Another Troubling Climate Article

[SeanD]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/12/are-new-england-temperature-extremes-becoming-more-pronounced/x3mwnyLTbkDevnSgkVDruL/story.html

"Tuesday marked the sixth time this year temperatures have been at least 20 degrees above average. There’s only been one day so far on the flip side, 20 degrees below average. That was in March."

"The trend is clear. While the climate continues to warm, winters are warming the fastest."

[johnpma]

April 20th 1927 was 89 degrees in Boston

I was out in my boat in Massbay back around April 15th 2003 or 2004 and it was 92 degrees in boston

[Russell Lampron]

Just think about 2014 and 2015 when we didn't see much above freezing weather until late March and early April. In 2015 we didn't get our January thaw until mid March.

In 1938 my grandfather tapped his trees in early March like he always did. He got one run and then it rained for a week and never froze again. I suppose it was climate change, global warming back then too.

[mudr]

A weird day or even year does not support or disprove climate change. However, trends that are observable over 30 years are evidence of climate change. There are many graphs and statistics of this order that show a changing climate.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[psparr]

We went into an ice age and came back out of one. Hell we may all burn up or freeze to death. What's gonna happen is gonna happen.

[Wannabe]

We went into an ice age and came back out of one. Hell we may all burn up or freeze to death. What's gonna happen is gonna happen.

Amen......

[markcasper]

People seem to forget just a few years ago, namely 2013 and 2014, the latest year that I have ever seen and 13 had to have been the coldest winter I've ever experienced. There has been boom years and there has been bust years. I see that one large area sugarmaker quoted to the local TV news station that this average to below average season in Wisconsin was in large part due to climate change. So now even an average season is because of climate change?




















.

[DrTimPerkins]

One warm spell or one cold snap (or season) can and should not be attributable to climate change. However, over the past 50 years it is fairly well documented that the maple production season has shifted slowly to an earlier time frame. There is some evidence that this has been happening for at least 100 years. In addition, the duration of the season, at least across New England and New York, diminished by about 10% over that time. More recently, improvements in sanitation and vacuum are actually extending the season, pushing both the start of the season earlier and the end of the season later, thereby increasing the sap flow season duration. This is a producer response to changing conditions, not a change in the conditions themselves.

While there is some suggestion (particularly in some elements of the public press) that climate change historically resulted in the huge drop in maple production in the U.S., and dire predictions that maple sugaring will disappear from the U.S. over the next 100 years, the story is not nearly as simple as that. In fact, while there are some predicted negative impacts, there is also the possibility of some possible POSITIVE effects, at least in the short (100 yr) time frame. What will actually happen depends upon a lot of things.

While it is true that we've had ice ages and heat waves, such large changes were natural variation in climate that occurred over a fairly long time frame (hundreds to thousands of years), not at all what we're experiencing now, with changes over the span of a few decades, a short enough time that most people can recall the weather from their youth as being far colder. What the vast majority of scientists now accept is that the recent climate change we are experiencing does have a significant component that is human caused.

[johnpma]

I will be honest I do care about the climate, the environment, and the future of the earth. There is no doubt that any household with teens or older kids has at least three if not four cars in the driveway. People are living longer thanks to medical advancement which means more people are driving longer and emitting more pollution into the atmosphere. The days of a family having one car are long gone.

What I don't like is when the politicians use all of this to form organizations to study this and use the "good ole boy" system to create jobs for their friends or family members on the taxpayers dime. Or use it to become the next elected and do nothing more than fill their pockets. They right books, give presentations and what should be a concern for everyone becomes nothing more than a money making scheme. If politicians are concerned about the environment they should be the first ones to sacrifice so that the rest of the sheep follow the herd. Motorcades while campaigning and flying across the country to go to their 5th home in Colorado is NOT being concerned about the environment.......

[DrTimPerkins]

What I don't like is when the politicians use all of this to form organizations to study this and use the "good ole boy" system to create jobs for their friends or family members on the taxpayers dime.

I agree with you. However it also works the opposite way. Corporations and organizations funded by individuals hire people to debunk the science, oftentimes by obfuscating and twisting the findings in ways that would make a contortionist uncomfortable. Some of the people (pseudo-scientists) they hire know nothing about the field, but will publish all sorts of reports anyhow (not in scientific journals) simply to confuse and delay any action. The early part of my career was spent doing acid rain research. Corporations poured billions into fighting it. End result was that eventually legislation was passed, and the companies dealt with the problem and cleaned up their act. It is truly amazing how polarizing relatively simple issues can become. If the $ spent studying and fighting any action on a problem were actually spent fixing problems, there would be far fewer problems and far more solutions.

[berkshires]

I agree with you. However it also works the opposite way. Corporations and organizations funded by individuals hire people to debunk the science, oftentimes by obfuscating and twisting the findings in ways that would make a contortionist uncomfortable. Some of the people (pseudo-scientists) they hire know nothing about the field, but will publish all sorts of reports anyhow (not in scientific journals) simply to confuse and delay any action. The early part of my career was spent doing acid rain research. Corporations poured billions into fighting it. End result was that eventually legislation was passed, and the companies dealt with the problem and cleaned up their act. It is truly amazing how polarizing relatively simple issues can become. If the $ spent studying and fighting any action on a problem were actually spent fixing problems, there would be far fewer problems and far more solutions.

Amen.

It really is a shame this has to be such a polarizing/politicized issue. It doesn't need to be. I guess people like to have something to fight about, and there are vested interests that pour big $$ into climate denying claptrap to encourage it.

I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I remember how all the scientific literature was clear (had been for decades before I was born) about cigarettes causing lung cancer. But the tobacco industry fought it tooth and nail, and had a fair amount of success... for a while. But their lies wound up biting them far harder than what it would've been if they'd just owned up to the negative effects and rolled with it. Eventually they started losing the lawsuits around their lies and coverups, and it nearly destroyed the industry. But I'm guessing they made big profits in the interim, and what do shareholders care about long-term gain versus their stock price going up today. So it goes, same today as it was then.

Gabe

[SeanD]

This graphic from NOAA (and in the article) shows that there are definite periods or extreme high and low temperature swings in any given short-term period, however the long-term trend (the blue line) indicates a significant warming trend over the last 100+ years. That's why we have to be careful of over-valuing anecdotal evidence.

16395

[psparr]

The science also said in the 70's that the next ice age was coming. Eggs were good for you, before they were bad for you, before they were good for you again. There are many examples that "facts" of science have switched.

[DrTimPerkins]

There are many examples that "facts" of science have switched.

Actually, the facts rarely change. The evidence and interpretation certainly can though.

[SeanD]

The science also said in the 70's that the next ice age was coming. Eggs were good for you, before they were bad for you, before they were good for you again. There are many examples that "facts" of science have switched.

These facts have not been switched. The graph shows average temperatures that have been recorded (and not disputed) for 120+ years. When the data is graphed, we can see a trend of rising average temperatures of 0.3 degrees F per decade. Is there something in the NOAA data or the graph that you find inaccurate?

[Scm]

..........

[SeanD]

At face value, that's a story from the Natural News about two individual US averages - July 1936 vs. July 2012. This article and the graph cover average temps from Dec-March for 120+ years. Nice try, though.

[Scm]

..........

[SeanD]

So, the banner of your first source reads: "Pentagon just gave Russia justification to bomb the USA to stop vaccine violence against children."

I'll let the readers decide for themselves if your sources are credible.

[Scm]

..........

[RileySugarbush]

Days of complete ice cover on Riley Lake

Observations since 1986 are my own. I do not work for the government or any interest group.

Blue line is a linear regression. Losing about 5 days of cover per decade.

Have a look and draw your own conclusions.
http://mapletrader.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=16401&stc=1

[markcasper]

This graphic from NOAA (and in the article) shows that there are definite periods or extreme high and low temperature swings in any given short-term period, however the long-term trend (the blue line) indicates a significant warming trend over the last 100+ years. That's why we have to be careful of over-valuing anecdotal evidence.

16395

In all of your posts, you give no indication of whether you are scared of climate change, or whether you embrace climate change. If you do not think climate change is a good thing, what may I ask are you going to do about it?

[eustis22]

> that's how we got here to begin with

Actually, that's how YOU got here.

>what may I ask are you going to do about it

Basically try to roll with the changes and hope that locally the climate change doesn't impact food production too much. We're way past the tipping point wehere we could have mitigated the coming effects and there are too many forces lined up to actively propagate continuing our ruinous policy. Good luck drinking your oil and eating your coal.

Also, move away from the coast.

[markcasper]

Days of complete ice cover on Riley Lake

Observations since 1986 are my own. I do not work for the government or any interest group.

Blue line is a linear regression. Losing about 5 days of cover per decade.

Have a look and draw your own conclusions.
http://mapletrader.com/community/attachment.php?attachmentid=16401&stc=1 I'll offer a few conclusions, #1) Appears as if most, if not all of the recordings from the 80's are missing.

#2) I have no idea where Riley Lake is, but I am assuming it is in and around the cities. I do believe in terms like the "urban heat island effect" as the Twin Cities meteorologists reference, and it is highly likely that the number of ice on the lake days have indeed went down because of the warmer micro climate being caused by the influx of residents, increased concrete, blacktop, buildings, etc....

Not trying to be controversial, just stating a few, in my opinion, very good reasons for the decrease. If all of the 80's were included, it could change the number of days drastically. And in all honesty, 40-50 years is a very short stitch in time compared to the big picture as the Dr. pointed out.

[markcasper]

>what may I ask are you going to do about it

Basically try to roll with the changes and hope that locally the climate change doesn't impact food production too much. We're way past the tipping point wehere we could have mitigated the coming effects and there are too many forces lined up to actively propagate continuing our ruinous policy. Good luck drinking your oil and eating your coal.

