Someone talking about global warming killing off Maples...

[Maple Hobo]

Warming and cooling trends... Nothing really new.

Sierra club was pitching Global cooling...
My snowboard had a sticker on it back in the late 80s... it said 3rd Ice age, bring it on.

25 years (approximatly) ago the Farmers Alminac predicted a warming trend and drout conditions that was supposed to extend out... about 25 years...

Shortly after this the Sierra club changed its pitch from global cooling...
to global warming...

Over the past 25 years... things have been changing.
Climates have been drier and warmer.

Cities have sold off thier unused snow plows and de-ice equitment.

Recenly we have had more snow more rainfall and returning to a climate similar to before the 25 year back conditions.

People are refering to Old timee winters now with snow levels not seen in over... 25 years.

Recall a couple years back... Al Gore had a number of his gobal warming conferences canceled due to SNOW.

Cities and having problems clearing roads of snow and ice... they don't have the equipment anymore.

Someone I know who is connected to the Sierra club said they are talking about changing back to... you guessed it... Global cooling.

Ok... enough of that soap box... Seriously though.



Lets look at TREES.... find recent cut older large trees... study the growth rings.
You will see the history of the tree, slow growth years, rapid growth years, forest fires, etc. Its always changing.

If the wet and cooler climates come back in the next few years, so will the new growth levels.

In this image you can see the 1690 time period had 7-10 years of very slow growth (tight rings) even in trees that had been having very rapid growth (loose rings) before and after that time period.

http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/Site/gallery/galleries/Tree%20Ring%20Gallery%201/images/graham%20cores.jpg

[Rossell's Sugar Camp]

how do you explain this year. An isolated incedent? And i think that if warming would happen the first maples to go would be mine and yours cause we are southerners as far as maple goes. If we cool off we are in good shape.

[vtwoody]

cool..makes you wonde what was up with that "lost" decade?

[markcasper]

I don't know about everybody else but it is sure has been nice and easy to be working outside because of the warm winter. After last years horrid cold winter its a sure treat! My dad was telling it was just like this back in 1957. Global warming is ascam along with peak oil. Carbon dioxide that plants breath and humans and animals exhale being labelled as a toxic chemical is ludacrus.

What we really need to be concerned about is what hydrogen oxide is doing to the planet! How many agree with me?

[christopherh]

Here's a good article written by a local weatherman. It's worth reading.
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/disappearing-glaciers-in-the-pacific-northwest-a-lesson-in-deception

[bowtie]

though humans might not be the sole cause of climate change i think common sense would dictate that 7 billion people living, heating,cooling,running eletric, driving vehicles, running factories and so on and so forth has to have an effect on the environment. many other factors can contribute to climate change, changes in oceanic currents, vulcanism, changes in the tilt,oscillation of the earth, minor changes to our orbit, but to think we can just waft our hand at the fact the we have altered, good and bad, the earth is quite frankly ignorant. by not accepting this fact we can not makes changes to our daily lives to help with this. we as people who obviously have close ties to nature should lead this cause, even if we do not believe in global warming, we can lessen our impact now so hopefuly future generations can enjoy the same things we do, like making maple syup and all the outdoor activities we take for granted.

[Maple Hobo]

how do you explain this year. An isolated incedent? And i think that if warming would happen the first maples to go would be mine and yours cause we are southerners as far as maple goes. If we cool off we are in good shape.

Its been a little warmer this year then the last year, but the year or two before that we lost GLOBALY pretty much all the heat we had supposidly gained in the preceeding 20 years. Before that... everyone was concerned about the planet's cooling not warming.

As moisture enters the system again (Like after drouts or in a dry climate) the temperature will boost a little bit.
Humidity does make things warmer in the short term. Whant to help your wood stove heat the house, add a water pot to boost humidity.

Thats why berry and fruit farmers spray water on their crops to help prevent frost damage. It prevents the frost from forming, not coating them in ice like you might expect.

Thats why a warm humid climate feels worse then a hot dry climate.

We can make some impact on the environment, toxins, acids, and heavy metals mostly, but the over all climate?
I think its mostly arrogance in thinkning we can change the climate.

The climate DOES change though, it always has.
One Volcanic eruption makes more impact then 20 years of car exhause or cow farts (commercial beef is also blamed)
One solar flare makes more impact on planets heat then 50 years of industrial development.

Matter of fact durring 9/11 when all American aircraft were grounded, it was proven that the contrails (vapor trails from thier exhaust) actually function as an artificial cloud layer and LOWERS the temperature on the ground by reflecting sun light back into space. Yes it is man made... but it also shows that solar radiation has more impact then greenhouse gas emissions.

Places that were lush and green long ago were claimed by ice and are starting to be accessible again.
Look at the viking settlements on Greenland for example.
Look at the ICE bridge thoery between Russia and Alaska.
Look at how lush and green old Egypt was... now deserts, These all happened BEFORE the industrial revolution.

If you were born when it was that cold, how bad do you think they would view how it has warmed up now?

Wait and see what happens...lol

For the record, I followed and worked with Solar power/heating in the 70s Back before the GREEN label. It really hasen't improved much since then.

The whole GREEN movement has been more about finding a way to charge people money for nothing honestly.
I've worked with the LEED program on a number of Architectural projects now... the whole process has little to NOTHING to do with real or tangable effect.

My favoite... Buy carbon credits and they will plant so many fast growing/hybrid fir trees, the lumber industry developed for replanting clear cuts.
The trees grow too fast and are so soft inside they are only fit for pulp. If it freezes hard many of them EXPLODE from ice forming in the trunk.

