Jump to content
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Mini Ice Age?

Recommended Posts

Funkthulhu

Haven't taken the time to draw a trendline since 1998 on that chart, but my guess is it would be pretty much flat at around .2-.3.

But you don't draw trend lines just through the years you like, you draw a trend line through the whole thing or you're just cherry-picking...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

Haven't taken the time to draw a trendline since 1998 on that chart, but my guess is it would be pretty much flat at around .2-.3.

But you don't draw trend lines just through the years you like, you draw a trend line through the whole thing or you're just cherry-picking...

Not if the thesis is that global warming ended around 1998, and was caused by ocean oscillations. In that case you would look at the trend since 1998, which is pretty much sideways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Haven't taken the time to draw a trendline since 1998 on that chart, but my guess is it would be pretty much flat at around .2-.3.

But you don't draw trend lines just through the years you like, you draw a trend line through the whole thing or you're just cherry-picking...

Not if the thesis is that global warming ended around 1998, and was caused by ocean oscillations. In that case you would look at the trend since 1998, which is pretty much sideways.

Well, if your hypothesis is tied to your ocean cycle that will "bottom out" in or around 2030, come back to this thread in 17 years and we'll discuss whether global warming has "ended". . .

Because right now, it's as hot as it has ever been and every trend suggests it will only go up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

I guess you were buying stocks in 2000 and 2007 (and probably right now too) using the same logic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

Martin, if people want to buy into the globalist agenda that is human caused global warming, let them. Nothing will change their mind and arguing won't help. A lot of people trust their governments that they are telling the truth, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

Martin, if people want to buy into the globalist agenda that is human caused global warming, let them. Nothing will change their mind and arguing won't help. A lot of people trust their governments that they are telling the truth, etc.

I am laughing a lot right now. As this is about what I was going to type, except I was going to say people who ignore scientific concensus on a subject because reality is just too scary for them. . .

Then again, the people I'm trying to educate can't seem to divorce their opinions from their sense of self, take personal offense when someone challenges their opinion, and try to ignore or discredit every fact that doesn't jive with their pre-conceived notions. In essence, the exact opposite of being a skeptic or a scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

So in a few more years when scientific consensus shifts to agree with what I posted previously, all of which is the work of climatologists BTW, what are you going to say then?

I have no preconceived notions, and like I said before would welcome some really robust global warming, but after reviewing the work of both sides have to say that I don't find that to be all that probable in my lifetime, and when it does occur it will in all likelihood not be primarily because of CO2 emissions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

Let's do our own research then.. remember the scandal:

As columnist Michael Barone wrote in Sunday's Washington Examiner, "The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals."

So we can discredit numbers from organizations and we have to rely on personal weather station data. Why not take a station that is remote away from urban heating, and do our own analysis? Also, I have a friend who is a meteorologist and said increasingly weather stations are installed in poor locations. He gave me an example of one in the middle of a parking lot. So I think you have to use data away from the cities that isn't influenced.

And if it is warming, it will take decades to really determine the cause if it is human caused. And if it is, are carbon taxes going to help? or spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to block solar radiation? I think these would do more harm than good.

Edited by enigma99
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

I have long suspected that they are actually measuring the increase in heat islands around major cities that has nothing to do with CO2 levels rather than actual global temperature increases. It's caused by man to be sure, but hardly a global environmental catastrophe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PALM MOD

I find it almost humorous that any climate change thread gets nixed on this forum so quickly. It's the adult internet version of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" until the scientists stop talking, or give up and go away.

Global Warming/Climate Change topics have generally been off limits because they have repeatedly shown that the discussion degenerates into name-calling and/or battle lines are drawn along the the Republican and Democrat political views. It is usually the inevitable political aspect of the subject matter that prompts me to nix it. And ironically, that is exactly the same reason for all the uncertainty with the "scientific" evaluation of this issue.

I have recently tried to allow this topic because for us growers it is intrinsically of interest. And notice that this topic is still up - no name calling, and no mention of political parties. So far, so good.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nachocarl

I guess we're all doomed then. The 7.13 billion people aren't going to leave and neither are our herds of farting animals. We're doomed. :rolleyes:

I would venture to guess that in 120 year most of those 7.13 billiion will be dead....and tonight at 11, how many buffalo roamed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

I guess we're all doomed then. The 7.13 billion people aren't going to leave and neither are our herds of farting animals. We're doomed. :rolleyes:

I would venture to guess that in 120 year most of those 7.13 billiion will be dead....and tonight at 11, how many buffalo roamed.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

So we can discredit numbers from organizations and we have to rely on personal weather station data. Why not take a station that is remote away from urban heating, and do our own analysis? Also, I have a friend who is a meteorologist and said increasingly weather stations are installed in poor locations. He gave me an example of one in the middle of a parking lot. So I think you have to use data away from the cities that isn't influenced.

