if the earth stays on its so called warming trend, but I have to agree with Theron, if the earth is millions of years old...alot could happen between now and then that could change things. Refrencing the History Channel, there is supposedly a big old rock that is going to come so close to earth it will be closer than our communication satilites, depending on how our gravity affects it, it could hit us on the second time around 12 or so years later. Again, alot can happen to change that between now and then.

Next the bible and science. Making what the bible states provide suport for a point is what psychologist, I think, would call subject bias, and thats okay just be carful when you say that it proves something, even a true scientist will never use the word PROVEN, becauase it really never happens. The word the should be used is falsified. This word just basically means that an idea has the ability to be incorrect. The idea of god is not science and never will be because it is unfalsifiable, its impossible to obtain evidence that god does or does not exsits. Religion is a belief, and thats fine too. I dont think religion is a bad thing at all. I guess what im saying is that science isnt out to make people mad its just the name of the game to have an idea and then try to show that its wrong, if its hard to do that then the idea could be right...not proven, but yet to be falsified which is as close to proven as anything will ever get.

Okay Im done, thats just my two cents.

[markcasper]

Mark and Goggleeye,

Right off the bat let me say that you both sound like men of deep faith and it clearly plays an important role in your lives. I have a lot of respect for that. I just don't see its relevance to your input on climate change. I don't think any of your old or new testament citations were originally meant to have any bearing on global warming or if they were, I'm just not seeing it.

You rail against science, but then use your own science picked up off the internet to support your argument. I'm not trying to knock you. I'm just saying it makes it harder for me to see your point. Stating your opinion and saying God is on your side and those who think otherwise are sinful, boxes people in and it makes it harder to share ideas on the topic. What happens when (not if) someone else thinks otherwise in the name of God?
Sean

In the bigger scheme of it all....global warming and climate change are known to be rooted in "mother earth god." Believing in mother earth god will not save man from sin and going to hell. Only Jesus death on the cross could satisfy Gods wrath of mans sin. I felt it necessary to quote scripture to try to get people to see that if man is indeed warming the climate, then that is part of Gods plan.

In rereading my posts, I see nowhere where I have picked up science off the internet to support my argument. The things I have mentioned are facts, they are happening or have happened already. For example, when I harvested wheat out west, I witnessed farmers and landowners telling me that the rigs were not working because they did not produce a profit at the time. The regulations that were being implemented were driving business away. This is a direct blow to "peak oil" as that was not the reason the pumps were not working.
The fact that the Federal Reserve is printing money and causing dollar devaluation, and will cause oil to skyrocket in $$$$$ is not science, it is a fact!

You are trying to quote something that I never said. The fact is that ALL men and (women) are sinful. "Psalm 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." I might also add at this time that if anyone does not believe in the Triune God then sin would be no big deal to them which would make it pretty difficult to "box" the person in.

[Revi]

The Fed printing money is definitely happening. They have created around 4 trillion since 2008 and you don't hear much about it. The Fed isn't even a part of the Federal government anyway. It's a privately owned central bank. They buy bills for 3 cents a piece from the treasury regardless of denomination and then "lend" them back to us. They were then selling them to the Chinese, but now they don't want to buy so many, so we're just buying them ourselves. That's called Quantatative Easing and we're now doing a second round of it called QE2. We now owe more money to the Fed than anyone else.

It's pretty strange, and I have to agree with you that it will lead to expensive gas and everything else. Exactly when I don't know.

I think making maple syrup is the best thing to do in the circumstance. You use some land and equipment and wood and you make a product that keeps a couple of years, is very tradeable and tasty. If the economic system goes down we can still eat lots of pancakes anyway!

[Dennis H.]

Another thing to look at that is causing maple production to head north is the loss of timber land down here. In my area the housing growth is just amazing.

I kind of an glad that the market took a crap, if helped stop land from being developed.

we are slowly lossing large tracts of wooded land that is being made into small pockets of wooded lots that are serrounded by homes, not very economically feasible to get to.

BTW the earth has been here alot longer that 4 Billion years, That is just the oldest rocks that they can get since the earths crust is constantly being recycled where 2 plates meet. eg. San Andrais Fault on the west coast.
And from ice core samples from both Antartica and Greenland they have come up with a very rough idea as what the past climate was like, NOT EXACT, but close.