Don't get offened... Its just my oppinions... lol

[Maple Hobo]

Here's a good article written by a local weatherman. It's worth reading.
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/weather/weather_news/disappearing-glaciers-in-the-pacific-northwest-a-lesson-in-deception

That story is a riot... All about selling you something for nothing...

Got another funny one for you... when water FREEZES it EXPANDS when it MELTS it SHRINKS.
So if the polar ice caps are melting... it would make the oceans go down, not up.

Disagree, what happens is you put a bottle of water in the freezer? Does it expand and try to explode the bottle?

The article is about Washington state weather and glaciers... They are having record levels of snow fall this year.
Well... record levels since 25 years ago. I remember the snows they are getting now like when I was a child there.

[SeanD]

Got another funny one for you... when water FREEZES it EXPANDS when it MELTS it SHRINKS.
So if the polar ice caps are melting... it would make the oceans go down, not up.


Actually, the amount of water displaced by ice is equal to the ice's melted volume. When polar ice that is already on the water melts, it causes neither a rise nor fall in sea level. The concern for the current sea level rise comes from melting ice on the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet, both of which are on land and are not accounted for in sea level. As those sheets melt, the ocean rises.

I'm not sure if climatologists are trying to sell me anything. I haven't thought of it in those terms. I do, however, know that oil producers and consumers are trying to sell me something. They are trying to sell me lots of things. I see their commercials and ads all the time.

Sean

[bowtie]

sean d could not have said it better myself!! whether you believe in the global warming theory or not i feel as producers of natuural products we should try to be as environmentally sound as we can. it is funny to me that the people that make a living or part-time living off the "land" are sometimes so unwilling to put back. i find that a lot farmers, let me state it is a goal of mine to begin farming soon, care little of wildlife and trees, and the land they live off. some only caring about the bottom line. does that not seem fundamentally wrong!! i know this will make alot mad but i see it everyday. don't think it's always been this way but seems to be a growing trend. how many of us are putting back. think about it, when was the last time you did something for wildlife or planted a tree, that was not in your own backyard!! i think that if we started acting like stewards to the land instead of warlords things would be better for all involved. maybe that leopold was onto to something.

[christopherh]

I'm not sure if climatologists are trying to sell me anything. I haven't thought of it in those terms. I do, however, know that oil producers and consumers are trying to sell me something. They are trying to sell me lots of things. I see their commercials and ads all the time.

Sean[/QUOTE]

I believe it's false science or manipulated graphs, "Hockey Stick", remember that one?

[spud]

When i was living in Alaska we all had bumper stickers that said ( Alaskan's support global warming ).

Spud

[markcasper]

Global warming is a scam created by the powers that be to tax every living thing for carbon that is released. It has nothing to do with caring about the environment!

[SeanD]

If it truly is a scam, it's a pretty ineffective one. All of my efforts to reduce my oil consumption and carbon usage, have SAVED me money. My gas (heat) bill, electricity bill, and gasoline costs have all gone down. I see the cost of CFLs, hybrid vehicles, high efficiency boilers, etc. all dropping. What's happening to the cost of gas, electricity, plastic?

It's more cost effective for me to get scammed.

Sean

[Maplehobbyist]

A friend of mine conducts research into this during the summer and says the only scientists that disagree that global temps are currently rising are researchers that are funded by parties that have a vested interest in that not being true.

So...if you believe that Fords are the best vehicles available because Ford tells you they are, then by all means go buy a Ford. But don't tell me it's been proven that Fords are the best just because they paid somebody to tell you they were.

Sounds like too much Rush to me.

[red maples]

There are many trends to the weather, somthings not even on earth, they predict different things that happen when the sun goes through a "gasy" stage with alot of solar flare etc. With global warming comes weird climate change last year I think I heard something like 48 out of 50 states saw some sort of snow farr last winter. this year west texas had a white christmas!!! With climate change comes strange wind paterns, temperature paterns and parcipitation paterns. the last few years have been up and down depending on where you are. last year we had almost 80 inches of snow in Jan and we never had a melt the year before no much snow here tapped with reg. work boots on. the year before we had over 100 inches of snow the year before we had a lot of snow that started back in november. this year has been the strangest year yet. never have I seen this much rain in Jan. just the other day we went from low 40's to 2* in the same day. then in 1 day we got 2-3 inches of snow then the sun came out and it warmed to the mid 40's the it cooled off a bit and rained. and now we are finally getting into a more wintery Jan. pattern with snow in the forcast and temps below 30 in the day.

I do belive that global warming is a natural phenom, but we have to contributing in some way, over population , industry(well in china anyway) so many cars on the roads over harvesting of wood products, shrinkage of the polar caps. etc etc etc . Just like we may have a global cooling in a few years or decades or even a new ice age someday although probably not in our life times.

[markcasper]

If it truly is a scam, it's a pretty ineffective one. All of my efforts to reduce my oil consumption and carbon usage, have SAVED me money. My gas (heat) bill, electricity bill, and gasoline costs have all gone down. I see the cost of CFLs, hybrid vehicles, high efficiency boilers, etc. all dropping. What's happening to the cost of gas, electricity, plastic?