I dont have any comment on the climate change topic (but suspect the truth is in the middle), but as far as weather station locations.......yes there are many of them (mine included) that are not installed in accordance within the accepted "official" parameters. This is more and more an issue with the advent of large numbers of personal stations. Sometimes these installation errors are because there just isnt room to install them correctly. For my personal station.....who cares if I am off half a degree. But, if official stations (or personal weather stations) are being used for critical purposes, and subsequently used to make projections, then these installation errors matter.

I have found several of the official local weather stations and visually identifed their equipment. Even to my amatuer eyes, the one nearest me (that has data going back to the late 1800's) is not installed correctly. It will most definitely be influenced with regard to high temperatures, and perhaps to a smaller degree with regard to low temperatures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

I find it almost humorous that any climate change thread gets nixed on this forum so quickly. It's the adult internet version of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" until the scientists stop talking, or give up and go away.

Global Warming/Climate Change topics have generally been off limits because they have repeatedly shown that the discussion degenerates into name-calling and/or battle lines are drawn along the the Republican and Democrat political views. It is usually the inevitable political aspect of the subject matter that prompts me to nix it. And ironically, that is exactly the same reason for all the uncertainty with the "scientific" evaluation of this issue.

I have recently tried to allow this topic because for us growers it is intrinsically of interest. And notice that this topic is still up - no name calling, and no mention of political parties. So far, so good.

You will get no name calling or political double talk from me on the issue. Would love to see the discussion turn from the macro "is it warming or is it cooling debate" to the more local what effect will it have on those of us growing palms in that "U" shaped belt running from the Pacific NW, down the Pacific coast, across the southern border, gulf coast, Florida, then up the Atlantic coast. I've tried to get there a couple of times, but nobody wants to discuss that... I'll try again. Personally I believe the PDO is going to result in more La Nina events that will make SW USA winters on the average milder and drier. I suppose our international friends could jump in with what it is likely to mean for their areas as well. Go...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

Let's do our own research then.. remember the scandal:

As columnist Michael Barone wrote in Sunday's Washington Examiner, "The CRU has been a major source of data on global temperatures, relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the e-mails suggest that CRU scientists have been suppressing and misstating data and working to prevent the publication of conflicting views in peer-reviewed science periodicals."

So we can discredit numbers from organizations and we have to rely on personal weather station data. Why not take a station that is remote away from urban heating, and do our own analysis? Also, I have a friend who is a meteorologist and said increasingly weather stations are installed in poor locations. He gave me an example of one in the middle of a parking lot. So I think you have to use data away from the cities that isn't influenced.

And if it is warming, it will take decades to really determine the cause if it is human caused. And if it is, are carbon taxes going to help? or spraying chemicals into the atmosphere to block solar radiation? I think these would do more harm than good.

Local weather data is most definitely influenced by urban heat effects and on poorly sited weather stations. However, even if these are factored in, there's a positive signal towards temperature increase. I think it's more of an issue of degree. How fast is it really happening? It's probably slower than people think it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nachocarl

I guess we're all doomed then. The 7.13 billion people aren't going to leave and neither are our herds of farting animals. We're doomed. :rolleyes:

I would venture to guess that in 120 year most of those 7.13 billiion will be dead....and tonight at 11, how many buffalo roamed.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

Why blame the livestock, there is much less animal activity worldwide than in the past. I'd blame people farts before the cows. Just think of all those bison farts and wildebeast farts 300 years ago. Can you imagine a wooly mamooth fart? Sorry I've turned this wonderful scientific debate into potty talk.

Fart.

Year

American

bison (est)

Before 1492

60,000,000

1890

750

2000

360,000

  1. According to the USDA, NASS (National Ag Statistics Sevices) there were 30,086,000 beef cows and 9,085,000 dairy cows in the United States on Jan 1, 2011.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Local weather data is most definitely influenced by urban heat effects and on poorly sited weather stations. However, even if these are factored in, there's a positive signal towards temperature increase.

