cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climategate


@Canuck_2 wrote:

@Nebrfarmr wrote:

I agree.  I keep hearing that we must 'stop' or 'reverse' the change, yet I have yet to see any proof that the 'change' is for the worst.


Corn yields have been 'changing' for years and years, which I also attribute to human activity, but yet I don't hear much call to reverse the trend, or te get yields back 'where it was 30 years ago'.

 

In fact, I bet if we took a history of corn yields, for the last thousand years, we would have a very pronounced 'hockey stick' formation in the last 100 years or so, as well.  My point of this, is not to make fun, or argue, but to point out that 'change' is not always 'bad'.

 

Another thing about stastics, is that you can make them mean almost anything you want.

For aguments sake, I'll just agree, and say the climate is warming quickly,

I think we can both agree, that Co2 is rising quickly, and also

corn yields have risen quickly.

 

What if the 'cure' to this climate change, drops both the Co2 levels, as well as corn yields to what we saw back when Nixon was in office.  Would the people of the world be better, or worse off, than they are right now?

 


Yes increasing temperatures will not all be bad.

Heck no one in Ontario will say our past winter was 'bad' with little snow and warm conditions which did not take much fuel for heat.

But our benefit is someone else's problem.

In the Arctic buildings are being abandonded as the perma frost melts and they settle into the ground and are destroyed.

Ice roads to supply isolated communities do not form for long in the winter which raises the costs of transport which then has to rely on air.

As ocean levels rise there are people who are forced to move from low lying ground.

 

While I can feel for them, the argument can be made that homes were flooded out, and destroyed by weather events, long before there was GW.  My great-great uncle's barn was taken by a tornado back before they were using steam engines to farm. 

There are costs and because of the rapid changes many life forms are stressed to change their habits or living range to be able to survive since they can not hop a plane, train or boat to flee to an environment where they can live.

 

As for corn the rise in yields has been because of man's actions in breeding, feeding and protecting the plants. Some of those actions are responsible for the CO2 emissions that science indicates is responsible for the warming.

 

I was pointing out, that maybe, just maybe there was a possiblity that the Co2 and temps rising, and corn yields are all rising as much by coincidence, as a result of each other.  If you take Al Gore's charts from his movie, where he shows historic rises in temperatures, and historic rises in Co2, you notice that they look very similar, yet he never overlays one chart over the other.  I have been told, (I don't have the charts, so I can't verify nor disprove) that the trend shows that the temperatures rose first, then a rise in Co2 followed, even in warming trends before the industrial age.

While I will agree that they are both tending to trend together, I am not convinced that one is the cause of the other.  Not when one big undersea 'belch' (I think of Methane) can spew more greenhouse gas into the air overnight, than all the cars in the US do all year.  There are all kinds of stastictics that paralell each other, where one has no bearing on the other.  In Stat class, the teacher used rapes and ice cream sales as examples.  The months with the highest ice cream sales had the most rapes, and the months with the least ice cream sales had the least.  Two stats that followed each other almost exactly, yet obviously not caused by each other.

So yes the big question may be what can we change or cut back that will not leave people in this world hungry since we seem more than willing to reproduce beyond the ability of the world to support our species.

Now, I am with you on that.  Just because I am not on the 'reverse GW bandwagon' so to speak, does in no way shape of form mean I am against common sense clean air rules.  I have been accused in the past, of WANTING pollution, because I disagreed with one little rule or another, which is not at all true.  I think we should use a common sense approach, before we start writing laws.

Did you know the main reason the US has so many 'dirty' coal power plants, and not so many 'clean' natural gas ones?  Because, in the 70s sometime, the government mandated that all new power plants have the 'capability' to use coal in order to be built.  From what I can tell, the government thought we were on the verge of running out of NG, so added that mandate.  However, the only plants that can easily be converted to coal, that weren't actually coal plants, were petroleum fired ones.  With the gas crisis going on, almost all plants built from the 70s to the mid to lats 80s were coal, especially those in the midwest.  Nuclear plants were pretty much shut out by then, as well, so you could say government policy created this monster.

Now, we have 'dirty' coal, oodles of NG, and have to choose if to try to clean up the coal plants, or shut them down and try to replace them.  Had there been no 'coal' mandate from the Feds, we very likely would have cleaner running plants, than we do now.  I just don't want to go rushing into something, that will cost trillions, only to find out, doing nothing would have been just as good, or better.


 

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate

r3020 if you are trying to indicate that there was less ice in 1959 than now or equal it does not fly.

The arctic ice always has open leads. Read about any of the people who treked or tried to trek to the North Pole.

Notice also that the sub broke through 2 feet of ice.

I think 'new' ice or just one year old is anything under 1 metre.

 

If you think the arctic ice is NOT getting smaller in size as well as mass you should do some more reading of what the scientific community is finding with their measurements.

Then you can dig up  some measurements that prove them wrong.

Remember it has to be actual data, hard facts, accurate measurements not just beliefs.

Canuck_2
Senior Contributor

Re: Climategate

But it did not 'always happen'

There are buildings in the north that say on the permafrost for years that now are settling and being destroyed because of that.

Check records and you will find an increasing melting rate of perma frost.

Look for old pictures compared to recent ones of the same area and not the change in topography as well as the growth of trees as the tree line is moving north too.

Sea levels are rising and they are warming. Warming causes water to 'swell' so it also contributes to rising levels.

 

All the scientific results show rising temperatures and rapidly rising CO2.

 

What do we do?

Ignore it and hope it goes away?

Or try to reduce our impact on the earth?

Hawken Cougar
Senior Contributor

.

 
r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Climategate


@Canuck_2 wrote:

r3020 if you are trying to indicate that there was less ice in 1959 than now or equal it does not fly.

The arctic ice always has open leads. Read about any of the people who treked or tried to trek to the North Pole.

Notice also that the sub broke through 2 feet of ice.

I think 'new' ice or just one year old is anything under 1 metre.

 

If you think the arctic ice is NOT getting smaller in size as well as mass you should do some more reading of what the scientific community is finding with their measurements.

Then you can dig up  some measurements that prove them wrong.

Remember it has to be actual data, hard facts, accurate measurements not just beliefs.


Do you see any ice?
 

The climate has always been changing. Sometimes there is a lot of artic and sometimes not.

 

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climategate

Not to mention, the ice in the Antarctic, is growing faster than the ice in the Arctic is shrinking, and we actually have as much 'global' ice as we should expect to, it is just in a different spot.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climategate

Thanks for finding that, Hawk.  I was going to ask, how a receeding glacier can expose tree trunks, if it 'never' thawed there before.

Nebrfarmr
Veteran Advisor

Re: Climategate

Again, I did not say do nothing.  I'm just saying, let's have some common sense when we do it.

Cows releasing methane adds to greenhouse gas.  I have heard people proposing that cows be fitted with 'methane filters' to prevent it, is just one example of an idea with no common sense to it.

On the other hand, emissions laws have been greatly helpful.  I read in the Reader's Digest, that the average car today, emits less pollutants on it's average daily drive, than the average car from 1970 emitted, while parked, just due to the stuff leaking out of it.