It's more cost effective for me to get scammed.Sean

If you are doing things to cut down on your electric bill, gas bill, and electricity bill that is great. What I am talking about in regards to being scammed is the fact that globalist banks through agencies such as the EPA for example, have been scheming to come up with new revenue sources with the purpose of bankrupting the US. It is on record of Obama stating that he intends to bankrupt the coal industry via carbon taxes and/or environmental fees of some kind. 51% of our power comes from coal in this country. You will not be saving money any longer if this happens unless you result to living in a cave.
The cost of gas, electricity, plastic has risen mostly because the private federal reserve keeps making money out of thin air which causes commodities to go up in price. The set amount of commodities has to soak up all the floating dollars...its called inflation.

[SeanD]

Mark,

First, let me say thank you for not getting nasty. I think this is the longest thread on global warming that didn't start hitting below the belt. I hope it stays that way.

As to the globalist banks trying to bankrupt the US? That's a tough sell for me. Usually when I'm faced with complex conspiracy theories, I like to take a step back and take a breath. Sometimes the simplest or most obvious solution is the right one.

So, at this point in time, who currently gains the most from our current energy policies and consumption? Who stands to gain the most from maintaining these policies in the future? Globalist banks? The Fed? Climatologists? President Obama?

I don't know. When I say those answers out loud, they seem far-fetched. The conspiracy theories about climate change will gain a little more traction with me if somewhere in them they included some mention of British Petroleum or Exxon-Mobil.

Sean

[Cardigan99]

A friend of mine conducts research into this during the summer and says the only scientists that disagree that global temps are currently rising are researchers that are funded by parties that have a vested interest in that not being true.

So...if you believe that Fords are the best vehicles available because Ford tells you they are, then by all means go buy a Ford. But don't tell me it's been proven that Fords are the best just because they paid somebody to tell you they were.

Sounds like too much Rush to me.


Maplehobbyist, what does your friend think of Mann and Jones effort to keep dissenting climate opinions out of scholarly journals? Doesn't sound like an intellectually honest thing for climate "scientists" to do does it? Why would they want to "hide the decline"? Is your friend aware their research is largely funded by the pubic?? Who has a 'vested interest' in global warming being true?? If it's not, their money dries up doesn't it? In the end, which scenario is more conducive to the continued survival of mankind, global warming or global cooling, and do you think there will never be another iceage?

[Maplehobbyist]

Maplehobbyist, what does your friend think of Mann and Jones effort to keep dissenting climate opinions out of scholarly journals? Doesn't sound like an intellectually honest thing for climate "scientists" to do does it? Why would they want to "hide the decline"?

I don't know what he thinks of Mann and Jones effort to keep dissenting climate opinions out of scholarly journals, but that doesn't change the fact that, in his opinion, those dissenting climate opinions are funded by parties that have an interest in global warming being false. He has seen the studies and the conclusions (which I have not and don't claim to have) and says the conclusions reflect the funding source.


Is your friend aware their research is largely funded by the pubic?? Who has a 'vested interest' in global warming being true?? If it's not, their money dries up doesn't it?

I don't know who has a "vested interest" in global warming being true. My friend would do research on some other subject if the National Science Foundation grants that fund his work dry up (and they did last year). Perhaps a question you would do well to consider yourself is who has a "vested interest" in global warming being false? Maybe companies that would prefer a 'business as usual' attitude and not ones who were forced to account for the true costs of their products? Maybe coal companies, Exxon-Mobil, BP? My friend isn't trying to sell you something but that sure as heck ain't true of BP.


In the end, which scenario is more conducive to the continued survival of mankind, global warming or global cooling...

For humans, the survival of mankind may be important, but earth was not put here for mans use. The earth will warm up or the earth will cool down with no regard for whether or not we as a species survive. Can the earth survive without us? The earth existed for billions of years before mankind and will be here for billions of years afterwards. Can we survive without the earth? If I was a thinking, reasoning being and there was a chance that my activities were destroying the only environment that I know of that would support my life, I would have a "vested interest" in changing some of those activities in the long run, especially when they can save me money in the short run.


...and do you think there will never be another iceage?

The fact that I think there may be an ice age in the future has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the earth is currently getting warmer. Whether or not we are helping global warming and whether or not we are around for it, it doesn't seem likely that there won't be swings in global temps over thousands/millions of years, since that has been the pattern for the entirety of earths existence.

[Maple Hobo]

sean d could not have said it better myself!! whether you believe in the global warming theory or not i feel as producers of natuural products we should try to be as environmentally sound as we can. it is funny to me that the people that make a living or part-time living off the "land" are sometimes so unwilling to put back. i find that a lot farmers, let me state it is a goal of mine to begin farming soon, care little of wildlife and trees, and the land they live off. some only caring about the bottom line. does that not seem fundamentally wrong!! i know this will make alot mad but i see it everyday. don't think it's always been this way but seems to be a growing trend. how many of us are putting back. think about it, when was the last time you did something for wildlife or planted a tree, that was not in your own backyard!! i think that if we started acting like stewards to the land instead of warlords things would be better for all involved. maybe that leopold was onto to something.

Just wait... You'll get to give back soon enough... They officials here have been promoting the idea of taxing you for each maple tree on your property... tapped or not.

Places like New York sound like they are trying to make state owned processing centers to make maple sugaring a government controled entity.

They just changed the law here last year to tax each farmer per head of sheep. The last of the large sheep farmers here sold his sheep and now runs cattle... They don't tax the cattle... yet. My father in law asked some of the officials when they plan on taxing per chicken for the mega chicken houses here... They tried to laugh it off.

The government payed farmers around here to get rid of their dairy cattle too. They missed the clause that said they were no longer allowed to raise milk cattle... SO small dairys are gone.