I read an interesting study a while back that first showed how these older "locally sited" weather stations, that had never changed their location for decades, were definitely showing consistent increases in temps over the last 50 years. And how many studies cited this irrefutable evidence of Global Warming.

It then examined them, one by one. And there were virtually none that had more vegetation and less concrete and asphalt in the miles surrounding it, and fewer homes and large buildings in the neighborhood. In other words, there were many factors that had been changing over the decades in the surrounding area where these had been located - and almost none of these changes were changes that would cause lower temps to be registered. Subsequently, almost all recorded increasing temps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

This is an interesting article on the topic. http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/09/10/terrifying-flat-global-temperature-crisis-threatens-to-disrupt-u-n-climate-conference-agenda/

But why take their word for it. Look at the data yourself.

You have global CO2 levels:

post-972-0-53739400-1386983333_thumb.jpe

Sunspot Cycle:

post-972-0-91335500-1386983057_thumb.jpe

PDO:

post-972-0-89561900-1386982303_thumb.png

Global Mean Temperature (oops, why is it flat lining there at the end?????)

post-972-0-07733500-1386982294_thumb.png

Which chart looks the most like the temperature chart? It isn't the CO2 chart. PDO isn't exact, but if you start looking at where it is off, and what the sunspot cycle was at the time...

Almost forgot about the AMO which also has a big impact:

post-972-0-54330900-1386983826_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
displaced_floridian

The amount of heat produced on the earth is directly proportional to human population growth, especially since the industrial revolution. Heating homes, factories, Lights, and above all, automobiles are all adding heat to the planet. Urban heat islands are growing, coalescing, and now make up a large portion of the Northeast, the Midwest, SE Florida, the Tampa metropolis, much of SoCal, the Bay area...multiply this to include large cities all over the globe and it's obvious that the heat gain/heat loss balance has been affected. This warming may be self limiting in that eventually the earth may begin to cool as cloud cover increases due to increased evaporation from the warmer oceans...in theory anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enigma99

“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technologyicon1.png, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz2nTBRFTNQ

This for me is what I believe..that we do have some impact but it is minimal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

I thought this thread was about the effect of sunspots on the weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

I thought this thread was about the effect of sunspots on the weather.

It was, thanks to all the global warming/anti-global warming hotheads for derailing it. Still interesting comments though.

Let's try to bring this thread back to topic: lower sunspot activity is correlated to stronger blocking patterns and more jet stream meandering. Please discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsOrl

In reference to the original post, I find it incredible that a warm temperate region (with relatively low mountains) can have summer snow when in places like Michigan, for example, mid-summer snow is unheard of. I haven't noticed any recent trend toward colder winters here in Florida whatsoever. The extended cold and lows to 24F (not nearly that low downtown) here in Orlando in 2010 was long overdue and the winters since then have been mild. The Midwest (and a lot of the country really) is due for some of the cold weather it has been experiencing lately. The summer snow in Australia, which I believe has happened multiple times in the last few years, is just bizarre though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

In reference to the original post, I find it incredible that a warm temperate region (with relatively low mountains) can have summer snow when in places like Michigan, for example, mid-summer snow is unheard of. I haven't noticed any recent trend toward colder winters here in Florida whatsoever. The extended cold and lows to 24F (not nearly that low downtown) here in Orlando in 2010 was long overdue and the winters since then have been mild. The Midwest (and a lot of the country really) is due for some of the cold weather it has been experiencing lately. The summer snow in Australia, which I believe has happened multiple times in the last few years, is just bizarre though.

Well, it's not mid Summer snow, but very late Spring snow. The distinction between Australia and Michigan is actually not that surprising when you think about it. By the time early June comes around, the sun angle is really high, and soil heats up fast. There is vast expanse of land between Michigan and the North pole, whereas there is only water between the South pole and Australia. If a cold front comes down from the arctic, the air will moderate quite fast from warm terrain, and will be considerably drier. However, the ocean being cold might just keep air cold enough and moist enough to lead to super late Spring snow. Keep in mind early June hard freezes associated with cold but super dry air are not uncommon in Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