Also, move away from the coast. 40-50% of the food produced today gets thrown away and wasted in this country.


Read Job 38-41.

[Scm]

..........

[Scm]

..........

[RileySugarbush]

Mark,

I offer this data because, at least after the mid 80's, these are direct observations by me. The observations from the 70's was by a previous resident and apparently nobody was writing anything down for a couple of years.

Riley Lake is located about 15 miles SW of Minneapolis. In recent years there has been some significant increase in residential development out here, but for most of that data set I could look out my window (at least in the winter when I could see through my maples!) and see farmland. Weather is in general from the West here. It is possible the city is affecting our temperature here some, but I would have a hard time blaming everything on that.

I'll also grant that this is a small sample. That is a good point, but this is all I have. Much larger durations are recorded for lakes in MN and many other northern many states, but that data is held by government agencies and therefore may be dismissed by those that are suspicious of manipulations. You can be suspicious of me as well, but I can only assure you that this is raw and unadulterated data and it shows a relatively long term trend. In fact, most ice cover data I have seen shows a slower trend than I show here, perhaps because of a longer observation period, or more distance from urban heat islands. But every set of data I have seen show later freezes and earlier thaws. I have seen nothing trending the other way. This isn't fake data, it's direct observations, and in my case, personal observations. I sail iceboats in the winter all over the midwest and pay close attention to when the ice is safe on both ends of the season.

So interpret this however you want. I just thought I'd share with you folks.

[eustis22]

>40-50% of the food produced today gets thrown away and wasted in this country.

A) define "wasted"

B) got a cite?

C) The fact that not every bit is utilized does not preclude the fact that as the plains (and California) states dry up a tremendous upheaval in our food production (grains and meat) will occur. The U.S will probably become a net food importer.

>WE got into this whole "fake news" global warming, opps sorry, climate change crap because people don't care about the actual FACTS behind it.

I'm sorry...97% of climatologists pretty much agree that humans have caused a massive change in the rate of warming thru the burning of fossil fuels.. Do you think the 97% is fake, the climatologists are fake, or something else is fake? Do you think the reports of extreme weather occurences are fake or the storms themselves are fake? Are the reports of warm weather species creeping northward and altering the local ecology fake or are the species themselves fake?

What sources would you consider unimpeachable in this regard?

[SeanD]

eustis22,

I suggest you leave this one alone and back away slowly - very slowly - then run for the door. The counter-argument to the article and graph I posted is being supported by The Natural News, some guy with a digital camera named Scott Thong, and the Book of Job. There's no getting out of this morass safely.

Thank your teachers for teaching you critical reading and thinking skills and back away from this one.

[eustis22]

guys with digital cameras....the Supreme Arbiters of All Mankind.....unless they're pointed at a cop, of course.

Good advice, Sean. Thanks

[psparr]

I really enjoy this kind of debate. As long as its civil.
Eustis, those 97% are using computer models to predict future weather. They can't even get it right for the next day.
I again bring my argument back to the point that the "Facts" ( which should be hypothesis) often change. We as humans think we know everything. Especially scientists. That's just plain absurd.

[Scm]

..........

[Scm]

..........

[markcasper]

>40-50% of the food produced today gets thrown away and wasted in this country.

A) define "wasted"

B) got a cite?

C) The fact that not every bit is utilized does not preclude the fact that as the plains (and California) states dry up a tremendous upheaval in our food production (grains and meat) will occur. The U.S will probably become a net food importer.


Your posts above are the reason they have moderators.

a...wasted, meaning food not being utilized for its intended purpose, that being to nourish a human.

b...http://www.feedingamerica.org/our-work/reduce-food-waste.html?gclid=CILuwurbpNMCFRKSfgodkTkCRg?referr er=https://www.google.com/

c...some of this post defines your "a" post.

The US already does import lots of its food, but its not because we can't grow it here. Its way too political to begin that discussion.

[eustis22]

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/

[markcasper]

Mark,

I offer this data because, at least after the mid 80's, these are direct observations by me. The observations from the 70's was by a previous resident and apparently nobody was writing anything down for a couple of years.

Riley Lake is located about 15 miles SW of Minneapolis. In recent years there has been some significant increase in residential development out here, but for most of that data set I could look out my window (at least in the winter when I could see through my maples!) and see farmland. Weather is in general from the West here. It is possible the city is affecting our temperature here some, but I would have a hard time blaming everything on that.

I'll also grant that this is a small sample. That is a good point, but this is all I have. Much larger durations are recorded for lakes in MN and many other northern many states, but that data is held by government agencies and therefore may be dismissed by those that are suspicious of manipulations. You can be suspicious of me as well, but I can only assure you that this is raw and unadulterated data and it shows a relatively long term trend. In fact, most ice cover data I have seen shows a slower trend than I show here, perhaps because of a longer observation period, or more distance from urban heat islands. But every set of data I have seen show later freezes and earlier thaws. I have seen nothing trending the other way. This isn't fake data, it's direct observations, and in my case, personal observations. I sail iceboats in the winter all over the midwest and pay close attention to when the ice is safe on both ends of the season.

So interpret this however you want. I just thought I'd share with you folks.

Thanks for the civil response. I cannot prove or disprove your recordings and I certainly believe you when you say there is less days per year with ice on the lake. But, is it global warming? The last two maple seasons would convince almost anybody, even the naysayers to begin thinking. As long as I have did this though....33 years, there has been early and late years. I remember 1987 being a very early year and I tapped some test taps on Feb 12 and had 1/2 full buckets. Being that I was a teenager.....my dad said no, your not tapping anymore yet...too early.

At any rate, thanks for sharing your info. In the bigger scheme of things,,,,what am I or you going to do about it?? I for one will not quit driving my car, pickup or 4 wheeler because of the scary boogey man called "climate change". We are to be good stewards of our natural resources and gifts that the Lord has given us. I burn wood exclusively in my home and evaporator and I have no hobbies other than farming. I certainly believe in reducing, reusing and recycling, but I am not going to make a religion out of it and let it control me as it does some.

I would be more concerned of invasive species such as ALB ending our syruping days than climate warming.

[Scm]

..........

[eustis22]

They're coming to steal our GOLFS!!!!!

[Scm]

..........

[ToadHill]

Watched part of that and had an overwhelming urge to run out and by a tinfoil hat.

[Scm]

..........

[johnpma]

Why don't you buy the official UN handbook (I linked it for convenience) and educate yourself abou it instead. A tin foil hat won't stop it. Neither would a whack job like Jill Stein:o

[mudr]

https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
I'd like to bump this comment, because that link is a very concise listing of explanations that refute the majority of climate change denial arguments. Thank you, Eustis.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[ToadHill]

Thanks for the list. Good reading.

[n8hutch]

What A mess!! It is so hard to cypher fact from fiction, I love this country but Democracy has its ups and downs for sure. Some of these lobbyists/liars should be behind bars.

[Scm]

..........

[johnpma]

I have always wondered about the amount of people on earth, the fact that people live longer today, the fact that we have more automobiles on earth, and more public transportation all of which contributes to massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.......

Then I think back to the 60's when people had oil pits in their yard, as did auto repair shops. When cars were not as fuel efficient or did not have emission control systems........

Who do you believe.........really???? The last ones I ever believe is the government.....as for decades they have proved to be nothing more than lying crooks.........

[Russell Lampron]

I have always wondered about the amount of people on earth, the fact that people live longer today, the fact that we have more automobiles on earth, and more public transportation all of which contributes to massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere.......

Then I think back to the 60's when people had oil pits in their yard, as did auto repair shops. When cars were not as fuel efficient or did not have emission control systems........

Who do you believe.........really???? The last ones I ever believe is the government.....as for decades they have proved to be nothing more than lying crooks.........

Ahhhh the 60's! The good old days when the skys were filled with smog and the rivers were full of sewage. Lets not forget the clouds of smoke that used to billow out of the exhaust stacks of big trucks either. We have done a lot to clean up our act since then.

The time for sugaring here in the central NH was the month of March and when I first started doing this I was usually all done by the end of March. With all of this global warming I have been sugaring into April each of the last 4 years. This year I made 67 1/2 gallons of syrup in the month of March and 67 gallons in April.

[berkshires]

The time for sugaring here in the central NH was the month of March and when I first started doing this I was usually all done by the end of March. With all of this global warming I have been sugaring into April each of the last 4 years. This year I made 67 1/2 gallons of syrup in the month of March and 67 gallons in April.

Yes of course global warming is real, and real debate (as opposed to denial) is long past. We're in agreement about that. But that being said, using one year's sugaring in one region as a yardstick is not a good argument to prove it. For example, just two years ago, 2015 would have made a good argument that the earth is "cooler" - if one season in one region in one year was a valid yardstick. That year, in Western MA (probably not too different from central NH) the best time to tap would have been March 9th. But looking at the article, you can see that while that year was a cold season, you can also look at all the cold seasons from the last 120 years and see a very clear trend line. Look at the bottom of all the red lines in this graph: http://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_1920w/Boston/2011-2020/2017/04/12/BostonGlobe.com/Metro/Images/image02-9173.png

That said, even though large variation swings from year to year is the norm, that doesn't mean that it all comes out in the wash. What does seem clear is that a general shift in the best "zone" for sugaring will make a big overall difference in where sugaring is worth more than doing as a hobby, over the long term.

[Scm]

..........

[eustis22]

Thanks for the expertise.

A Koch-funded denier and you're go-to guy is a tv weatherman???

[psparr]

What exactly is the correct temperature the earth should be?
Forty or fifty years ago was ideal and any variation from that is detrimental?
There is plenty we don't know, and saying the science is settled is ludicrous.

[Scm]

..........

[Scm]

..........

[Scm]

..........

[Scm]

..........

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

"Still a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest"

The Boxer Paul Simon

[psparr]

Heck it was once settled science that the earth was flat! Those that thought different were called "deniers". Just sayin.