They passed regulations here so you can only raise and sell chickens in giant barns of fixed sizes... No more local grown free range chickens. They are even making it so you can't give your neighbor any extra eggs you might have.

They also land banked much of the farm land here. They grow corn on some but are paid to not harvest it or even plant it at all. Most of the farms and equipment here are owned by elderly people with broken down equipment who can no longer farm and it costs too much to hire people and re equip to start farming.

I would love to see the old local market and farming come back in our country... Unfortunatly they seem to be able to import powdered apple juice from China cheaper then they can grow an apple localy and juice it. I don't know how but all the apple orchards in Virginia are fallow and un managed now...

How many good jobs could be filled if farming returned?
Too many governmental regulations saying you can't grow foods and special interest groups to allow that to happen.

The growth potential for Maple here in West Virginia is huge, but each time you start to show up on the radar the local government tried to take you down. We already threatened to cut down every maple on the property before we would pay them a tree tax. That seemed to put them off for now.

Most of the Maple producers here opperate more like the boot leggers of old running moonshine!
If the government finds out you made a proffit... they want to take it without working for it.

Something from you for nothing... Thats the issue I have with the carbon credit/ Global warming promoters.

As far as the GREEN products like the popular CFL bulbs. Are you properly disposing of them? They do contain mercury?
Do a little research into the manufaturing of fluorecent lights and solar panels... Not exactly green products.

So wants killing our maples localy? Money is... The climate will do what it wants to do and the trees will addapt and grow as conditions allow. :mrgreen:

[markcasper]

Who is "They"? Do you all think this is just happening by chance?

[eagle lake sugar]

If you google Chicago Climate Exchange, you'll see a few of the players that DO stand to benefit from the G.W. movement. Al Gore, General Electric, etc. It lost all credibility with me a long tome ago. When I looked at my thermometer a couple winters ago and it said -45, it was over. How do any of us know how old the earth is? People just like you and I, get a degree and are dubbed "scientists". Then they use preconceived methods invented by other "scientists" to date rocks, fossils etc. I guess I choose a different source for my information. Many "ignoramuses" like myself, believe the biblical version that the earth WAS created for us. Are oil, natural gas, wood, and coal, not natural resources? If not, then what? You can rest assured that if we need more air, we'll get it. When the earth is meant to end, it will. If you have a windmill, solar panels and a prius, it won't matter, so relax and enjoy your life. Just my 2 cents. Steve

[Cardigan99]

[QUOTE=Maplehobbyist;171996]
For humans, the survival of mankind may be important, but earth was not put here for mans use.
QUOTE]

If the earth were not put here for us to use, where would we get off drilling holes in trees to make maple syrup? How could we even exist without using the resources here on earth?

[SeanD]

Oh man, too much to take on at once - chicken head taxes, Chinese powdered juice, biblical interpretation, and more! I can't tackle it all, but I guess that's the point. There are, I suppose, many things to worry about, but it doesn't do any good to throw them all in the same pot and let them stew. It will overwhelm us and we'll be right back where we started. It's time to take that step back and take a breath. Just focus on one at a time. It's quite possible that they are not all part of one giant conspiracy to screw the average Joe.

Toxins in CFLs? - Correct. But since I bought my my first one about 11 years ago, I have yet to deal with one blowing out. The very first one I put in the lamp in the corner is still going strong. That's 11 years of using 9 watts instead of 40 every night. I have gone through lots of incandescent lightbulbs in that time, though. When the time comes, I'll dispose of the CFLs the same way I deal with my old thermostats. It can be done safely. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. CFLs are a net positive in my book.

Hitting -45 a couple of winters ago - True. But don't confuse weather with climate. Weather is the short-term condition of the atmosphere. Climate is the long- term condition of the atmosphere. Weather changes day to day and year to year. A snowy winter can be followed by one that is mild then followed by one that is dry and cold. Those are weather patterns. Climate study focuses on long-term (multiple-decade and century) trends. Our climate data tells us that global temperatures are rising.

Scientists - Yes. People who get a degree in a field of science, continue research, and provide us with data are dubbed "scientists". I'm okay with that. Where would the maple industry be without Cornell, Proctor, or Dr. Tim for that matter?

Biblical versions - I think science and the Bible can coexist without one feeling threatened by the other. Dan Brown writes fiction for our entertainment.

Natural resources - Yes! And as maple producers, we are stewards of a few of them. The trouble is we have not been wise about the use of others. Even if we were to possibly believe that our fossil fuel supplies are endless, we still have to account for the disproportionate amounts of carbon, that took millennia to lock deep within the earth, that are now being released into our atmosphere in less than 200 years.

Sean

[eagle lake sugar]

Just to clarify, I'm not by any means anti-science. You are absolutely right about the maple research centers being an invaluable resource. Any research that can be done where tangible results can be verified, I embrace. It's when science delves into the intangible that I have a problem. For example, micro-evolution is more or less provable over a human lifetime or two. Macro-evolution, not so much. It's up to each person to decide whether or not their great great great great great grandaddy was a human or a frog. Do I believe in climate change? Absolutely! It's been changing in cycles since creation. Can we have a small effect on the climate? Maybe, it's one of those intangibles. I think animals as well as plants have become extinct throughout history as they are needed to make this whole thing work. I hope the sugar maple is not one of these! In our lifetime, several trees and animals have gone away, such as the dutch elm. In my neck of the woods, the beech trees are mostly diseased and failing. Trying to be a conservationist is a good thing as long as it's not by militant approach. By the way, thanks for not letting the discussion devolve into belittling, insults, etc. Have a good tapping season. Steve

[markcasper]

For humans, the survival of mankind may be important, but earth was not put here for mans use. The earth will warm up or the earth will cool down with no regard for whether or not we as a species survive. Can the earth survive without us?

