|
|
Post by greenarrow on Aug 19, 2009 23:29:42 GMT
Ok Folks, it really doesn't seam the weather is changing that much. We have our normal fluctuations some high records hear and there and low records here and there. Crops are coming in fine in the US like normal. So, yes the Sun does not have many sunspots but life seems to be plodding along. I am getting the feeling nothing is going to change much year to year to year.
If the Sun stays quiet like it has been, and that becomes the norm, then what proof do we really have that the world is going to freeze, crops will fail and winter will really bite? I'm just not seeing it being a real issue climate wise.
Any constructive practical none theoretical ideas would be welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by atra on Aug 19, 2009 23:52:55 GMT
We've had 60+ years of (theoretical) warming due to the above average cycles during the Modern Maxium.
Do you really think a year or so of an extended minimum is going to cause abrupt cooling when it's taken 100 years to warm the world a half of a degree C?
|
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Aug 19, 2009 23:59:11 GMT
Every one is talking in Tenths or Hundredths of a degree change and so that proves the other side of what ever side they are arguing. Last year there were people on this site that were talking about relocating there families farther south.
How things are being presented on both sides are starting to look strikingly similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 20, 2009 0:00:36 GMT
Ok Folks, it really doesn't seam the weather is changing that much. We have our normal fluctuations some high records hear and there and low records here and there. Crops are coming in fine in the US like normal. So, yes the Sun does not have many sunspots but life seems to be plodding along. I am getting the feeling nothing is going to change much year to year to year. If the Sun stays quiet like it has been, and that becomes the norm, then what proof do we really have that the world is going to freeze, crops will fail and winter will really bite? I'm just not seeing it being a real issue climate wise. Any constructive practical none theoretical ideas would be welcome. Crops fail for all kinds of reasons, not just weather. Although as a practical matter, above ground crops like wheat, corn, rice, soybean, cotton, etc. do better in warm weather than cold, and root crops (potatoes, turnips, etc. )do better in cool weather. Any farmer can tell you that. The concern with climate is that the growing latitudes for the various crop types may move north or south, so that farmers used to growing wheat or corn (for example ) may have to switch to spuds or turnips if it cools in their zone, and vice versa. It's not that food would be in short supply and we'd all starve, it's that the economics of food production (and other things ) would migrate to different countries. Think about that for minute, and you'll understand what all the commotion is about. |
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Aug 20, 2009 0:07:59 GMT
My family has had a farm in Northern Michigan since my grand father came from Finland. Wheat, Alfalfa, Corn and some apples is what our family grew their for over 60 years. There has been cold cycles and warm cycles but the crops always came in. Only time when the wheat had a problem was when a late summer storm back in the early 40's blew the wheat stocks down. Doesn't seem like much changed with all the temperature changes.
Comes back to the fact people are talking about changes that are almost cataclysmic,
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 20, 2009 0:30:44 GMT
My family has had a farm in Northern Michigan since my grand father came from Finland. Wheat, Alfalfa, Corn and some apples is what our family grew their for over 60 years. There has been cold cycles and warm cycles but the crops always came in. Only time when the wheat had a problem was when a late summer storm back in the early 40's blew the wheat stocks down. Doesn't seem like much changed with all the temperature changes. Comes back to the fact people are talking about changes that are almost cataclysmic, Exactly. The climate change alarmists ( hotter or colder ) think about massive changes that would cause oranges to be grown in Maine, or maple syrup in Florida. Ice age or Venusville. Won't happen. Foks will still be growing wheat in Michigan, and cotton in Mississippi five hundred years from now (barring the aforementioned catastrophe of course, and there's no way to predict that ). It all boils down to money in the end. Who get's it and who doesn't. The rest is just politics. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Aug 20, 2009 4:29:50 GMT
Greenarrow, I think you may have stated my sentiments more concisely than I have been able to.
I live right next to the San Francisco bay in an town that is listed as officially 5 feet above sea level. I can see the bay from my house. I fish there regularly with my son. I love the cool weather. I don't see the ocean rising. I don't discern any noticeable difference in temperature. I watch the temperature data that people post here, and mostly it looks noisy to me - no real meaningful trend in any direction.
I'm not worried. I think it's a lot of passion and panic about nothing significant. I really think that on both sides of the argument.