[psparr]

Remember peak oil? Weren't we supposed to run out in the 80's or something. That was settled science.

[DrTimPerkins]

Heck it was once settled science that the earth was flat! Those that thought different were called "deniers". Just sayin.

Actually, the majority of western "science" at the time was based upon religious teachings, not actual science. Real science had established long before that time that the earth was round.

[DrTimPerkins]

Remember peak oil? Weren't we supposed to run out in the 80's or something. That was settled science.

With some it was, but I daresay that there was not a strong consensus among scientists on this.

[psparr]

I'm just trying to get across the point that we may know a great deal, but there is infinitely more we don't know.

[Scm]

..........

[eustis22]

Peak oil is actually a theory, based on best estimates of the capacity known oil fields, at the time. The difference being that climate change involves observable data. You can't actually SEE an oil dome emptying. It is also based on the population growing as energy supplies remain static. Well, renewables tend to reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed so naturally the supply itself is growing.

[psparr]

Climate science is largely based on future models. That is "theory".

[DrTimPerkins]

I'm just trying to get across the point that we may know a great deal, but there is infinitely more we don't know.

Absolutely....otherwise I'd be out of a job.

[psparr]

Absolutely....otherwise I'd be out of a job.

Good comeback!

[eustis22]

Nonsense. What's theory is what's causing the warming, not the warming itself.

The Three Stages of Climate Denial (with apologies to Kubler-Ross):

Stage 1) Its not Happening.

Stage 2) ok, its happening but WE didn't cause it

Stage 3) ok, its happening and we caused it but theres nothing to be done now so why worry?

[psparr]

So you know for certain that before recorded history, temperatures were cooler or didn't fluctuate less than they do now?

[Scm]

..........

[markcasper]

Peak oil is actually a theory, based on best estimates of the capacity known oil fields, at the time. The difference being that climate change involves observable data. You can't actually SEE an oil dome emptying. It is also based on the population growing as energy supplies remain static. Well, renewables tend to reduce the amount of fossil fuel consumed so naturally the supply itself is growing.

I'm glad you have admitted that peak oil is a theory along with global warming.

[SeanD]

Scm, I'm curious how you decide what's a credible source and what is not. You obviously do a ton of research on the web. How do you decide that the staff at sites like preventdisease.com, scottthong.com, whatsupwiththat.com, and the naturalnews.com are credible while others are not? What criteria do you use to reach the conclusion that climatologists or NOAA are liars? This isn't meant to sound snarky. I'm genuinely curious how you decide that website X has it right while the others are part of a conspiracy.

By the way, the topic of climate change and your argument get muddled when you (and others) bury the thread with references to food supply, oil supply, magnetic fields, democracy vs. a republic, etc.

[RileySugarbush]

SeanD,

I had a similar thought, and was going to ask a similar question for Scm, and others with doubts about causes of climate change. For that matter, who could change your mind in the opposite direction, if you are in the human causation camp? Who would you believe, if they stated a position that you don't currently agree with?

Is there any source of information that could change your mind on a strongly held opinion?

[markcasper]

My dad always has told of a radio guy named Frank Mcgee, and in 1957 began preaching of running out of oil (peak oil?). Well, that was 60 years ago and we are still going. Peak oil may not be directly related to global warming, but I have heard in the past that the peak oil myth was directly used in trying to advance global warming rhetoric.

[markcasper]

Whether you believe in global warming, climate change, peak oil, etc., or not. The fact is that this world will come to an end someday. The earth and everything in it will be destroyed.

[RileySugarbush]

Mark,

Those are interesting comments, but not completely on topic here.

Care to reply to SeanD or myself?

Every individual cannot know everything. We all rely of information from other sources. How do you decide what source is credible? Is there any source that you would feel is credible enough to convince you that climate change is accelerated due to human activity?

[eustis22]

>So you know for certain that before recorded history, temperatures were cooler or didn't fluctuate less than they do now?

You understand that we're talking rate of change, right?

We know that after the Yucatan asteroid hit, global temos dropped precipitiously immediate following. Hello, nuclear winter,goodbye dinosaurs.

The warming is at an accelerated pace, thanks to our greenhouse gas generation, thus causing weather extremes.

"taxes"

And there it is.

[markcasper]

Mark,

Those are interesting comments, but not completely on topic here.

Care to reply to SeanD or myself?

Every individual cannot know everything. We all rely of information from other sources. How do you decide what source is credible? Is there any source that you would feel is credible enough to convince you that climate change is accelerated due to human activity?

I'm not sure what you mean by "off topic"? I am a Christian and the Bible states of sin corrupting everything because of what Adam and Eve did (man). God is in control of this universe whether you believe it or not. The world will come to an end whether you believe it or not. God put the oil and coal in the earth for man to use for his time here on earth. Is the earth warming up because man is consuming it? Maybe....but does it matter? There are many, many sources that show overwhelming evidence, as well as proof, that governments and corporations around the world are using global warming/ climate change/ ice age theories to trick the public into giving up their sovereignty and wealth.

As for convincing that humans are causing climate change?? Not sure how to answer that. I guess I never said that I didn't believe humans didn't have any part to do with climate change. Its kind of a trick question if you ask me. And does it really matter if humans are causing climate change anyway? Seems there are people on here trying to play God IMO, or should I say trying to play the role of God.

[RileySugarbush]

I think it matters if humans are causing an increase in the rate of climate change because it says we can make choices to reduce that rate.

[markcasper]

I think it matters if humans are causing an increase in the rate of climate change because it says we can make choices to reduce that rate.

Please explain why the term "global warming" was changed to "climate change." Who is "we"? And what are you going to do?

[RileySugarbush]

I'm fine with the term global warming in this discussion. I wasn't trying to be sneaky.
We is any and all humans, to various degrees
What to do? Anything we can, I suppose. I personally do some small things, but more largely, support a change to less carbon intense energy seems more than reasonable. Recognizing that choices can possibly make a difference is a good first step.

[mudr]

The terms global warming and climate change get used interchangeably, but really have two different meanings. Neither are necessary incorrect. Global warming refers to the phenomenon that, *on average across the world on a long term scale*, the earth is warming. Note, this is the broadest average across everywhere and over a long time. This is happening and is supported with data, but leaves out many of the nuances.

Climate change is really a better term that does a good job of really describing the effects of what we that were caused by global warming. The word climate is not just temperature, but all aspects of the *long term* weather average. Temperature, annual rain, annual minimum temperature, average January low, average July high, rainfall per storm, a million other averages, and the variability around those averages. This is a better term to use, as it's not just getting warmer, but there are many other things changing in our climate. For instance, while there is a warming trend across the globe, that trend is actually stronger for, say, average January overnight low temperatures. We are *on average* not seeing as cold of nights in winter. Also, we are seeing that variability increase in a number of climate variables. A good example is rainfall at a number of places, for example many warmer climates (including california) are experiencing wide fluctuations in rainfall. The rain is much less consistent, and when they do get rain it is a 5 inch mudslide inducing event.

So that is the difference between global warming and climate change. Neither is incorrect, but climate change does a good job of acknowledging the fact that not just one thing is changing, it is actually many aspects of climate. Also, global warming is really a term used at the globe level (again average temperature across the entire globe), climate change does a better job at being applied to the regional level, which is good because not all regions are being affected in the same way or the same magnitude.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[GV2]

Be careful what we wish for, all of us who wood-fire our maple operations. In CT many towns have outlawed external wood burning units to heat homes, mostly for pollution I believe, but you get my point. We don't want to be painted with the same brush as Al Gore (do what I say not as I do, big home private jet etc.)

I still laugh when recall a Russian reporter standing on the steps of the Kremlin with a fur hat, heavy coat, and snow flying in the wind, asking Putin about the subject, his reply was that "Global warming, not Necessarily bad for everyone". :lol:

Looks like it will get me one way or the other, banana trees replacing my maples, or laws preventing me from firing my arch.

[Chickenman]

I maybe wrong here and over simplifying but don't volcanos emit more into the atmosphere then we ever could? Did we not learn that when the dino's roamed the planet that most all the land was "tropical" (evidence from coal fields today), then we got hit with an ice age and started to thaw from that. If all was tropical at that time we have not reached the original temps of the earth from that time period. They used to shout global cooling but could not get government funding so they shout global warming and pour tons of our money into it.

[SeanD]

Actually, volcanoes only emit a fraction of the CO2 we do with our burning of fossil fuels. Volcanic eruptions occurred throughout the warming and cooling periods recorded in time. There has been a dramatic spike in CO2 in our atmosphere in the last 100+ years. All natural sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases have remained constant. For example, volcanoes are not erupting more than they used to. This is where the connection to human activity comes in. We know burning fossil fuels releases CO2. We know we've been burning a lot of it - outpacing natural sources in the last 120 years. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. So, this is the human connection to climate change.

If we played a large role over the last century releasing CO2, couldn't we play a large role curbing it in the next century? I can't just leave a mess for my kids and their kids - not when I know better. I'm not comfortable with the philosophy that it's all going to end anyway. With that mindset why would anyone take care of anything or anyone?

[mudr]

Chickenman, a few quick replies.

Volcanoes (and any other large source)- yes they can put out huge amounts of greenhouse gases due to *natural processes*. These processes are part of the natural system, and is fine. The issue becomes pulling out trillions of tons of carbon (fossil fuels) that have been stored underground for millions of years. This Carbo has not been part of the natural system, and to pull out those billions of tons of carbon and put it into the active atmosphere and biosphere in the matter of 100 years is a very strong shock to the system. The changes in greenhouse gas concentration of this magnitude typical occurs over thousands to millions of years.