Not to step on anyones toes, but if you believe in what Gods Word says then the first sentence would be false.

Why is everything that can't be proven 100% considered a conspiracy theory? Or if an individual is in a denial phase of happenings, what constitutes calling the issue at hand a "conspiracy theory"?

[Maplehobbyist]

...For example, micro-evolution is more or less provable over a human lifetime or two. Macro-evolution, not so much. It's up to each person to decide whether or not their great great great great great grandaddy was a human or a frog...

It may be up to each person to decide whether or not they BELIEVE their great-great-great-great-great grandaddy was a human or a frog, but they don't get to choose which things are facts and which things are not. I'm not saying that macro-evolution is a fact, but if it is, whether or not you choose to believe it has no bearing on it being true. It only means you've formed your opinion contrary to the facts.


If the earth were not put here for us to use, where would we get off drilling holes in trees to make maple syrup? How could we even exist without using the resources here on earth?

I didn't mean to say we shouldn't use the resources on earth, because you're absolutely right, we couldn't exist if we didn't. What I was trying to say, in regards to whether global warming or global cooling is more conducive to mankinds survival, is things happen on a global or cosmic scale with no regard for how it will impact the survival of any one species, like storms, volcanic eruptions, solar flares, ice-ages, the earth changing its degree of tilt, a meteor hitting earth, etc... If we die out as a species because of one or a series of these events, life will go on here. Just not as we know it.

[markcasper]

For humans, the survival of mankind may be important, but earth was not put here for mans use.


.

Why was earth put here and where can I find out about that information?

[Revi]

As I sit here typing I am watching the frost fall off the trees as it is about 5 below. It was 17 below last night. I think that's typical Maine weather for the third week of January. I just took a course on climate change and just read With Speed and Violence by Fred Pearce. It's about the current state of climate science. We have warmed about a degree celsius since the early 1900s. That can't be denied. The average temperature of the earth was about 56 degrees farenheit, and it's now over 57. That doesn't sound like much, but it is already causing problems. We are going to experience up to 8 degrees more if we keep pushing more carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The typical number of co2 in the atmosphere is about 280 ppm for an interglacial period. We are now at 392 and climbing. That means that about 3 degrees of warming is in the pipeline, and with positive feedbacks we could be much hotter.

The maple zone has already moved north. Ohio used to be the center of the maple industry in the US. Then it moved to Vermont and now the biggest producers are in the northeast corner of Maine, on the border with Canada. It's okay with us, but those further south are already moving out of the commercial maple zone.

Climate change is real, but it may not be predictable. We are moving into a much more unstable world. That's the lesson I have learned. Be prepared for a wild ride.

[buckeye gold]

wow when I first saw this thread, some time back, I only briefly browsed it, but now I find it a real microcosm of the varied people and opinions we represent. I think that perhaps is what makes this a great nation, that we have freedom of expression. In the end that should work for a logical and reasonable conclusion, after the preponderance of all thoughts are considered. That is what our government should do, I would agree that they lost their focus and now hide behind what they falsely call capitalism.

As for me, I believe God created the earth and gave it to us to be stewards of, to prosper in and live as a mutually supportive social structure. Yes I agree we can have detrimental impacts and beneficial ones in that stewardship. Are we allowed to use the land for all man kinds benefit, even when that is at some cost to resources? Yes we are, but we are also responsible for sound management and remediation of what we do.

There always have been and always will be views on the far edge of all issues, it is however incumbent of us to reach an understanding and most relative truth somewhere in between. Do we need to be told that to properly manage our Maple trees for their well being is best for them, us and future generations of both, of course not. Tools that help us do that comes from research, which means "looking for answers in truth". Since I had a long and prosperous career in Natural Resource management I have seen and done a lot of research. I have seen that it is true there are many bias in research, people want their view to prevail. However, it is the responsibility of that scientific community to sort out the biases and for the most part that happens. Research and regulation for the most part is helping us to be good stewards. People rake the EPA, but i sampled the life less streams of the late 60s and the 70s ( no idid not work for EPA)and now see excellent water quality in the same streams. I see endangered species returning...the regulators are not all evil.

I believe God gave us intelligence to manage, but fist he told us to Love one another......stepping down off soap box!

[Revi]

I would say that the main things killing off maples in this area are road salt and up in Quebec, acid rain. They are under stress from global warming as well, but that is not as easily measured. Red maples are going to fare better because they like the additional rainfall that has happened in the past 20 years. I have a friend who is a meteorologist and he has measured rainfall here in Maine. It is up about 10 inches over the past 20 years.
We are living in a changing world. There is no doubt about that. The average time of tapping has advanced about a week since the 1970's.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-years-maple-sap-month-earlier.html

[markcasper]

I believe the part about Ohio losing its status as a top tier producer due to global warming is false. I believe a few years back Dr. Perkins corrected this same stigma as it was for other reasons, one of them economic as to why Ohio has decreased in production. A local packer in Wisconsin once told me that alot of the Maine syrup was not tallied as US production until the last 20 years or so because alot of the operators were Canadians and was produced in close range to the border. The climate is always changing. Why there are those that list carbon dioxide as a pollutant is beyond me. There is a higher power that does keep things in balance whether it is believed or not.