There's really no use arguing with people that deny CO2 base climate change or claim that it is "minimal". If you don't believe it well then great, you had some excuses 10 years ago, you have different excuses now, and 10 years from now when the sun spot cycle is doing something else they will have different excuses and THAT is the only thing between the climate and arguments that is going to stay the same. Its just sad that some people can convince themselves of CO2 having "minimal" effect, a few years ago I thought it was "no effect", but that's ok, what's happening is happening whether or not anyone believes it, its just a slap in the face to people to people who dedicate their lives to research and science and is frankly insulting and cowardly. "Truth prevails, everything else falls to the wayside"... we'll see in 2050 if CO2 is still increasing temperatures and I can't wait to hear the excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

There are many different arguments against climate change as well and I think they should be separated:

- "7 billion people can't change the climate" - Just plain humorous "don't even try arguing with these people you will lose IQ"

- "Why's it so cold in X place right now" - Also humorous "don't even try explaining climate vs weather"

- "Well its not as bad as they say" - Acutally its not as bad as the highest expectations of the models predicting the most change... Duh! Is this supposed to be evidence?

- "Well humans have minimal effect on the climate its xyz other factors that have more effect" - Um no.. CO2 is the largest driver of the climate and sunspot cycles DO have an effect and THAT is less than CO2 concentration rise... there are very smart people who are researching this question and their results require regression analysis etc and actual math.. I know it might be surprising but staring at charts and saying "what you think it looks like" is in fact not science and disregarding peer reviewed scientific journals because of "global conspiracy" is not science and is in fact your RELIGION. Don't expect anyone to have a real scientific conversation with you if you believe there is a global conspiracy to hide the truth.. do you realize you can use the same argument for any made up assertion... DO YOU?? The world's largest corporations are OIL and GAS... not solar and wind power.. please tell me who are these massive shady trilliionaires bribing the worlds researchers to fund bad science.. please tell me, I can also pull arguments out of thin air.

- "Well climate has always been changing!" - This is the guy that was previously claiming that the climate was not changing most likely.. but anyways.. well this time its changing faster that before and its because of us and many animals and plants aren't able to adapt this fast and it may increase sea levels etc and we can try to stop it or minimize it if we would like, if you would not like to stop it well then thank you and good day.

Edited by palmsnbananas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

This is in no way meant to be disrespectful to the real sunspot cycle arguments happening earlier which DO affect the climate, just as cow farts do, its a matter of the magnitude of each factors effect in relation to others such as CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Sometimes even very smart people cannot distinguish between the weather and the climate. If there is true climate change and you are worried about it, sleep tight. You entire lifetime will not be long enough to know, all you will ever experience is a change in the weather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubba

In a 2007 National Geographic Article, Russian Astrophysicist, Habibullo Abdussamatov, pointed to the simultaneous melting of the Martian and Earth Polar Regions as evidence of a long-term solar irradiance as the cause of the heating of the Earth and Mars. In other words, the high sunspot activity correlated to a long-term heat-up (from 1980-2010).

Interestingly, or alarmingly, Mr. Abdussamatov predicts that we are possibly entering into another Mini-Ice Age not unlike the time-frame of 1650 AD to 1850 AD as early as next year. The referred to Mini-Ice Age is often described as a somewhat fluctuating period between 1350 AD and 1850 AD. The Mini-Ice Age was by no means a good time for the majority of mankind, who suffered through plagues and a general lack of prosperity. He points to a natural sunspot dearth as the cause. Did I read somewhere of a lack of sunspot activity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

In a 2007 National Geographic Article, Russian Astrophysicist, Habibullo Abdussamatov, pointed to the simultaneous melting of the Martian and Earth Polar Regions as evidence of a long-term solar irradiance as the cause of the heating of the Earth and Mars. In other words, the high sunspot activity correlated to a long-term heat-up (from 1980-2010).

Interestingly, or alarmingly, Mr. Abdussamatov predicts that we are possibly entering into another Mini-Ice Age not unlike the time-frame of 1650 AD to 1850 AD as early as next year. The referred to Mini-Ice Age is often described as a somewhat fluctuating period between 1350 AD and 1850 AD. The Mini-Ice Age was by no means a good time for the majority of mankind, who suffered through plagues and a general lack of prosperity. He points to a natural sunspot dearth as the cause. Did I read somewhere of a lack of sunspot activity?

Hmmm, do we hope the associated cooling with lack of sunspots will be offset by higher co2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bubba

I have difficulty accepting as wobbly science the simultaneous melting of Earth and Mars Polar Regions during times of high solar irradiance(sunspots) as having no significance. I certainly believe mankind's activities have an effect but the freezing over of the Thames during the Mini-Ice Ages described demonstrate the nature of climatic change during such an event. Of course, this simultaneous event could be easily discounted if we discovered large numbers of people on Mars commuting to work in SUV's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

I thought this thread was about the effect of sunspots on the weather.