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

Hey guys, think about it. Every time you use a credit card or your credit line, you are "printing money". It ain't just the government or the fed or the "other guy".

[BryanEx]

I love the Internet. I had originally asked about a map that suggested southern sugar maples will die out over the next 60 years and this discussion is now 6 pages deep and has covered religion, science, trends, history, politics, economics, and even the occasional opinion. :rolleyes:

It says a whole lot about the folks on Maple Trader that all those topics can be introduced yet the discussion has not turned ugly. Awesome!

[3rdgen.maple]

Hey guys, think about it. Every time you use a credit card or your credit line, you are "printing money". It ain't just the government or the fed or the "other guy".

Not sure exacally where and when this thread took a huge turn but Thompson I couldnt agree more. We americans live way above our means. A credit card is perfect example of it. I know countless people who have at some point filed bankrupcy from over extending there credit cards. It is like teasing a kid with a peice of candy. Self control has been lost and the government knows, business owners, banks you name it they know and take advantage. But that is what they do and until we wake up and put our foot down and quite living beyond our means we are in trouble. As far as the world is coming to an end and global warming, climate change do you really believe man can control or stop it. We have done so much wrong in the past all we can do is teach our children what we did wrong to pollute this world and hope they learned something from us and dont suffer from our past mistakes. I was watching the military channel over the weekend and was truly amazed at all the pollution that has been released into the atmosphere and into our oceans. The biggest thing that stood out is a submarine in WWII carrying extreme amounts of mercury that was destroyed and as of today they are still trying to figure out how to contain the area as it still remains extremely toxic. Its time ladies, gentlemen, regardless of age, color of our skin, the language we speak, where we were born or our religous beliefs to put our foot down and take back our country and educate our children and get back to grass roots. Something that has stuck with me since I was a kid riding on the tractor and baling hay with my grandfather many years ago. He told me life isnt about how much money you make rather how many pennies you save, life isnt about how great you are its about how great the people around you are, hug your kids and wife every night before bed and tell them you love them, no matter how much you dislike someone kill them with kindness ( his way of saying treat people how you want to be treated). Now lets go make a bumper crop of syrup and share the fun with our families and friends.

[Goggleeye]

Sorry folks, but here goes!;)

Mark and Goggleeye,
Right off the bat let me say that you both sound like men of deep faith and it clearly plays an important role in your lives. I have a lot of respect for that. I just don't see its relevance to your input on climate change. I don't think any of your old or new testament citations were originally meant to have any bearing on global warming or if they were, I'm just not seeing it.
You are correct, no bearing on global warming.

Mark and Goggleeye,
You rail against science, but then use your own science picked up off the internet to support your argument. I'm not trying to knock you. I'm just saying it makes it harder for me to see your point. Stating your opinion and saying God is on your side and those who think otherwise are sinful, boxes people in and it makes it harder to share ideas on the topic. What happens when (not if) someone else thinks otherwise in the name of God?
Sean
I would ask that you be not so quick to dismiss the link I included in a previous post. Just because it’s on the internet doesn’t make it invalid or valid. Take a little closer look. Answers in Genesis is a quite reputable organization dealing with science and the Bible, and they have on staff many experts (PhD s) in the respective scientific fields that they deal with. Also, in my experiences with them, they painstakingly make the effort to promote only reliable scientific arguments, while avoiding marginal evidences promoted by some creation groups.
I wouldn’t really say that I ‘railed’ against science. It’s not about science vs. religion; it’s about 2 different interpretations of the same data. I have yet to see where good science is in opposition to the Bible, in fact, it repeatedly validates the Bible. And I do recognize there are parts of the Bible (faith, etc.) that cannot be reconciled with science.
I wasn’t attempting to use the Bible/God to back up any one view on Global warming. In fact, I have several acquaintances, who happen to be both strong Christians and PhD scientists who believe that Global warming is happening. But that is not my point. What I was trying to illustrate is that a person’s world view affects their interpretation of observable data. For an example, I’ll use the Greenland Ice Sheets. Originally, it was thought that 1 layer = 1 year (or 2 layers/year, etc., depending on regional seasonal deposition). So then, it can be assumed that if we find 40,000 layers, the ice on bottom is about 40,000 years old. Coming from an old-earth world view, we say this makes sense, and we report the data and draw conclusions as such. Coming from a Creation science perspective, we say wait, this doesn’t match the age of the earth as said in the Bible, let’s do more research and see if, in fact, 1 layer = 1 year. The only way to be 100% sure about how many layers are put down over a given amount of time would be to have an artifact of known age buried in the ice, and to measure the number of layers to that artifact. And such an example does exist, where planes in WWII crash-landed on the Greenland ice sheets, and were rediscovered in 1988 under a lot more ice than traditional science had suggested. So now, tying this in to Global warming, the science of determining the timing of various CO2 levels throughout earth’s history is highly dependent upon accurate dating of ice sheets, which is, for all practical purposes impossible without artifacts of known age, yet that is how such data is obtained, indirectly, assuming the old-age of the earth. Different results would be obtained using a young-earth presupposition. Yes, either way, there is no way to know for sure, but the young earth model seems fairly credible.