[Revi]

We might actually benefit if they institute carbon sequestration credits. We had our land audited for inclusion. Trees lock up about a ton of carbon per acre per year. The kind of forestry we do, where we leave the maples for production leaves a lot of net carbon on the land. We might be paid for that if they get the carbon exchange going. We'll see. Right now I am typing this with electricity produced carbon free (hydro) and I just left a wood heated house with solar hot water. If it was warmer I would have driven an electric car to school. Green seems to work for us. It means green in my wallet (or more of it than I would have anyway). While we are by no means getting rich, it's what's keeping our family afloat in these hard times.

[markcasper]

Here is a recent article from the Wall Street Journal that spells out the untrue news of carbon dioxide being a toxic pollutant.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

[SeanD]

It is true that not all scientists agree that there is a relationship between carbon emissions and the warming of the atmosphere. These 16 scientists are in that category. The VAST majority of the scientific community (nearly all) have concluded that there is a connection between the rise of emitted carbon and rising temperatures.

The trouble I personally have with articles like this is that they are not scientific articles, but political articles written by scientists. It's actually just an open letter to the presidential candidates. The purpose of the article is to grind their axe against the scientific community because they feel they have been snubbed by their peers - because their peers disagree with them. The article talks more about policy options, funding, candidates and politics than climate data. Actually, it's hard to find any climate data in the article.

Sean

[markcasper]

You know what Sean? If you want to believe that carbon dioxide is going to destroy the planet, then that is your opinion. It is on record that global warming, global cooling have always occurred since the beginning of time. The biggest factor involved with warming is the sun. It is also on record that the global warming mantra is and was supported by elite people of the world to tax all citizens in order to set up dictatorships and a New World Order! The idea of taxing a natural element to shut down your competition is just plain greed. It is also on record that the globalists would use the environmental movement to achieve a mechanism by which they would funnel funds from the population and into their own accounts in the form of carbon charges. Using the fear of ruining the environment is an easy way of doing this because most people are not up on what is going on. The former does not in any way make me an advocate of pollution, on the contrary, Gods tells us in the Bible to use things wisely and not waste what he created. On another note, God has said he put enough on the earth to sustain both believers and unbelievers until he decides to end it all on Judgement Day.

[SeanD]

You know what Sean? If you want to believe that carbon dioxide is going to destroy the planet, then that is your opinion. It is on record that global warming, global cooling have always occurred since the beginning of time. The biggest factor involved with warming is the sun.


I agree with you here. I'll just add that that record shows that this is the steepest/fastest increase in temps compared to other warming eras.


It is also on record that the global warming mantra is and was supported by elite people of the world to tax all citizens in order to set up dictatorships and a New World Order!

I don't know this record.

The idea of taxing a natural element to shut down your competition is just plain greed. It is also on record that the globalists would use the environmental movement to achieve a mechanism by which they would funnel funds from the population and into their own accounts in the form of carbon charges. Using the fear of ruining the environment is an easy way of doing this because most people are not up on what is going on.

I don't know this record either, though it sounds like that would be the hard way of doing things. It seems like it would be easier to just get people to keep doing what they are doing and blow through more fuel. Whether you like it or not, more people are on your side of this issue - although without the NWO stuff. Most people don't give a crap either way and just drive the hummer to the mall. They think we are both kooks.:)


The former does not in any way make me an advocate of pollution,


I don't think that of you at all.


on the contrary, Gods tells us in the Bible to use things wisely and not waste what he created. On another note, God has said he put enough on the earth to sustain both believers and unbelievers until he decides to end it all on Judgement Day.


OK. I think we just sit at opposite ends of the same bar. Next one is on me.


Sean




EDIT - For some reason my responses got blended into the copy of your post. I can't fix it, so I just put it in a different font.

[sugaringcrazy]

I'm kind of shocked how many maple producers are skeptics! You guys need to do some research because clearly the only place you seem to be getting news is from the mainstream media! Yes, climate change has always occurred, but never at this rate. Climatologists have linked specific instances of when the climate has warmed to rises in CO2. It is a well known fact that CO2 along with other greenhouse gases traps heat from radiating back to space. This is not debatable. It is also not debatable that we are burning carbon at an unprecedented rate. This carbon has been stored within the earth for millions of years! Luckily we have trees, and the ocean is taking up a lot of it, but it so happens that we also are losing Thousands of acres of forest every day, and the ocean can only absorb so much carbon dioxide and is showing signs of slowing. Additionally the tundra is melting at a faster rate as the arctic regions are warming at a much faster pace. Methane, which is 26 times more affective at trapping heat then CO2, is being released in huge amounts. Also, the loss of sea ice, and on Greenland is exposing water, which due to it being much darker then ice, absorbs heat instead of reflecting it, exacerbating things again. This inundation of freshwater is slowing the atlantic ocean flows, which will contribute to Europe having colder winters. I could go on and on. It's not that we should be worried about gradual climate change, we should be worried about croshing the threshold on many critical tipping points. Climate change is very, very well researched, and tons of scientists are studying it. It has been well documented all the well known skeptics out there who are denying climate change are being funded from very large polluters who have a ridiculous amount of money and have a very vested interest in the general public not believing in climate change. To me, climate change is of grave concern. Yes there are a lot of unknowns about the speeds of which change is going to occur, but do you guys really think we can sit back and assume that thousands of thousands of scientists are out there pulling there hair out to get there message across. We should be worried because there is a lot at stake. You can't just look out your window and assume nothing is going to really happen. No single weather event can be pin pointed on climate change, but we are talking patterns. These patterns are what dictate where a sugar maple (let alone every species on this planet) will grow. Ok, I'm going off again sorry.