The earth's climate has changed before- simple and short answer to this- yes it has. But never at this rate, which is very important. Most species, including some aspects of human society, are not able to react and deal with changes in climate at that speed. Absolute best example, coastal communities. We've already seen sea level rise and it's on going to go higher due to climate change. The majority of the world's population lives on the coasts, sometimes withing feet of elevation of the water. Sea level rise is going to be very costly to deal with, no matter how you slice it.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Chickenman]

But fossil fuels by their very nature were once living and absorbed the co2 that they release. Does this not make them carbon neutral? Grant it we have depleted the abundance of plants that will reabsorb the co2 that they release. I agree that we should and can do more but I like to look at both sides.

[mudr]

But fossil fuels by their very nature were once living and absorbed the co2 that they release. Does this not make them carbon neutral? Grant it we have depleted the abundance of plants that will reabsorb the co2 that they release. I agree that we should and can do more but I like to look at both sides.
I appreciate critical thinking. And yes fossil fuels are carbon from a natural source, the problem is that they are being released rediculously fast (geologic time frame), and via non-natural processes.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[psparr]

What "climate change" will do in the future is speculation.

Remember the scientists telling us the BP oil spill would damage the ecosystem for generations?
What happened? The oil was consumed by microorganisms which in turn fed other things which in turn fed the fish which are more plentiful now then before.
Again we don't know enough to presume we know how this will all play out.
Don't get me wrong. I recycle and try to do my part, but unless you wipe out mankind from the earth. You yourself won't do diddly squat to change anything. China opens on average 35 new coal fires power plants every day!

[DrTimPerkins]

China opens on average 35 new coal fires power plants every day!

Do you have a source for that number? What I've seen is more like around one new plant every 7.5-10 days, which would be somewhere around 36-48 per YEAR. They had issued permits for 210 new plants, although that spans several years of construction. Even that number is misleading as some of these are replacing older plants and some are reducing operating hours at older plants. In the last few years, Chinese CO2 emissions have actually started to drop a little as the growth rate of their economy slows.

[psparr]

I don't recall where and maybe it was per year. But to emphasize my point even at that rate, someone's Prius isn't making up peanuts.

And also ethanol, again I forget the source, but it supposedly takes more energy and emissions to create it than you benefit from it. Just another well thinking poorly thought out hairbrained scheme.

[SeanD]

When comparing offsets, you have to compare apples to apples. A new coal plant going on line in China can be offset by one going off line in Germany, or (gulp) the USA. For the person driving the Prius, it offsets the higher emission vehicle they would be driving anyway.

As for ethanol, or any other attempt at doing something helpful, I say have at it. Keep trying. Behind every success is a long line of failure. Look how affordable PV panels are now. Those were out of reach for the average electricity user as recently as ten years ago. Look how much improvement there is in fuel efficiency over the last ten years. Where could we be ten years from now?

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead

[DrTimPerkins]

I don't recall where and maybe it was per year.

No problem, but earlier in this thread I believe there was a discussion of facts (perhaps it was another thread), so I thought it pertinent to correct the statement given that it was off by two orders of magnitude. Feel free to continue the discussion without me.

You are all to be commended on keeping this conversation rather civil.

[psparr]

No problem, but earlier in this thread I believe there was a discussion of facts (perhaps it was another thread), so I thought it pertinent to correct the statement given that it was off by two orders of magnitude. Feel free to continue the discussion without me.

You are all to be commended on keeping this conversation rather civil.

No offense taken. It's hard to track down sources whilst your supposed to be "working".

[mudr]

The majority of environmental scientists I know do not like or even despise the notion of ethanol as an answer to our climate change problem. As noted above, it takes more energy to produce than it actually provides. At this point, the major players that actually push for and support ethanol are large chemical companies and the Midwest corn lobbyists.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[berkshires]

The majority of environmental scientists I know do not like or even despise the notion ethanol as an answer to our climate change problem. As noted above, it takes more energy to produce than it actually provides. At this point, the major players that actually push for and support ethanol are large chemical companies and the Midwest corn lobbyists.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I wonder if that's still true. If I'm reading it right, according to the USDA (https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf) "energy input for ethanol production declined to 9,007 BTU/gal." And the actual number of BTU in a gallon of ethanol is 76,100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)

So if you're just looking at energy in over energy out, it's 9/76 = 12%. This may be higher than some other fuels, but it's a far cry from "more energy to produce than it provides".

Gabe

[berkshires]

I think the bigger objection to ethanol is that you're taking what's essentially surplus food and using it to fuel cars. To many people, this just seems wrong, when there are people who are starving in the world.

[mudr]

I wonder if that's still true. If I'm reading it right, according to the USDA (https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/2015EnergyBalanceCornEthanol.pdf) "energy input for ethanol production declined to 9,007 BTU/gal." And the actual number of BTU in a gallon of ethanol is 76,100 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent)

So if you're just looking at energy in over energy out, it's 9/76 = 12%. This may be higher than some other fuels, but it's a far cry from "more energy to produce than it provides".

Gabe

Man, last I heard it took something like 1.1 units of energy to make 1.0 unites of ethanol energy. If that 12% is true, that is phenomenal. That said, I am skeptical and need to look into it. It seems too good to be true.


I think the bigger objection to ethanol is that you're taking what's essentially surplus food and using it to fuel cars. To many people, this just seems wrong, when there are people who are starving in the world.

Yes, yes, yes! This is the other half. It is a waste. Thank you for bringing it up.

[eustis22]

>Remember the scientists telling us the BP oil spill would damage the ecosystem for generations?

http://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/400374744/5-years-after-bp-oil-spill-effects-linger-and-recovery-is-slow

(http://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/400374744/5-years-after-bp-oil-spill-effects-linger-and-recovery-is-slow)According to NOAA, (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2017/03/supplemental/page-2) March 2017 marks "the first time a monthly temperature departure from average surpasses 1.0°C (1.8°F) in the absence of an El Niño episode in the tropical Pacific Ocean."
(http://www.npr.org/2015/04/20/400374744/5-years-after-bp-oil-spill-effects-linger-and-recovery-is-slow)

[Wannabe]

The earth's climate has changed before- simple and short answer to this- yes it has. But never at this rate, which is very important.



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

How long has earth been in existence? And how long have 'we' been keeping records? How does anyone know that "nothing has changed at this rate before"(warming or cooling)?

Just wondering out loud and not trying to be a wise a$$.

[mudr]

The link words it better than I could.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/how-do-scientists-study-ancient-climates

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[Wannabe]

I'm not buying that that is a very credible way to determine that this is the fastest rate that the climate has EVER changed..:)

But the great thing is that everyone is entitled their own opinion.

[markcasper]

.gov is the concerning part

[eustis22]

>ow does anyone know that "nothing has changed at this rate before"(warming or cooling)?

Science.

[markcasper]

[QUOTE=eustis22;333058]>ow does anyone know that "nothing has changed at this rate before"(warming or cooling)?

Science.[/QUOTE

Science is a pretty vague response to the question.

[markcasper]

>ow does anyone know that "nothing has changed at this rate before"(warming or cooling)?

Science.

Science is a pretty vague response to their question.

The real answer is that man does not know for sure, most is just based on hypothesis.

[eustis22]

"The Cretaceous was a period with a relatively warm climate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate), resulting in high eustatic sea levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level#Local_and_eustatic) that created numerous shallow inland seas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inland_sea_%28geology%29). These oceans and seas were populated with now-extinct (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinct) marine reptiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_reptile), ammonites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonites) and rudists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudists), while dinosaurs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur) continued to dominate on land. During this time, new groups of mammals (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal) and birds (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birds), as well as flowering plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowering_plants), appeared. The Cretaceous ended with a large mass extinction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinction), the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event), in which many groups, including non-avian dinosaurs, pterosaurs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur) and large marine reptiles died out. "

This is not a hypothesis. This happened. We have proof.

Science.

[psparr]

What caused the extinction event?

[eustis22]

giant frickin' asteroid whacking Yucatan. Where YOU been?

[RileySugarbush]

Science is a pretty vague response to their question.

The real answer is that man does not know for sure, most is just based on hypothesis.

It is not a guess. There is good evidence of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in geological and environmental records. A particularly valuable one is ice core samples. They do indeed show that the earth has been very warm before, but the troubling difference is that the previous warm spells which occurred tens of thousands of years ago and more, came and went over thousands of years. The current changes are occurring far more rapidly than ever, over mere decades.

It's easy to sit back and say you don't believe this. No one looked at the thermometer 100,000 years ago and wrote it in their journal. Or to ask "How can an old chunk of ice tell us the temperature back then?". That is the Science that eustis mentions. It is possible to tell how old a layer of ice is. It is possible to determine with good confidence the chemical composition of the atmosphere when that layer was formed, and it is possible to correlate that composition with environmental temperatures based on deposited plant life and other fossil records from the same time. Thousands of scientists, engineers, and researchers have come to this conclusion. These are people that have spent their life learning how to look at and understand this evidence. They present their findings and let other throw rocks at them through the peer review process. Sometimes, the rocks uncover an error. That is why the reviews happen and it improves the quality of the science and findings. Some ( but not all) of the research is funded by or carried out in government labs and that may make it difficult for some of you to believe it, fearing that it is a ploy to grab control of the people. But non government results, and the results from other governments, are in good agreement. Hopefully that reduces the concern of the US government conspiracy.

It is also possible that I am not convincing anyone with the argument. Probable even! But the fact that we are having this discussion without disparagement is a great thing.

[psparr]

giant frickin' asteroid whacking Yucatan. Where YOU been?

Eustis there is plenty that has not been proven by a reasonable doubt.
I know you might think this a dumb argument, but play along with me.

Where did the asteroid come from?
This is a serious question.

[eustis22]

Asteroids come from space. For a vacuum, it has a LOT of stuff in it.

Again, not a hypothesis. we can SEE them. With Science.

[psparr]

Asteroids come from space. For a vacuum, it has a LOT of stuff in it.