Mark and Goggleeye,
Stating your opinion and saying God is on your side and those who think otherwise are sinful, boxes people in and it makes it harder to share ideas on the topic. What happens when (not if) someone else thinks otherwise in the name of God?
I really and truly believe that people who study the earth and its climate and publish that data are not trying to do away with anyone's god. I'm sure some are people of faith and some are not. However, I am sure that they are all doing something they love and are sharing what they learn with others - like MapleTraders:).
Sean
I don’t think most scientists are out to destroy peoples’ faith. They’re just decent folks trying to make a living at something they enjoy. But I would even go so far as to say that some who are promoting ideas contrary to the Bible are doing/have done so primarily because that is their way of dealing with their own conscience. (If there is no God, I can do whatever I want with no recourse). It is my hope that people would sincerely look at the scientific validity of Bible and carefully and critically analyze the old earth/evolution belief systems. I find it very disheartening that so many people dismiss the Bible or creation science without giving it an honest evaluation. Concerning the comment about God being on my side and others are sinful – God is truth, and I seek truth. A lot of people have trouble with the exclusivity of Christianity, but there can only be 1 true God – opposing viewpoints cannot both (or all) be true. Jesus said I am the way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the father except through me. I think that logic (part of which includes scientific reasoning) can lead a person to the true God, but we can only have a true relationship with him through faith. And it is my hope that others would come to faith in Christ and secure their eternal destiny. For me to not speak up, yet having these convictions, I would have to hate my fellow man, yet because I desire to love, as Christ first loved me, I feel compelled to share. It’s not about an ego trip, or getting people on my side, it’s about a sincere desire to see a group of people whose company I enjoy (despite not meeting any of you yet) be able to spend eternity in heaven with their Maker, rather than a lake of fire. (I sure hope there are maple trees in the yard of my mansion!)

Mark

[Goggleeye]

I kind of an glad that the market took a crap, if helped stop land from being developed.
Heard that! Seems like every farm that's gone for sale around here has been divided into 10 acre lots. I just don’t like to think about what my kids will have to endure, because I think It’s far more serious that just a downturn or a recession.
[QUOTE=Dennis H.;121867]

[Ausable]

When I was a kid growing up - I remember the years beteen 1945 and say 1960 and I believe pollution was at an all time high. The river thru our town never froze over in Winter and the only fish we could catch were carp. The towns along the river - all dumped raw untreated sewage into it. Most folks were using soft coal to heat their homes. Just about everyone had a burn barrel in their yard and used them. The dumps were located in the low lands along the river and everything was dumped there with several fires going - usually smudges. The Electric Power Plants, Cement Plants, Chemical Plants etc etc seemed to make no effort to control anything - with smoke, dust, ash etc - coming from all of them. Just about everyone burned their leaves in the Fall. Wonder how anyone survived it - but - some how we did.
I guess my point is - as a Nation - we have really cleaned up our act. The river I mentioned - now freezes over again - with good solid ice and is covered with the fish shanties of people fishing walleyes and yellow perch. The dumps no longer exist and are now parks. The factories have all cleaned up. Burn barrels are no longer allowed. Most folks heat with natural gas in my old home town. The sewage is now treated and no longer dumped raw into the river. I would imagine - we can always continue to improve and that is good. But - many nations in the world - live today as we did in the 1940's and 50's and that is where the focus of the climate change, global warming and green movements really need to be. There - not here.