[Greyfox]

There's a thermonuclear reactor eight light-minutes away called "the Sun." Look at the data correlation between solar activity and the Earths surface temperature over time. Overlay this with a chart showing the increase in carbon emissions over that same period and and you'll see that the Sun is the driving factor, no so-called "Greenhouse Gasses."

Are there things that man can and does do to harm the planet: yes. Overfishing the oceans, for example. Overpopulation, destruction of wetlands, toxic dumping of dioxins and nuclear waste, etc are all real and all man made. Man made global climate change is non existent. My 2 cents.

[sugaringcrazy]

The impact of solar radiation on the earths climate is something that is thoroughly being studied. It has become known that changes in solar radiation have had an impact on the earth's climate, but evidence is showing that solar activity has over all decreased in the past 2 decades, which have also been the 2 warmest decades on record. Here are two recent reports. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/61128-global-warming-not-caused-by-increased-solar-activity In the 80s and in previous decades solar activity was increasing, which is what most people point to who are skeptics, but most of them will end their graph before it gets to the 1990s. NASA has been monitoring it for a little over 40 years now, and have yet to see any correlation between changes in solar radiation and the current warming trend. But, scientists are aware that data from the sun spanning only a few decades is certainly not much time when dealing with a star. There is still much to learn.
On the other hand Green House gases are very real. We've known about their impact on climate change since the 1950s. In fact they are what have always allowed this planet to be livable. There has always been CO2 in the air, and through ice cores, soil cores, and tree cores we have seen a correlation between changes in the earth's climate and changes in Green House Gases. What is also known is that Green House Gases are at their highest level in over 650,000 years. As, I previously mentioned we are releasing GHGs that have stored in the ground for millions of years. None of this is disputed.
What we all need to know is how much research is being done on this issue, and if 90-97% of scientists are not disputing that human induced climate change is occurring, why do so many of you think we should listen to those who disagree. It is an incredibly complex subject that we all should be trying to learn more about. I'm ok with folks being skeptical (I'm skeptical of things I hear all the time, but I do believe in science), so before you draw conclusions please do some thorough research.

[Maple Hobo]

How about bcarbon 14 test that show differnt results on soloar radiation... over a longer period then NASA covers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Carbon14_with_activity_labels.svg

How about solar flares?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png

This place has an interesting take... Is Green house gas actually going down?
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/

These guys also dismiss Greenhouse gas and point to less cloud cover as the issue.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x193836

Another Science site pointing to more sun since the 1990s.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/847.abstract

Hold on a second... What DOES NASA have to say?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
Looks like increased solar radiation being absorbed...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/93617main_sun4m.jpg

"Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland." These guys are the source material for the BBC article.

Wait a second...
http://www.stfc.ac.uk/RALSpace/Areas+of+expertise/Space+Research/Solar+physics/In+the+news/18852.aspx
This guy thinks that Lockwwods data says its going to start getting cooler now due to reducing radiation levels.

[Balsam Hills]

The trend of minimizing science for a variety of reasons is a troubling issue. As brilliant and resourceful as the human species is, we have no doubt put our political blinders on to the undisputable evidence of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 levels are proven to be at their highest levels in over 1/2 million years. What's more, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has never been greater in this planet's history. Those of involved in agriculture will be affected more than any other profession. We have a voice and can make a difference if we are willing to acknowledge the science and seek solutions.

[PerryW]

bravo! someone who gets their scientific information from scientists not politicians.

The trend of minimizing science for a variety of reasons is a troubling issue. As brilliant and resourceful as the human species is, we have no doubt put our political blinders on to the undisputable evidence of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 levels are proven to be at their highest levels in over 1/2 million years. What's more, the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase has never been greater in this planet's history. Those of involved in agriculture will be affected more than any other profession. We have a voice and can make a difference if we are willing to acknowledge the science and seek solutions.

[Greyfox]

Challenge accepted. Let's push back from our positions of what we "know" or "believe" and let's open our minds. Just one quick example as food for thought:

Fact: there is evidence from ice cores that, over the past three glacial cycles, CO2 has been a TRAILING, not leading, temperature indicator. In other words, the normal temperature fluctuations of the planet affect CO2 levels, NOT the other way around. I know that there are many good and intelligent people who can make a case for what is or isn't settled science, but please remember that the Ptolemaic geocentric universe was settled science up until 1533 when Copernicus came up with the heliocentric model. There was a cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church at the time (sorry, the name escapes me) who said basically, "yeah, it may be right, but why bother. We have our beliefs so why upset things?"

Can we all agree that solving for the interactions of literally hundreds of variables is a daunting, perhaps impossible task? Can we all agree that it's an important topic; one so important that science, not intractiable beliefs should drive the discussion? It seems to me that if EVERYONE who has an opinion would take a step back from what we "know" and look at things objectively we would have a healthier and more courtious discourse. The scientific method requires us to look at all available data, not just confirming data. Being in the majority doesn't make you right. It's never a good idea to shoot the messenger; he might just be holding the key you need.

(Steps down from soapbox, goes back to the Sugarhouse)

[PerryW]

I do agree that global warming seems over-hyped by the media and is most likely not as important as over-popluation, shortages of resources, etc, but...