It was, thanks to all the global warming/anti-global warming hotheads for derailing it. Still interesting comments though.

Let's try to bring this thread back to topic: lower sunspot activity is correlated to stronger blocking patterns and more jet stream meandering. Please discuss.

I don't know Axel, looking back at the data it appears the worst freezes (1951, 1983, 1989) in my area have occurred at times of high sunspot activity, not low, and it usually takes some pretty strong blocking to kink the jet stream all the way down here and keep it there for a week or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

I thought this thread was about the effect of sunspots on the weather.

It was, thanks to all the global warming/anti-global warming hotheads for derailing it. Still interesting comments though.

Let's try to bring this thread back to topic: lower sunspot activity is correlated to stronger blocking patterns and more jet stream meandering. Please discuss.

I don't know Axel, looking back at the data it appears the worst freezes (1951, 1983, 1989) in my area have occurred at times of high sunspot activity, not low, and it usually takes some pretty strong blocking to kink the jet stream all the way down here and keep it there for a week or more.

The two worst CA freezes ever took place during either during El Nino or during solar max. For Santa Cruz, solar min seems better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

I find it almost humorous that any climate change thread gets nixed on this forum so quickly. It's the adult internet version of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" until the scientists stop talking, or give up and go away.

Global Warming/Climate Change topics have generally been off limits because they have repeatedly shown that the discussion degenerates into name-calling and/or battle lines are drawn along the the Republican and Democrat political views. It is usually the inevitable political aspect of the subject matter that prompts me to nix it. And ironically, that is exactly the same reason for all the uncertainty with the "scientific" evaluation of this issue.

I have recently tried to allow this topic because for us growers it is intrinsically of interest. And notice that this topic is still up - no name calling, and no mention of political parties. So far, so good.

You will get no name calling or political double talk from me on the issue. Would love to see the discussion turn from the macro "is it warming or is it cooling debate" to the more local what effect will it have on those of us growing palms in that "U" shaped belt running from the Pacific NW, down the Pacific coast, across the southern border, gulf coast, Florida, then up the Atlantic coast. I've tried to get there a couple of times, but nobody wants to discuss that... I'll try again. Personally I believe the PDO is going to result in more La Nina events that will make SW USA winters on the average milder and drier. I suppose our international friends could jump in with what it is likely to mean for their areas as well. Go...

First to PALM MOD, thank you for letting this thread keep going. I think we're getting some good debate in without been complete jerks to eachother. It is unfortunate that a lot of the time this argument gets divided along party lines. I agree mjff in that I'm not going to call you out for being left or right, just if I don't agree with your interpretation or your data sources.

To mjff, I say that the world is a very big place and the system is complex, but the system as a whole has more energy in it. Call it global warming, or global climate change, but it is more energetic. At a local level there may be short (<5 year) trends of a specific weather pattern and that pattern may be cooler than the previous average, but the total sum value overall is in on the plus side. I am not an oceanographer, my understanding of deep ocean currents is greater than that of the average man on the street just because of the tangential associations from my biogeochem cycle classes. So while I understand a lot of what is being published, I am not in a position to make my own predictions. Personally, I would love to see some milder winters. But I don't think that's in the cards. There are too many other variables. And as we saw these last couple weeks, the weakening and more eccentric jet stream can very quickly overwhelm any oceanic cycle by allowing the coldest arctic air to penetrate deep into the lower 48, coast or not.

As is the case with any very large and complex system, time will tell. As we get more data that data will either cofirm, worsen, or soften the predictions of future warming. And then we'll have a whole other round of debating what that means. We've pretty much established that the scientific concensus is for anthropogenic global warming. There are some outliers and professional deniers who will latch on to any publication or scientist who doesn't agree with the other 99%, but that serves its purpose too. Without opposition the science stagnates, without hardline deniers there would be no reason to strengthen the argument or the conclussions. However, while the professional science community is moving on to solutions rather than discovery or finger-pointing, it is the debates at this level that are important now. It will be difficult to implement any corrective action, any tax on carbon, any carbon sequestering, any funky techno-whatsit that will cleanse the atmosphere if the populace as a whole doesn't know there is a problem. That is why I participate in these kinds of small group debates and why I try to (allbeit not always successfully) change peoples opinions on the subject.