Again, not a hypothesis. we can SEE them. With Science.

Ok. Now where did the stuff in space come from?

[eustis22]

other stuff in space, mostly gas, originally.

boy, I hope you're not leading up to Creation.

[psparr]

I'm getting to the point where you can't prove it didn't happen. We as humans have very limited knowledge about anything. We may think we know a lot, but in reality know only a tiny fraction of everything.

If you want to take it down to gas, where did the gas come from?
It is something you cannot answer. None of us can. Which leads me back to my overall point that nothing is absolute.
The theory of relativity to this day is still called a theory. For good reason.

[markcasper]

other stuff in space, mostly gas, originally.

boy, I hope you're not leading up to Creation.

Do you believe that humans evolved over time from just a "gas"?

[eustis22]

The gas came from the Big Bang, which God triggered so he could create the Earth plus dinosaurs and asteroids and send the asteroid to earth to turn the dinosaurs into oil which is how we know god wanted us to drill, baby, drill.

Sorry, I just cut to the chase there, didn't I?

[DrTimPerkins]

Which leads me back to my overall point that nothing is absolute.

This conversation, which I found amusing at first, just turned out to be incredibly anti-climatic (pardon the pun). This statement above is the ultimate cop-out. Just because we don't know everything with absolute certainty doesn't mean that we aren't pretty darn sure of some things. I'm pretty sure the sun will come up tomorrow morning....but who knows. I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy dinner tonite when I get home....but I can't be absolutely sure of it. Gee....maybe I'll just give up eating if I'm not sure I'll like it.

Most people really have a rather poor understanding of what science can tell us and what it cannot. Science almost NEVER arrives at conclusions with absolute certainty. That is the nature of the beast. Science almost NEVER seeks to prove anything (we'll leave the proofs to mathematicians)....that isn't the point of most testing. In actually we try to disprove things more than anything else (the NULL hypothesis). However when you've failed to show that all other REASONABLE possibilities explain something, then it is MOST LIKELY that the hypothesis you state is the correct hypothesis. When there is multiple testing (often in a variety of ways) of a hypothesis by many scientists and the hypothesis cannot be disproven, then it might be generally accepted as THEORY, however even theories are only as good as the next test that comes along. Science is ALWAYS testing hypotheses and ALWAYS questioning theories That doesn't mean that scientists think they are wrong....just that they are scientists and this is how we are trained to think.

[DrTimPerkins]

...which God triggered....


Sorry, I just cut to the chase there, didn't I?

But scientists have never "proved" there is a God? :D Guess I'd better get right to work.

[eustis22]

Also, the bathroom here is solid proof that yes, humans DID evolve from gas, and many are still evolving from it.

[Wannabe]

Also, the bathroom here is solid proof that yes, humans DID evolve from gas, and many are still evolving from it.

Don't be so hard on yourself Eustis..:)

[eustis22]

your body chemistry changes as you age.

[psparr]

Dr. Tim I do not feel that is a cop-out. Most of this discussion was about "facts" and trying to bang others heads against the wall until we agreed with said "facts".
I may not be great at presenting an argument, so that may be where some get lost. I'm just having fun debating an issue.
If anyone really wants to affect change on this issue, they certainly shouldn't be wasting their breath arguing with little old me.

So back to the topic at hand, what caused the bang?

[BreezyHill]

Such a fun thread we weave.

From where I stand it is obvious that the notion of Global Warming didn't work any longer; so it was called what it has always been climate change. And that is exactly what it does...change. I have not been around as long as some but longer than others and since I was a kid it seems that every year is different in some ways and the same in others. It is going to freeze in the fall, warm in the spring.

The drought in California that was never going to end is quenched for the moment.

We were wet as fish and by golly the ground has dried and some farmers have planted corn.

As Dr Tim said it is going to change and that's all there is to it. Guess that's why we have 100 year floods.

Some have said that eating vegetables will make you lose weight...we tell that to a cow or an elephant.

so you all heard if you put 10 scientists in a room and ask one question you will get 10 answers. Fine so be it but I am still going to eat and enjoy my steak, eggs, bacon, broccoli in ranch dip, and I am still going to make egg salad sandwiches on Easter from colored eggs. I learned last year that no matter how well you eat it doesn't mean you will make it to 90, cause there is always some moron that doesn't care about anything.

It is good to see that we all don't think alike; cause it would be a boring thread if we all agreed. LOL

[mainebackswoodssyrup]

God, dinosaurs, Christians, scientists, gas....what started as a good discussion has gone wacko 3 times over.:confused:
I think its great you so all are concerned....means I don't have to worry about it :lol:

[mudr]

As Dr Tim said it is going to change and that's all there is to it. Guess that's why we have 100 year floods.

Nobody ever said the climate doesn't change under natural conditions. The problem now is the rate of change and the fact it is caused by a non-natural process that hasn't been part of the natural ebb and flow ever.


if you put 10 scientists in a room and ask one question you will get 10 answers.

As a scientist, I have seen this and it makes for very boring meetings. HOWEVER, they almost always agree on the general sentiment but nit-pick the details to death based on minute differences. In general, they all agree with the main argement (ex. all 10 agree that climate change is happening) but nit pick the minutia (ex. climate change is happening but my analysis says the average temperatures have increase 2.1 degrees C while yours says it has increased 2.2)

Also, put 100 climate scientists in the room and 97 say climate change is happening.



Guess that's why we have 100 year floods
Except there is a noticeable uptick in the frequency of 100 year floods, so that in many places we are seeing them happen, on average, more often than 100 years



Some have said that eating vegetables will make you lose weight... well tell that to a cow or an elephant

This statement makes little sense and is not even applicable to this thread. I understand you are trying to discredit science and scientists, but it does not work. Maybe you are just justifying your position of "i don't need to agree with someone because someone was wrong at some point". I do not know.

Eating high proportions of vegetables will indeed make you lose weight. However, cows and elephants are not heavy due to a lack of lack of vegies, as a matter of fact they are rather lean compared to many of us humans. They are just large due to genetics and evolution.


The frustrating thing about being an active advocate for science and a scientist is the fact that no matter how much data you have, no matter how much work has been done, and no matter how rock-solid your results are, there are people that will not "agree with you" (even though it is not an opinion to be agreed with, it is a fact supported by the preponderance of data). People can write off any findings because "well I just think so and I'm entitled to my own opinion". Yes, everyone can have an opinion, but if that opinion is not supported by actual studies, data, and years worth or results, it is not an accurate representation of the real world. It is this unwillingness to accept science that bothers me.

Breezy, this final soap box statement is not directed at just you. It is a broader commentary on the world we live in. I'm keeping this civil. Cheers.

[Sunday Rock Maple]

To paraphrase Scott Adams, I have lots of confidence (like 100 percent) in the physics and chemistry. Perhaps about 85 percent in the measurement. The big complex multi-factor models maybe 10 percent, and the economic prescriptions zero percent.

[eustis22]

>and the economic prescriptions zero percent.

?

[SeanD]

Pictures of signs from the science marches around the world.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/04/22/photos-best-science-march-signs/FAHvbr46Is417XQUi6E2xN/story.html

Haters be hatin', but these signs are proven to be clever and funny.

[Wannabe]

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/10/a-swelling-volume-of-scientific-papers-now-forecasting-global-cooling-in-the-coming-decades/#sthash.Ih4q97w4.dpbs

A 'Little Ice Age' is coming. Here is a bunch of scientists that are using science (for you science guys and scientists:)).

There's lots of 'theories' out there.:cool:

[Tweegs]

I’ve been following along in this thread, but given the topic I’ve been reluctant to jump in.

A peer reviewed research paper has just been published and it’s doubtful that it will receive much attention in the press.

Since there is a high level of interest in this thread, the paper is relevant to the conversation, and there is likely to be little circulation elsewhere, I submit for your review:

The paper itself:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/ef-data-research-report-second-editionfinal041717-1.pdf

And an article to sum it up:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/exclusive-new-study-calls-epas-labeling-of-co2-a-pollutant-totally-false/

The above relates to the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding which allows the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.

[DrTimPerkins]

A peer reviewed research paper has just been published and it’s doubtful that it will receive much attention in the press.

Exactly where is this paper published and who peer-reviewed it? This doesn't appear to be a main-stream science journal of any type.

Those three authors are well known for their clever manipulation and cherry picking of data. Most scientists just ignore them completely as their methods are not reliable and are mainly geared at generating controversy in the public.

[DrTimPerkins]

A 'Little Ice Age' is coming. Here is a bunch of scientists that are using science (for you science guys and scientists.

Actually, Kenneth Richard (the author of those posts) is not a scientist. He is a blogger. He writes a weekly blog...which is not peer-reviewed.

[mudr]

Ugh, I had a longer response typed up but closed out the tab on my computer. This response will be shorter...

I think you found an online document that was written by some of the (only) 3% of climate scientists who do not feel the data support the notion that we are changing our climate. Actually, two of the three lead authors are indeed either climatologists or meterologists, but both are on the books as being supported by think-tanks funded by large business, including the fossil fuel industry (Cato and Heartland Institutes). The other author appears to be an engineer, but I can't find much on him.

This is great you found an online "peer-reviewed" document, but it is not the same as a peer-reviewed journal manuscript. Papers from peer-reviewed journals are generally peer reviewed "blindly", so you do not know who you are getting as a reviewer and they don't know you. This document seems to be written by folks that on the books for the aforementioned think-tanks, and "agreed with" (peer reviewed?) by other folks on the books by the same think-tanks. That is not peer-review. Further, this report is rather shoddily produced. Some of the things I find troublesome include the random and inconsistent capitalization of various words; figures produced without the broadly-accepted practices of labels and figure captions; poor punctuation; random and inconsistent highlighting of random statements; and a poorly performed and inconsistent attempt at citing sources.