; take a drive from NH through the megalopolus of MASS-NY-NJ MD, etc.. and see the huge expanses of asphalt, concrete and millions of smokestacks and millions of exhaust tailpipes. This megalopolis is just one small piece of the world brimming with 8 billion humans. How can all this NOT have any effect on climate?

oh well, maybe a comet will hit earth and we will be darn glad for all this global warming.

[Greyfox]

Perry, I do agree with you that it's hard to believe that the presence of humans on the planet is impact-neutral, and it seems to me that it will end badly. A Malthusian nightmare is probably more of a likleyhood than a longshot. I guess my point is that, if we do want to have a positive rather than negative impact, it's more important to listen and think than to win an argument. The human mind IS capable of greatness; both great insight and great wilfulness, so let's all keep an open mind. I promise not to take my talking points from Bush and Cheney if other folks promise not to chug the East Anglian Koolaid.

On a more mapley side, the good news here is that the last hurrah seems to be on. This is the best run that I've had so far in 2012, and it looks like it will continue into tomorrow and that might be the end, BUT at least we did get one HURRAH! Hope it goes good for you as well.

Doc.

[barkeatr]

Perry, I do agree with you that it's hard to believe that the presence of humans on the planet is impact-neutral, and it seems to me that it will end badly. A Malthusian nightmare is probably more of a likleyhood than a longshot. I guess my point is that, if we do want to have a positive rather than negative impact, it's more important to listen and think than to win an argument. The human mind IS capable of greatness; both great insight and great wilfulness, so let's all keep an open mind. I promise not to take my talking points from Bush and Cheney if other folks promise not to chug the East Anglian Koolaid.

On a more mapley side, the good news here is that the last hurrah seems to be on. This is the best run that I've had so far in 2012, and it looks like it will continue into tomorrow and that might be the end, BUT at least we did get one HURRAH! Hope it goes good for you as well.

Doc.

WELL SAID greyfox. Its amazing how the climate change facts get turned into the same old republican democrat argument...hippie vs suit thing. For the sake of the maples i just wish the non believers would at a minimum say" I dont believe it but what does it hurt to go along with the corrective actions, just in case its true" I mean what does it hurt? the whole jobs thing is a farce. You cant tell me changing the entire energy platform would not result in jobs. The simple fact is that millions of dollars are being fed to our politicians by oil and coal companies and it behooves certain parties to cloud the issue with the same old republican democrat childfighting. check out dirtyenergymoney.com

is there anything as maple producers that we can do?

[PerryW]

is there anything as maple producers that we can do?

How about burning wood instead of non-renewable resources? And NOT throwing away pickup loads of plastic every year just to get some extra bud run at the end of the season. Yeah, I know, it's heresy.

[bowtie]

man, i have not looked at this thread since posting on it a while back and it sure is a firestorm. hey, every one can have an opinion but it really does not matter in the long run. all that matters is that we should strive to be stewards to the earth, and make wise choices. if you can sleep at night with what you have done then it must be ok in your mind. only time and nature will end this "arguement" and none of "us" will be here anyway. let me end on this note about our" rights, to choose and do what we want. the only fundamental right in nature and life is death, anything else never has or never will be a right, just ask all the conquered civilizations and extinct species. live life like a privilege , it will be morre rewarding!!

[Revi]

Global warming is going to affect us and may end up pushing the maple area up into Canada. I'm sure there will be maples other places, but we need to have that infuriatingly long slow spring warm up to make them viable. Imagine if every year from now on is like this one. In New York State it's been over 50 or 60 for a week now. Here in Maine we have yet to feel it, but next week is going to end our season. That's about 2 weeks early for around here.

A scientist I took a course with says that the models projected by the IPCC are way off. We are going to warm over 8 degrees centigrade by the end of the century. 4 degrees releases huge amounts of methane and then the temp pops up another 4 degrees. He says the majority of the planet turns into Dune. Here in Maine we end up with a Mediterranean climate. He also says that there is very little we can do about it. There's a lot of warming in the pipeline, and we can't get the level of CO2 out of the atmosphere fast enough to avoid it.

Time to plant olive trees.

[logboy]

Has anyone mentioned that a thorough research study of global warming's potential impact on Maple Syrup has been done? I didnt look through all the pages here to check.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/cm5p5306l37j8798/

Abstract
Previous research on the impacts of maple syrup production in the Northeastern United States has been based on correlative relationships between syrup production and average temperature. Here a simple biologically and physically-based model of sapflow potential is used to assess observed changes in sapflow across the Northeastern US from 1980 to 2006; document the correspondence between these observations and independent downscaled atmosphere ocean general circulation model (AOGCM) simulations of conditions during this period; and quantify changes in sapflow potential through 2100. The sapflow model is able to capture the spatial and temporal (in terms of the start date of sapflow) variations of sapflow that are observed across the Northeast. Likewise the AOGCM simulations reflect the mean number of sapflow days and the timing of sapflow during the 1980–2006 overlap period. Through the twenty-first century, warming winter temperatures will result in a decline in the number of sapflow days if traditional sap collection schedules are maintained. Under the A1fi emissions scenario the number of sapflow days decreases by up to 14 days. However, the changes in climate also translate the optimal timing of sap collection to earlier in the year. Across the region, the time period that maximizes the number of sapflows days becomes as much as 30 days earlier by 2100 under the A1fi emissions scenario. Provided this change is accounted for by modifying the start of the traditional sap collection schedule, there is essentially no net loss of sapflow days across the majority of the region, with a net increase of sapflow days indicated in the extreme north.