The scientific method is a powerful tool, and the truly skeptical mind can chew through concepts quickly and efficiently. I think if more people used those tools then the world would be better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

I find it almost humorous that any climate change thread gets nixed on this forum so quickly. It's the adult internet version of putting your fingers in your ears and singing, "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" until the scientists stop talking, or give up and go away.

Global Warming/Climate Change topics have generally been off limits because they have repeatedly shown that the discussion degenerates into name-calling and/or battle lines are drawn along the the Republican and Democrat political views. It is usually the inevitable political aspect of the subject matter that prompts me to nix it. And ironically, that is exactly the same reason for all the uncertainty with the "scientific" evaluation of this issue.

I have recently tried to allow this topic because for us growers it is intrinsically of interest. And notice that this topic is still up - no name calling, and no mention of political parties. So far, so good.

You will get no name calling or political double talk from me on the issue. Would love to see the discussion turn from the macro "is it warming or is it cooling debate" to the more local what effect will it have on those of us growing palms in that "U" shaped belt running from the Pacific NW, down the Pacific coast, across the southern border, gulf coast, Florida, then up the Atlantic coast. I've tried to get there a couple of times, but nobody wants to discuss that... I'll try again. Personally I believe the PDO is going to result in more La Nina events that will make SW USA winters on the average milder and drier. I suppose our international friends could jump in with what it is likely to mean for their areas as well. Go...

First to PALM MOD, thank you for letting this thread keep going. I think we're getting some good debate in without been complete jerks to eachother. It is unfortunate that a lot of the time this argument gets divided along party lines. I agree mjff in that I'm not going to call you out for being left or right, just if I don't agree with your interpretation or your data sources.

To mjff, I say that the world is a very big place and the system is complex, but the system as a whole has more energy in it. Call it global warming, or global climate change, but it is more energetic. At a local level there may be short (<5 year) trends of a specific weather pattern and that pattern may be cooler than the previous average, but the total sum value overall is in on the plus side. I am not an oceanographer, my understanding of deep ocean currents is greater than that of the average man on the street just because of the tangential associations from my biogeochem cycle classes. So while I understand a lot of what is being published, I am not in a position to make my own predictions. Personally, I would love to see some milder winters. But I don't think that's in the cards. There are too many other variables. And as we saw these last couple weeks, the weakening and more eccentric jet stream can very quickly overwhelm any oceanic cycle by allowing the coldest arctic air to penetrate deep into the lower 48, coast or not.

As is the case with any very large and complex system, time will tell. As we get more data that data will either cofirm, worsen, or soften the predictions of future warming. And then we'll have a whole other round of debating what that means. We've pretty much established that the scientific concensus is for anthropogenic global warming. There are some outliers and professional deniers who will latch on to any publication or scientist who doesn't agree with the other 99%, but that serves its purpose too. Without opposition the science stagnates, without hardline deniers there would be no reason to strengthen the argument or the conclussions. However, while the professional science community is moving on to solutions rather than discovery or finger-pointing, it is the debates at this level that are important now. It will be difficult to implement any corrective action, any tax on carbon, any carbon sequestering, any funky techno-whatsit that will cleanse the atmosphere if the populace as a whole doesn't know there is a problem. That is why I participate in these kinds of small group debates and why I try to (allbeit not always successfully) change peoples opinions on the subject.

The scientific method is a powerful tool, and the truly skeptical mind can chew through concepts quickly and efficiently. I think if more people used those tools then the world would be better for it.

Unfortunately, many people shape their opinions on science and scientific subjects in places like churches or based on what political bloggers are writing. Kind of like walking into a sewing shop to learn how to fix your car. I doubt you will be able to change anyone's mind set, because so few people exercice critical thinking. And this statement isn't meant to apply to Martin, he seems to be quite well informed and genuinely interested in the subject. I just think the instances where you can have this sort of debate in an intelligent fashion are far and few in between. For some people, it will take a solid meter of sea rise, and even then any sort of reality that doesn't jive with someone's specific internal view of the world will be denied.

quote-the-paradox-is-only-a-conflict-bet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

It will be difficult to implement any corrective action, any tax on carbon, any carbon sequestering, any funky techno-whatsit that will cleanse the atmosphere if the populace as a whole doesn't know there is a problem.