To be blunt, if I had an undergraduate student turn in a document that contained many of these errors, they would not be getting a good grade. I am surprised that the authors, most of whom have advanced degrees, put together a document as poorly produced as this. This document is not a true peer-reviewed document, it appears to be a politically and monetarily motivated attempt to discredit real scientific reports. It is sad to see individuals with advanced degrees have their names on such a poorly produced article. Now, if they clean this up and make a real report that is consistent with the generally accepted scientific practices INCLUDING having it actually peer-reviewed in a robust and ethical manner, I will take the findings of the report more seriously.

[mudr]

Exactly where is this paper published and who peer-reviewed it? This doesn't appear to be a main-stream science journal of any type.

Those three authors are well known for their clever manipulation and cherry picking of data. Most scientists just ignore them completely as their methods are not reliable and are mainly geared at generating controversy in the public.

Dr. Perkins beat me to it.

[Tweegs]

Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
I’m merely pointing out that a paper has just been released that contradicts EPA’s findings.

The paper was “released”, not actually published…poor choice of words on my part.
Three different news sources reporting on the paper’s release cited it as peer reviewed, I just went with it.

I’m not holding this paper up as evidence to support an opinion, nor am I criticizing the authors or body of work.
It popped up on my news sites this morning, was relevant to the thread, so here you go.
Now if you folks want to pick it apart, have at it.

I’m really more interested in what people have to say about it.
So far, we have the paper should be disregarded because it was sloppily written by 3 kooks, it wasn’t actually published and the peer review claim is suspect.
Those points are duly noted and no offense taken or intended to be given.

It does remind me of an engineer I work with though.
80% of the time he’s wrong. It’s the 20% he’s right that irritates me to no end.
Much as I’d like, I can never dismiss him out of hand. :lol:

[BreezyHill]

Breezy, this final soap box


Wow, Somebody please explain what a joke is.

By the way I am a successful beef farmer and feed manufacturer for livestock. And some people are fat, sorry if you took this personally, but don't think for a second that if you eat some veggies you are going to lose weight. Losing weight is a caloric balance issue.

Floods of 100-200-500 year magnitude are happening more often but it can be directly connected to the increase of paved areas. As well as the number of humans on earth that produce those same gases that cows make...that some say are destroying the Ozone layer.

I too am frustrated with advocacy. It has been said that farming today is responsible for more pollutants than during the 1940's. Perplexing how this is possible with more fuel efficient tractors, average corn planter is 18 rows in a single pass were in the mid '40's it was the 2 row planter and the ford 8n & 9n tractor that was used to plant about 95 million acres of corn. Then factor in that much of corn is panted no till will in the '40's the land needed to be plowed, disked, harrowed and finally planted...and don't forget at least 2 or often 5 trips thru the field to cultivate.

There is an old saying that figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure. Seems that those that were saying by 2015 the world be a oddly different place, misinterpreted the data.

When this happens and then the VP Gore refuses to give an interview, it becomes harder and harder for the masses to except the findings.

Thank you for remaining "civil" I expect nothing less.

[eustis22]

aren't most fertilizers and pesticides petrochemicals? I believe that is the carbon footprint that's being discussed.

>Floods of 100-200-500 year magnitude are happening more often but it can be directly connected to the increase of paved areas.

cite?

[psparr]

Eustis I'm still waiting for that answer as to what caused the "bang"

[eustis22]

I think The Creation is far afield of the topic, no?

My personal opinion is someone screwed up a lab experiment.

[RileySugarbush]

Agreed. Let's look forward. Carefully.

Looking back at the origin of the universe in this discussion is like Captain Hazelwood reminiscing about his kindergarten class as the Exxon Valdez heads for Bligh Reef.

[psparr]

It just goes to my point that we don't know as much as we think we do. Not trying to take the discussion backwards, just making a point that those that don't believe in creation can't even figure out how he planet got here. Yet want to say definitely that the science is settled on climate change.

[DrTimPerkins]

I'm not going to debate the existence of God and creation, but I will offer a little reading of what is known and not known of the origin of the Universe, which is quite a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

[eustis22]

I also don't think you can make The Big Bang and Climate Change//Global Warming remotely analogous to each other.

One is observable. One is not.

[DrTimPerkins]

I also don't think you can make The Big Bang and Climate Change//Global Warming remotely analogous to each other.

One is observable. One is not.

To some degree we can observe the aftermath of the big bang and extrapolate from there based upon the evidence that remains.

Also, one is happening over a few hundred years time-frame, the other over 13 billion years.

[eustis22]

yes...we'd lose some sleep observing the latter and boiling takes enough of that already.

[markcasper]

To some degree we can observe the aftermath of the big bang and extrapolate from there based upon the evidence that remains.

Also, one is happening over a few hundred years time-frame, the other over 13 billion years.

What evidence the earth is 13,000,000,000 years old?

[markcasper]

I also don't think you can make The Big Bang and Climate Change//Global Warming remotely analogous to each other.

One is observable. One is not.

It is observable that all of this has its roots in evolutionary teaching, while at the same time it accelerates the teaching of social justice/communism to our children using the fear of ruining the environment as the means of delivery.

[psparr]

It is observable that all of this has its roots in evolutionary teaching, while at the same time it accelerates the teaching of social justice/communism to our children using the fear of ruining the environment as the means of delivery.

Now that one needs its own thread!
Boy that would be fun.

[BreezyHill]

aren't most fertilizers and pesticides petrochemicals? I believe that is the carbon footprint that's being discussed.

>Floods of 100-200-500 year magnitude are happening more often but it can be directly connected to the increase of paved areas.

cite?

No there are numerous fertilizers that are not petrochemicals, rock phosphate, high mag lime stone..that supplies Ca and Magnesium. Even soybean meal is a source of nitrogen and is used as a fertilizer.

It is said to see the change in the generations. Those from the twenties understood the depression though they were to young to comprehend it and now people need to be shown what is happening in their own communitee on paper for it to be truth and factual. "Cite" the Site is all across America there are fewer operating farms and more houses.

Look at California. What happens when there is a 1" rain storm...the storm DRAINAGE SYETEM takes billions of gallons of water to the ocean. This water would have been absorbed into the ground 100 years ago. So the paved surfaces stop the water from entering the water table. Just a single acre of parking lot will produce approximately 325,000 gallons of run off water. When La is 469 and there is 640 acres in a square mile and over 90% of the city is paved or buildings per the 2010 census study. And if I did the numbers correctly that is 88 billion gallons of water lost per acre of rain. Granted this will only raise Lake Mead about .3 inches but it still increases the affects of the drought.

It is far more important that people learn how to lessen their affect on the plant than to loss ones grasp on reality and predict the disappearance of cities and tens of thousands of acres that was said to happen before 2015 due to global warming. Since this didn't happen the name is now Climate Change. Well guess what as the last several posts have stated the climate is always changing and will long after we are all dead.

Lets spend time more wisely and figure how to stop cancer, diabetes, and any of the other life threatening diseases that need the funds to investigate and find a cure; than flying to a foreign country to have a summit on Climate Change! And when that is moving forward we better fid a way to make our farm land operational again cause we are going to have a bunch more people to feed!

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

[QUOTE=BreezyHill;333357]No there are numerous fertilizers that are not petrochemicals, rock phosphate, high mag lime stone..that supplies Ca and Magnesium. Even soybean meal is a source of nitrogen and is used as a fertilizer.

Breezy, do you have any numbers as to the percentage of fertilizers applied to our cropland as to how much is petrochemical based versus how much comes from sources such as rock phosphate and limestone?

[DrTimPerkins]

What evidence the earth is 13,000,000,000 years old?

The earth is not 13 billion years old. It is a mere 4.543 billion years old. The universe is calculated to be approximately 13.8 billion years. There are several independent lines of evidence for this. It has been calculated and subsequently more and more refined since about the 1920s. It is well established and generally accepted as fact.

Interesting, several religions accept the "Big Bang" theory as consistent with their beliefs. Pretty much the only difference is they say God created the singularity that manifested itself in the Big Bang and subsequent Universe expansion and differentiation. Some scientists accept that addition, some do not.

[BreezyHill]

[QUOTE=BreezyHill;333357]Breezy, do you have any numbers as to the percentage of fertilizers applied to our cropland as to how much is petrochemical based versus how much comes from sources such as rock phosphate and limestone?

Sorry Thompson I will have to do some digging for that number; but the other side of petrochemical fertilizers is that it is in a water soluble form and is rapidly absorbed by plants. This reduces the affects of excessive amounts of elements in the soil that causes pollution.

Case in point: Our front hill pasture is on a knowl and has a thin 6-18 inch soil structure above a bedrock layer. In some places there is exposed stone. This has been a pasture for the last 110 years the farm has been in my family. Prior to 1843 there was a house on the high point. This is a winter a spring pasture due to it being a very dry location. about 25 years ago I had all the soils on the farm sampled for a new fertilizer program. Potash is the 3rd number of a fertilizer name. The first two are Nitrogen, second is phosphorous. so 5-25-25 is 5% Nitrogen, 25% Phosphorous and 25% Potassium.

in Cornells rating system 240 # of available potash/potassium/acre and above is excessive. Now this pasture has never had any manure mechanically spread on it or any fertilizer spread on it. Only the manure from the cows grazing or wintering over. The test cam back as 795#/Ac. I was floored. This immediately changed how and where we wintered cattle.

But that then turned into an issue of not enough N per acre reducing the production of forage. So now what we have to do is to apply 75# N to increase production to where it was with just manure.

To my knowledge there is no petrochemical that can be used to bring agricultural production land back from acidity other than gypsum, limestone and cement dust. The later is from hot lime so kinda is still a limestone product of sorts. There are other minor products that are used in regions like poultry litter witch as an elevated ph due to the amount of calcium Carbonate(lime stone) in laying hens diets.