I'm still looking for something to change my mind on it, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Aug 20, 2009 11:36:14 GMT
Greenarrow, I think you may have stated my sentiments more concisely than I have been able to. I live right next to the San Francisco bay in an town that is listed as officially 5 feet above sea level. I can see the bay from my house. I fish there regularly with my son. I love the cool weather. I don't see the ocean rising. I don't discern any noticeable difference in temperature. I watch the temperature data that people post here, and mostly it looks noisy to me - no real meaningful trend in any direction. I'm not worried. I think it's a lot of passion and panic about nothing significant. I really think that on both sides of the argument. I'm still looking for something to change my mind on it, though. Actually, you should be worried about "them". That is, the people who are intent on depriving you of your freedoms and your money based on this apocalyptic view of the future. Read some of the news stories linked to here: www.climatedepot.com/ . The passion on the "skeptic" side is because we recognize what the true agenda is from people like Gore, Hansen, Obama, Holdren, Van Jones, etc. . We've seen what happens when a cult gets their way, and we are trying to stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 20, 2009 11:40:56 GMT
Ok Folks, it really doesn't seam the weather is changing that much. We have our normal fluctuations some high records hear and there and low records here and there. Crops are coming in fine in the US like normal. So, yes the Sun does not have many sunspots but life seems to be plodding along. I am getting the feeling nothing is going to change much year to year to year. If the Sun stays quiet like it has been, and that becomes the norm, then what proof do we really have that the world is going to freeze, crops will fail and winter will really bite? I'm just not seeing it being a real issue climate wise. Any constructive practical none theoretical ideas would be welcome. Another question to ask would be what proof do we have that temperatures going up to the level of the Medieval Warm Period or higher would be cataclysmic? The low lying cities that existed in Roman times in Europe - did not flood with the higher temperatures a millennium later. Even with the permafrost and Greenland ice-sheet gone so Vikings could farm there - these low lying European cities did not flood. So I feel that a lot of the chicken-little hand-waving about warming is difficult to justify. What I _would_ be concerned about is not warmth and more CO 2 which only seem to lead to good things - but more cold. Just a couple of 'years without a summer' would lead to major upheavals as the world hasn't got the food surpluses that were available only 15 years ago but it has a LOT more people to feed. |
|
|
|
Post by jurinko on Aug 20, 2009 13:06:02 GMT
We have experience from the past, that low sunspot = poor crops bevcause of temperature drop. Google --> William S. Jevons (1878) „Commercial Crises and Sun Spots". Those were times when not only Thames, but north of Adriatic sea froze. Danube river had 2m thick ice near Wienna  |
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 20, 2009 13:18:59 GMT
We have experience from the past, that low sunspot = poor crops bevcause of temperature drop. Google --> William S. Jevons (1878) „Commercial Crises and Sun Spots". Those were times when not only Thames, but north of Adriatic sea froze. Danube river had 2m thick ice near Wienna And of course the Nile River has frozen over twice (in 829 and again in 1010 during the Oort Minimum). If such an event were to take place today, a few more people might deepen their understanding that warmer is better. |
|
|
|
Post by greenarrow on Aug 20, 2009 15:59:30 GMT
nautonnier:
Your post made since. Why argue .00001 +- degree change when we have history and evidence. Most people are sensible. If you just point out the facts over the conjecture people will have to listen. Why note make a campaign that uses logic and facts. At that same time use the science to show yes it was hotter or cooler and this is what occurred. Bring Climatologist, anthropologist, archeology associations together to answer these question publicly. Seems we already have the answers.
"The low lying cities that existed in Roman times in Europe - did not flood with the higher temperatures a millennium later. Even with the permafrost and Greenland ice-sheet gone so Vikings could farm there - these low lying European cities did not flood."
That statement alone should be rammed to the for front of the debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by mothtoflame on Aug 20, 2009 20:02:04 GMT
I'm a lurker here and this is my first post. Really enjoying everything I'm learning here at SC24. greenarrow, you have a great idea. Unfortunately, it's been tried -- over and over again. I've read a couple dozen books dealing with all the hype on global warming, and a good half a dozen of them deal with informing people of when the earth has warmed and cooled in the past (often much moreso than current). Forget deep time, when we've had everything from Snowball Earth to Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum -- just in the Holocene Climate Optimum, since we came out of the last glacial -- it's been much warmer and, well, optimal. But people will either believe or they won't. And as for getting the facts out, the media have turned a remarkable deaf ear to anything that doesn't sensationalize global warming. But hey, we can but try.  |
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Aug 22, 2009 9:12:16 GMT
Consider December 2007 and January and February 2008, when Hadley and GISS global mean temperatures hit levels lower than anything since February 1994. There were major, all-time record snowfalls in China, screwing up train travel during a major traditional holiday, and causing a HUGE embarressment to the Chinese government. In addition, there were major rice crop failures in Asia, leading to skyrocketing rice prices and some producing countries temporarily outlawed rice exports altogether. As many people switched to other foods, and other crops had problems, food prices rose in general. A lot of poor people in Asia were near starvation before the situation improved.
That was merely 3 months of cold weather that we hadn't seen for 15 years. Now imagine thirty years of cold weather that we haven't seen for a couple of hundred years (Dalton Minimum). It gets downright ugly. And you don't want to even THINK about a Maunder Minimum repeat.
A few decades ago, Ehrlich and friends were writing about population explosions. They didn't see a way to avoid mass starvation. That was averted by (solar, not manmade) global warming, which extended both growing seasons and growing areas. Knock out the northern portion of the Russian and Canadian and Chinese wheat fields, and you have major problems on your hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Aug 22, 2009 20:15:00 GMT
There has been so much put out there by people who should know what has caused global warming that I have doubts about my own conclusions. Global cooling is serious while golbal warming is a benefit. If .. and a big IF ... there were not so much rhetoric about co2 being the reason for global warming and the current solar cycle being , well not being, there would be a lot more people taking very serious a cool down in temperatures and the ramifications.
There are 2 issues :
1, Most every one now agrees that we have been in a warmer period of time. When before some people in positions of government were saying we were not.
2. The cause.
What will happen to the CO2 idea when, not if temperatures fall? I;ve seen the charts. With current levels of CO2 it is impossible for the earth to become cooler than it now is or has been in the recent past, like 1994 or 1996. Because the gas retains heat and we are adding more everyday.
I've noticed the circular logic in CO2 proponents. They argue to death over minute details to prove a point. Maybe the data is correct or maybe it isn't, who knows. I do know that up to a certain point in time I was reasonable sure of some things, i.e. , there have been warmer periods of time in the very recent past and also colder, that led to certain conclusions, one of which was that humans cannot control the weather on this planet. Predicting the weather, the only job on earth where you can be wrong, really wrong, not get fired and still get paid.
Based on what I've looked at, I think it is going to get colder. The sun stays quiet, the colder it will get. The area where crops were growing further north will retreat thereby causing less food to be grown. The colder it gets the more serious food shortages become. That's not alarmist, just is. When in doubt, do the math.
|
|