IMO - "corrective" is the active word. Any "corrective action" will be proposed, enacted, and enforced by politicians. And as Axel has mentioned, critical thinking by the populace (including politicians), is in short supply. And unfortunately, I have a feeling that as a body, Congress is no more able to understand the date and use the scientific method and critical analysis than the general public.

And I would further suggest that 90% of those who will legislate any action are much less able to analyze the data than those of us who are engaging and in this discussion. And I think most of us have recognized the problem with arriving at a certain resolution to the debate.

And if Congress represents a cross section of society, then a large majority of those who would be voting on any "solution" are woefully unable to understand even basic scientific principles - much less the complexities of climate. How's that for a buzz kill if you were hopeful for a "fix?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

It will be difficult to implement any corrective action, any tax on carbon, any carbon sequestering, any funky techno-whatsit that will cleanse the atmosphere if the populace as a whole doesn't know there is a problem.

IMO - "corrective" is the active word. Any "corrective action" will be proposed, enacted, and enforced by politicians. And as Axel has mentioned, critical thinking by the populace (including politicians), is in short supply. And unfortunately, I have a feeling that as a body, Congress is no more able to understand the date and use the scientific method and critical analysis than the general public.

And I would further suggest that 90% of those who will legislate any action are much less able to analyze the data than those of us who are engaging and in this discussion. And I think most of us have recognized the problem with arriving at a certain resolution to the debate.

And if Congress represents a cross section of society, then a large majority of those who would be voting on any "solution" are woefully unable to understand even basic scientific principles - much less the complexities of climate. How's that for a buzz kill if you were hopeful for a "fix?"

A friend of mine a few years ago really gave me a keen demonstration of the paradox with climate change. He pulled out a knife and threatened me with it. He said that a knife is a threat people can see, it's tangible and real, and that is something they would want to do something about. Climate change, on the other hand is a complex, intangible abstract concept that can only be confirmed beyond the slightest doubt once it's already too late. Unfortunately, no one's got access to a planet like the earth where they can run experiments in raising CO2 and methane levels and just sit back and watch what happens. The truth of the state of our science is that we have very limited abilities to truly predict what is going to happen. We can use deductive reasoning and computer models, but it's easy to poke holes into all of it. To make matters worse, the recent decades-long glacier melting, permafrost downsizing, warmer poles, super storms and increased weather extremes can all too easily be dismissed as climate fluctuations related to all sorts of things including sun spots.

That leaves us with one heck of a dilemma. We don't have an exact answer, and that's why the whole thing is being debated in political and religious circles. For me, personally, it comes down to a moral issue. Is it fair to our children and grand children and all generations after that to pump massive amounts of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere and take the risk that that stuff might significantly alter the climate and whipe out entire ecosystems? I don't need exact science to make that decision. If there's a reasonable probability that this stuff might alter the climate, then I'd rather side an the conservative side and try to do something about our carbon footprint.

IMHO whatever opinion I or anyone else holds is of little importance. I'll share what I believe will happen as seen through nice rose colored glasses. Very little will be done about global warming in the short term because it's not an "in your face" threat. So the globe will warm a little, some deserts will grow, some will shrink, and perhaps the palm belt will continue it's Northward movement. It will hopefully happen on a slow enough scale that both humans, animals and plant species can cope with it. Economic factors will drive us to alternative fuel sources anyway, because oil is in fact a finite resource and will continue to get more expensive. Hopefully this will happen fast enough to slow down the levels of warming down the road a century or two from now. Perhaps carbon taxes will accelerate our switch to non-finite energy resources like fusion, safe atomic energy and more efficient solar.

We have natural threats that are far, far bigger than global warming. I can think of three nasties that are maybe's:

1) The iminent flip of the earth's magnetic poles and the associated short term "drop" of the earth's magnetic shield: why should you be cncerned? While the magnetic poles switch, we're going to be fully exposed to the brunt of cosmic radiation. That's not going to be a pretty sight. Fossil records suggest it never has happened before, so perhaps it's never going to happen. http://www.physics.org/facts/frog-magnetic-field.asp

2) A massive solar storm: in 1859, we just had the telegraph, and the massive solar storm that occured fried a lot of lines. Imagine if that were to happen again. A mini solar storm took out the grid in Quebec for 2 weeks. A storm of the magnitude of the one in 1859 could easily shut down the grid for the entire globe for quite a while. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859

3) Last but not least, the lack of solar activity currently predicted as discussed in this thread: this threat is rather benign unless you have a garden full of palms outside the tropics.