Urea and most all of the Nitrogen sources are derived from what some call petrochemical production. Urea is now used to reduce nitric oxide in diesel exhaust so the 151 billion tons produced annually is less and less for fertilizer. Urea is used in many industries.

Take a look around the farmers fields right now and many will have a green plant growing. This is a cover crop to pull nitrogen from the soil and other minerals and be plowed or killed to feed the next crop. It is in the best interest of farmers to retain as much of the nutrients applied to a field to feed the current and future crops. This then reduces how much fertilizer is needed for the next crop. N being most affect in most cases.

I probably left you with more questions and only 1/3 or less of your question answered. Sorry!

But we apply under 4 tons of fertilizer annually to our farm and produce over 500 tons of forage to feed 100 beef cattle and 3 horses. And we are going into our second year of a cornell trial that has us applying 75# of Nitrogen/ Ac for a 6 times increase I forage production. Last year the results were tremendous. And already this year we are seeing the fields that were applied are growing much faster than those without an application. It the results persist then we will be able to feed more cattle on the same acreage or use some fields for other crops.

[markcasper]

The earth is not 13 billion years old. It is a mere 4.543 billion years old. The universe is calculated to be approximately 13.8 billion years. There are several independent lines of evidence for this. It has been calculated and subsequently more and more refined since about the 1920s. It is well established and generally accepted as fact.

Interesting, several religions accept the "Big Bang" theory as consistent with their beliefs. Pretty much the only difference is they say God created the singularity that manifested itself in the Big Bang and subsequent Universe expansion and differentiation. Some scientists accept that addition, some do not.

The Bible suggests that the earth and the universe is between 6-10,000 years old max. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it suggest anything of a "big bang", rather it states that the earth and universe were made in 6, 24 hour days. Any religion that teaches otherwise is teaching false doctrine and is not from the Holy Bible.

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

Ben,
Can you answer a question that I ask or do you always have to answer one that was not asked. I don't care how much fertilizer you are using to feed your beef. I am curious as to what percent of our nations fertilizer used is made up of petrochemicals. Your previous post suggested that you might know something about that so I asked.

[eustis22]

>The Bible suggests

Um...what?

>the teaching of social justice/communism

One of these is not like the other, you know.

>the earth and universe were made in 6, 24 hour days.

Ref: Inherit the Wind.

>Nitrogen fertilizers are made from ammonia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia) (NH3), which is sometimes injected into the ground directly. The ammonia is produced by the Haber-Bosch process (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process).[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#cite_note-ETE-5) In this energy-intensive process, natural gas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas) (CH4) supplies the hydrogen, and the nitrogen (N2) is derived from the air. This ammonia is used as a feedstock (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedstock) for all other nitrogen fertilizers, such as anhydrous ammonium nitrate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate) (NH4NO3) and urea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea) (CO(NH2)2).


Top users of nitrogen-based fertilizer[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#cite_note-10)
Country Total N use (Mt pa)
Amt. used for feed/pasture (Mt pa)


China
18.7
3.0


India
11.9
N/A[11] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#cite_note-11)


U.S.
9.1
4.7





So basically half of the amount used in the U.S. is used for feed and pasture. Nearly 5 metric tons per acre. Not to worry. As the feed lands dry out the factory herds will start shrinking.

[DrTimPerkins]

The Bible suggests that the earth and the universe is between 6-10,000 years old max. Nowhere in the Scriptures does it suggest anything of a "big bang", rather it states that the earth and universe were made in 6, 24 hour days. Any religion that teaches otherwise is teaching false doctrine and is not from the Holy Bible.

I don't believe the Bible explicitly states that a "day" is a 24-hr period. There has been considerable debate among Biblical scholars whether this passage should be interpreted chronologically, or topically. If the latter, the concept of time is immaterial. Popes have even weighed in that literal interpretations are not entirely possible because of translation issues from ancient writings in which the meanings of words/phrases were not always how they are understood today.

[psparr]

I may be beating a dead horse here, but can anyone here explain where the "stuff" that caused the "Big Bang" came from?

[DrTimPerkins]

I may be beating a dead horse here, but can anyone here explain where the "stuff" that caused the "Big Bang" came from?

I believe the "dead horse" you are flogging is actually a team of horses called "general relativity" and "quantum mechanics" (physics). I doubt there is anyone really that interested in assisting you in this seemingly endless and pointless flogging process. Perhaps you can skip the long and drawn out preliminaries and enlighten us all by telling us all exactly where you're driving this particular version of the MapleTrader Titanic?

[markcasper]

Perhaps you can skip the long and drawn out preliminaries and enlighten us all by telling us all exactly where you're driving this particular version of the MapleTrader Titanic?

He, HE,he, you are funny Dr. Tim! Thanks for enlightening my day. I seriously cracked up....all good.

[markcasper]

I don't believe the Bible explicitly states that a "day" is a 24-hr period. There has been considerable debate among Biblical scholars whether this passage should be interpreted chronologically, or topically. If the latter, the concept of time is immaterial. Popes have even weighed in that literal interpretations are not entirely possible because of translation issues from ancient writings in which the meanings of words/phrases were not always how they are understood today.

"In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narratives. I understand the content literally, not figuratively or poetically. Thus, the "days" of Genesis 1 are days - periods of time that have "evening" and "morning". There is nothing in the language of the Bible's creation account to indicate that the days were longer than 24-hour periods.

[DrTimPerkins]

I think we can agree that Biblical scholars with far greater credentials that any of us have spent centuries debating these writings (and translations) and have arrived at interpretations ranging from 6,000 years (strict new earth creationism interpretation) to nearly 14 billion years (strict old earth creation interpretation). I readily admit to NOT being a biblical scholar, although I have read the bible numerous times, and have taken some courses where this has been studied. Regardless, I don't think we will resolve this question here (or in my lifetime).

[sapmaple]

"In six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the seas, and all that is in them" (Exodus 20:11). Genesis 1 and 2 are historical narratives. I understand the content literally, not figuratively or poetically. Thus, the "days" of Genesis 1 are days - periods of time that have "evening" and "morning". There is nothing in the language of the Bible's creation account to indicate that the days were longer than 24-hour periods.

2 peter 3:8" But beloved , be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day"
I would say clearly our creator sees a ''day" quite different then we do
just for the record I believe the climate has been changing since creations beginning and will continue to change over time, and we as man may or may not have an effect on it good or bad. In the end the ability for us to live here on earth and to continue making Maple Syrup from Maple trees lies in God's hand not ours

[markcasper]

2 peter 3:8" But beloved , be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years , and a thousand years as one day"
I would say clearly our creator sees a ''day" quite different then we do
just for the record I believe the climate has been changing since creations beginning and will continue to change over time, and we as man may or may not have an effect on it good or bad. In the end the ability for us to live here on earth and to continue making Maple Syrup from Maple trees lies in God's hand not ours

References to 2 Peter 3:8 have no connection to the creation account.

[SeanD]

References to 2 Peter 3:8 have no connection to the creation account.

Nor to a warming trend in winters in the Northeast, nor to climate change, nor to communism. And for that matter, your Biblical references don't have any connections to those either.

[BreezyHill]

[QUOTE=eustis22;333403>the earth and universe were made in 6, 24 hour days.

Ref: Inherit the Wind.

>Nitrogen fertilizers

So basically half of the amount used in the U.S. is used for feed and pasture. Nearly 5 metric tons per acre. Not to worry. As the feed lands dry out the factory herds will start shrinking.[/QUOTE]


So it has been a while since I was in bible school but since a day is the time period of one cycle of the sun then how do we know how long a day was prior to the formation of the sun and moon to separate day and night?

So if one is to believe the amount of 5 metric tons per acre that would mean 11,000# per acre and with there being 43560 square feet in an acre and the last load of urea we had delivered was 45 # / bushel( 1.24cu') that would be about 245 cu ft of urea on an acre on about a layer 9.7 inches deep. You can burn a hayfield off with as little as 100# of Nitrogen(217# urea) per acre. so there must be something that is missing in the calculation of 5 MTons per acre.

Thanks for the humorous thread. LOL

[mudr]

While I feel religion has nothing to do with this, I will play along and go down the rat-hole....


Numbers 35:33-34

You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel.”

The bible says don't pollute. That should be good enough for those that read it.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[eustis22]

>making Maple Syrup from Maple trees lies in God's hand not ours

Funny,I never see God tapping.

[psparr]

Eustis you may be offended by this, but I just said a prayer for you.

[ToadHill]

Just seems somewhat strange to me that religious folks aren't up in arms trying to protect what they believe to be god's creation.

[markcasper]

>making Maple Syrup from Maple trees lies in God's hand not ours

Funny,I never see God tapping.

I pray that the Holy Spirit finds you and changes your heart.

[eustis22]

>Just seems somewhat strange to me that religious folks aren't up in arms trying to protect what they believe to be god's creation.

I think the principle is that a) we are God's highest creation, given dominion over the earth and sea, so ipso fatso, NOTHING we do to the earth we're dominating is offensive in god's eyes.

What God thinks of this no one can know. Oddly, the fact that as soon as we STOP mucking up a place, it tries to repair itself, is not indicative of what god thinks.

Also, God needs money.

[berkshires]

Just seems somewhat strange to me that religious folks aren't up in arms trying to protect what they believe to be god's creation.

You're generalizing a couple of the Christians in this thread to all "religious folks". Many in this thread may have deeply held religious beliefs, but don't feel the need to bring them into this discussion. At any rate, there actually are many Christian organizations that are working hard to fight for the environment, and against climate change. They put it just like you do - it's their sacred obligation to do so, and it's going against God's will to desecrate the Earth for our own enrichment.

But I am not in their camp. The fact is that religion has always been both a salve and a cudgel; people seem to find in it whatever they need, sometimes for the good, sometimes for the bad.

There's also those who would claim that what we're doing is all part of God's plan. Now I don't know about you, but that seems mighty presumptuous (I don't know the mind of God, do you?) Okay, so in the end, that just leaves us, and what we do with this earth. Leave God and what he might or might not "want" us to do out of it.

Okay, now that it's just us - can we agree to try to leave this world the best we can for our kids and grandkids? Isn't that motivation enough? Because I think it's safe to say that we're not living up to the best we can do right now. The impact on sugar maples may be myopic, but it's as good a place to start as any.

Cheers,

Gabe

[eustis22]

http://gizmodo.com/an-embarrassment-scientists-react-to-the-nyts-climate-1794797008

[Scm]

..........

[markcasper]

Scm, you have been gone for awhile. You will never be able to convince many of the posters on this thread, they have already demonstrated that they do not believe. You can have hardcore facts and evidence and they don't get it. They are SHEEPLE!!, that will follow the herd until its too late. They will be, the first ones on the FEMA bus.

The main reason they think they have control of the climate is because of their belief in themselves, they do not believe in God. They do not believe in the Bible, or what God's Word has to say. If you read the Bible, many people did not believe that Jesus was God when he was hanging on the cross for our sins. They taunted him, spit on him, mocked him and told him to come down from the cross if he truly was the Son of God. These people too, didn't get it.

[Scm]

..........

[markcasper]

Sorry Mark, You had me until, "god".
Even he has fallen victim to the (agenda 21) brainwashing.

Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/index.html

'MEGA' AGENDA 21 RESURRECTED WITH POPE'S HELP
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/mega-agenda-21-resurrected-with-popes-help/






The pope is not GOD!!

[Scm]

..........

[wobbletop]

Really? Your video link is equating chaff with chemtrails? You have to be trolling.

[Scm]

..........

[wobbletop]

So are you ok with them spraying chaff, chemtrails or both? What if it is neither?



I'm simply stating that the title of the video was implying that the weather people were admitting "chemtrails" were being used, when it was simply chaff.

Do you agree that the title of that video is misleading?

[Scm]

..........

[eustis22]

>Chaff is particles of aluminum and or plastic and possibly other stuff. Chemtrails are not really much different.

Um...what?

A) They are a LOT different.

2) An ideology that requires you to tell people black is white and up is really down (or that chaff is almost chemicals) in order to reinforce your viewpoint should be re-examined.

[SeanD]

Sorry Mark, You had me until, "god".
Even he has fallen victim to the (agenda 21) brainwashing.

Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/index.html

'MEGA' AGENDA 21 RESURRECTED WITH POPE'S HELP
http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/mega-agenda-21-resurrected-with-popes-help/






Ha, ha. I've been away from the thread for a while. Guys, I love what you've done with the place! Ha, ha.

Mark, I think the Christian thing for me to do is to encourage you to find the nearest exit. I'll make a distraction by asking a rational question or make an empirical observation, so you can back away slowly, then run.

Too funny!

[Scm]

..........

[markcasper]

Ha, ha. I've been away from the thread for a while. Guys, I love what you've done with the place! Ha, ha.

Mark, I think the Christian thing for me to do is to encourage you to find the nearest exit. I'll make a distraction by asking a rational question or make an empirical observation, so you can back away slowly, then run.

Too funny!

I can explain it to you, but I can't make you understand it.

[Scm]

..........

[berkshires]

I can't read the article, as it requires a subscription. Did you read the article? I can't speak for the headline, but here are the facts, not from a blog quoted in an article, but from the researchers studying it:
Overall winter 2017 Arctic Sea Ice extent: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles
Latest data (April) Arctic Sea Ice extent: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This is so easy for you to find for yourself, it's unfortunate you couldn't be bothered before posting something that is so clearly misinformed. Helping spread bad info is not nice.

Cheers,

Gabe

[Scm]

..........

[berkshires]

Thats funny, from the little you can see of the article, you should see they are talking about the Danish Meteorological Institute
NOT NASA

WHO is spreading misinformation?






Fine. If NASA is secretly hiding the "real" data (behind contrails, I bet) let's go directly to the source, shall we? Here's the Danish Meteorological Institute's website. It took me 30 seconds of Googling to find it for you. Look at the red and black lines on the chart. They represent northern sea ice extent. Oh great, they're way back up above where they've been dropping to for the last 30 years! Hooray! Climate change is over, right!? Except that actually, that's not the case. Not at all. Just look for yourself. Sea ice extent is down around the lowest ever recorded. But wouldn't it be nice if your headline were true? So... what, we should just pretend it is?

Seriously, man, it took two minutes to find via google.

Here's the link: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php

So to answer your question - who is spreading misinformation? Obviously you are.

That being said, readers here may wonder by I'm bothering to reply to Scm at all. The reason is that I'm not replying to him, I'm replying for your benefit. I hate to have y'all think that there's anything to his nonsense. Anyone reading this thread - go ahead and follow the links and look at the charts yourself. It's not hard to figure out who here is blowing smoke.

That done, I feel no further need to engage with Scm around this. Scm, if you want to talk maple, though, that's fine by me.

Cheers!

Gabe

[berkshires]

I should clarify, since I can't recall if Scm's article referenced sea ice extent, or sea ice volume. The link I provided above is from the Danish website, and shows extent. Here's their chart for volume: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php It's a little hard to see unless you click on the chart, which shows it expanded. There you can see that sea ice volume is the lowest it's ever been (2016 was the previous lowest ever).

Cheers,

Gabe

[upsmapleman]

I haven't followed this thread very much because most everything is speculation. When climate change is talked about it is always gloom and doom. But on the bright side the maple industry has just come off there best 2 years ever. How can that be.

[eustis22]

>I'm replying for your benefit

And I,for one,thank you for it. As well as Sean's and Dr Tim's contributions in the battle against the "facts = opinions" crowd.

Weird that such a meticulously assayed avocation like syruping drawsthem but here we are.

[markcasper]

>I'm replying for your benefit

And I,for one,thank you for it. As well as Sean's and Dr Tim's contributions in the battle against the "facts = opinions" crowd.

Weird that such a meticulously assayed avocation like syruping drawsthem but here we are.

Are you aware that when you'd like to quote someone's content, there is a green box in the bottom right that says "Reply with Quote" that needs to be clicked on? You can then comment after the [/QUOTE] symbol.

[markcasper]

>I'm replying for your benefit

And I,for one,thank you for it. As well as Sean's and Dr Tim's contributions in the battle against the "facts = opinions" crowd.

Whoever said this thread was a battle other than you? When people start putting words and presumptions out there like "battle" when there isn't any, it automatically casts a negative tone and it gets picked up by anyone reading this. Such things are expected from liberals I guess.

[RileySugarbush]

..... Such things are expected from liberals I guess.

Hey Mark, that's throwing stones too! Battle, argument, discussion....whatever it's called, this one has been relatively calm, and that's good for this forum. Discussing is better than not. I doubt you will change my mind and I doubt I will change yours. But at least we hear each other.

In other places we might not be in the same place and may have a hard time talking, but maple brings us together.

Saturday I spent the day with a good friend at an educational event. Driving for hours, working all day with kids and adults on engineering, science and creativity in problem solving and then driving back. On the big subjects of politics and religion we disagree 100%, with strongly held opinions. Thankfully we can cooperate on subjects where we agree.

[markcasper]

Hey Mark, that's throwing stones too!

I beg your pardon! Pointing out the facts of what is observed is not throwing stones.

Mr. Eustiss has now decided to call this thread a "battle" and there isn't any, and even you admit that this thread has been relatively calm.

[RileySugarbush]

I beg your pardon! Pointing out the facts of what is observed is not throwing stones.

Mr. Eustiss has now decided to call this thread a "battle" and there isn't any, and even you admit that this thread has been relatively calm.

I heard Condoleezza Rice say " if everyone in the room replies amen to everything you say, you need to find another room" . We are in that other room here and need to keep it that way.

[berkshires]

On a positive note, even though many folks disagree about the basic facts of the climate, there is actually much more room for consensus going forward than you might think. For example, do people here think that investing in renewable energy, if it's done in a smart way that pays dividends, is bad? What about cleaner power plants? What about cars and trucks that get good gas mileage? How about more efficient appliances? How about making good, informed, personal choices, as you decide them, to help curb pollution and carbon emission from fossil fuels?

A lot of this is not really that outrageous, once you get beyond the rhetoric.

Gabe

[SeanD]

On a positive note, even though many folks disagree about the basic facts of the climate, there is actually much more room for consensus going forward than you might think. For example, do people here think that investing in renewable energy, if it's done in a smart way that pays dividends, is bad? What about cleaner power plants? What about cars and trucks that get good gas mileage? How about more efficient appliances? How about making good, informed, personal choices, as you decide them, to help curb pollution and carbon emission from fossil fuels?

A lot of this is not really that outrageous, once you get beyond the rhetoric.

Gabe

You hit the nail on the head!

[BreezyHill]

I for one would hate to see this thread terminated.

Differing points of view is what leads to a better awareness of the world.

If it were not for man making mistakes how would we learn from our mistakes?

It would be a boring place if we all agreed.

Please keep this going it is educational and eye opening no matter what your point of view on the subject is.

He who only looks out one window will only see the sun either coming or going.

[markcasper]

https://freedomfirst.news/2017/06/13/canadian-global-warming-study-cancelled-due-to-too-much-ice/

[Thompson's Tree Farm]

Source: Breibart

[mudr]

https://freedomfirst.news/2017/06/13/canadian-global-warming-study-cancelled-due-to-too-much-ice/

Yes it was canceled by ice. But it was because of the southward movement of large, unstable ice chunks that broke off that created unsafe conditions.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170613150651.htm

[Wannabe]

The Weather Channel founder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQshyqCLYHo

"The money goes in circles."