So there you have it, we live in a rapidely changing cosmos, and no one knows what's gonna happen next, so enjoy your palms while you can, because it's all impermanent, here today, gone tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

The problem with the CO2 argument is adequately demonstrated by the charts I posted above. You had a 40 year period (1900-1940) where global temperatures increased .5C while CO2 levels barely increased. The next 40 years CO2 levels increased dramatically, but temperatures remained flat, then you had almost 20 years where both CO2 and temperatures increased (another .5C for temperatures), followed by 15 years where CO2 increased dramatically and temperatures again remained flat (even the head of the IPCC admits this). I've taken my fair share of college level science enroute to an engineering degree and registration as a PE in TX, to look at this data and see that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases is very low. Low correlation = low causation. I'm not denying that the place is getting warmer, I just think they are barking up the wrong tree. Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to destroy our economies to address CO2 levels that it appears have little to do with the problem? That is the question, and I would argue that the adverse affects on our economy of doing what the alarmists prescribe are a lot better documented and certain then their arguments that doing nothing will be a disaster. So you have a certain disaster if we do what they want to avoid a theoretical disaster that will probably occur anyway assuming that warming is going to continue, which is not all that certain. We do know what will happen if we abandon the use of traditional fuels, and don't know what will happen if we don't. The rational choice here is to avoid the certain disaster and take your chances on the climate change disaster. That's what the odds dictate anyway. This is my pet peeve with every one of these public policy debates, everybody ignores the costs of doing something and focuses on the benefits. There is no such thing as a solution that doesn't cause more problems. How is that ACA solution to the problem of the uninsured working for you (it's been an unmitigated disaster for me and my family just as I and others predicted). That's a rhetorical question, please don't hijack Axel's thread even further off track by replying. :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mauna Kea Cloudforest

The problem with the CO2 argument is adequately demonstrated by the charts I posted above. You had a 40 year period (1900-1940) where global temperatures increased .5C while CO2 levels barely increased. The next 40 years CO2 levels increased dramatically, but temperatures remained flat, then you had almost 20 years where both CO2 and temperatures increased (another .5C for temperatures), followed by 15 years where CO2 increased dramatically and temperatures again remained flat (even the head of the IPCC admits this). I've taken my fair share of college level science enroute to an engineering degree and registration as a PE in TX, to look at this data and see that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases is very low. Low correlation = low causation. I'm not denying that the place is getting warmer, I just think they are barking up the wrong tree. Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to destroy our economies to address CO2 levels that it appears have little to do with the problem? That is the question, and I would argue that the adverse affects on our economy of doing what the alarmists prescribe are a lot better documented and certain then their arguments that doing nothing will be a disaster. So you have a certain disaster if we do what they want to avoid a theoretical disaster that will probably occur anyway assuming that warming is going to continue, which is not all that certain. We do know what will happen if we abandon the use of traditional fuels, and don't know what will happen if we don't. The rational choice here is to avoid the certain disaster and take your chances on the climate change disaster. That's what the odds dictate anyway. This is my pet peeve with every one of these public policy debates, everybody ignores the costs of doing something and focuses on the benefits. There is no such thing as a solution that doesn't cause more problems. How is that ACA solution to the problem of the uninsured working for you (it's been an unmitigated disaster for me and my family just as I and others predicted). That's a rhetorical question, please don't hijack Axel's thread even further off track by replying. :)

I agree that the costs should always be factored in. That's why I actually believe that if we factored in the real costs associated with the usage of fossil fuels, we'd want to take on alternative fuels much faster even without introducing the global warming issue. Factor in the cost of environmental destruction due to oil and coal, from exploration to the burning of it, and the depletion of those resources and the associated inevitable rise in cost of that fuel. All that is enough of a policy driver towards alternative fuels. Global warming is just the icing on the cake. If we really factored in all the costs and didn't even worry about global warming, we're still going way too slow towards alternative fuels. If we went at the appropriate speed, such as removing all the oil subsidies and put those into alternative fuels instead, we'd get a mitigation of CO2 for free without the need for CO2 taxes.

I've already switched to solar power and an electric car and I am laughing all the way to the bank. Savings this year = $5K, can't complain. Let your dollar vote for your energy policy. Driving a gas guzzling SUV is just plain bad personal economics unless you need to do some serious off roading every day.

Imagine super efficient solar cell superfilm, you could paint the trunks of your palms and let the collected energy heat your trees at night. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...