Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Global warming?

Posted by MrsG47 6-7 RI (My Page) on
Wed, Dec 28, 11 at 10:25

It is now the week before New Years and I've just clipped the last of my climbing roses and brought them indoors. This is not usual. In Newport, RI we have had no hard frost yet. This time last year we had three feet of snow and consistant temps in the 30's. Is this weather confusing my fruit trees? The daffs are coming up. I need my chill hours for my trees. This is a truly strange 'non-winter'. Still over 40 degrees outside. Will a 'late' winter that is only two months long be enough for my fruit trees. Thanks all, Mrs. G


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Global warming?

Its been pretty mild here in southwest Wisconsin too. I've yet to go below 0F and have only been in the single digits once. Not unheard of here. I've had around 3 inches of snow total...last year I had 33 inches at this time. Looking through the records, I doubt we break top 10 warmest Decembers here (2006 was warmer then this). My plants are getting a ton of chill hours, although I worry about lack of snow cover.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Yes, a late onset to cold weather will still be sufficient chilling. The problem lies more in a sudden, rapid decrease in the temps. I've seen this a few times in Michigan, a sudden change from very mild fall weather to bitter cold. The fall of 2001 was exactly like this here, no frost at all until mid December, very strange, and then on the 23rd of December, an arctic front came through and dropped temps from the 40's/50's where they had been to around 0 degrees within a 24 hour period. There was some dieback and damage on certain plants.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Yes its a fact, anyone who thinks there is no global warming going on let me tell you some facts.

Coral Reefs are dieing (bleaching).
Without the ocean the balanced ecosystem is thrown off, not sure how longer it will take. most of our air comes from the ocean btw.

If no one believes it go look it up, Coral reef "bleaching"

Look up 350ppm, when I was A kid I never heard "we need to get back down to 350 ppm Co2" on the radio!

Go ahead just type in 350ppm.

No such thing as Global warming.

The earth is flat.


 o
winter

Month to date:

Looks like the real "heat" (compared to normals) is across the N Plains. Lack of snow cover is allowing these areas to warm up easily.

Good shot of cold air comes down next Monday and should take chilly air all the way to S Florida. Looks as though that is short lived, with warm air coming back already by Weds here in Wisconsin.

Unless we lay down good snow across the plains and midwest, I really doubt we see much in the way of very cold temps.


 o
RE: Global warming?

The earth warms, the earth cools..been going on for billions of years.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Mrs G:

I know this doesn't pass the common sense test but in your location a mild winter probably has more effective chilling hours than a cold winter. Reason being the most effective temperatures are 37-48F. Anything below 34 or above 54F is ineffective.

Your trees have already had enough chilling or will very shortly. You'll never in RI be short on chilling for anything.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Thanks all, the information and map from Frank is fantastic and I guess chill really means chill and not howling ice storms. Thanks fruitnut! Mrs. G


 o
RE: Global warming?

YES it has been going on throughout geological history and is responsible for many waves of extinction. This time it's us causing it. What makes us think we'll survive this one?
I remember when I moved here in '85 there was tons of ice build up on lake Michigan and a sheets extending 1/2 mile off shore.
The USDA is about to release the new zone changes folks. Maybe the lake will extend it's effect from a zone 6a to Z6b, or even 7 where I live. If the lake warms 10 degrees, average, what will be the local effects?


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by bob_z6 6b/7a SW CT (My Page) on
    Wed, Dec 28, 11 at 17:22

As Fruitnut noted, we're getting our chill hours earlier. I think that may actually be a problem though, as I have gooseberries which have started leafing out over the last few weeks. Those leaves don't last long when the temps go back down again. I could see the same thing happening later in the winter/spring, where trees could bloom before they really should and then suffer frost damage.


 o
RE: Global warming?

A very simple question... if you believe that humans are causing global warming, ask yourself what caused the last global warming? Hint...there weren;t any humans.


 o
RE: Global warming?

What I don't understand is people who think there is some magic force on our side that is going to keep the earth livable in spite of whatever we do to it. We are radically altering the composition of the climate and the vegetation of the planet, and its probably going to have a significant effect. God doesn't dictate the earths temperature, it is caused by the combination of atmosphere, vegetation, sunlight, etc. Maybe the effect will be good, maybe it will be bad, but its hard to believe anyone could think there will not be a significant effect.

Scott


 o
RE: Global warming?

I hate winter so if it's getting warmer, good!

Yes the earth has warmed and cooled for millions/billions of years but the difference this time is how fast it's occuring. It shouldn't surprise anyone that when you put billions of barrels of oil and mass amounts of coal into the air each day that eventually it's going to change something. I read the other day that China has a new coal plant fire up every week!

Winter has been extremely mild here in the northwest this year too, 52 degrees today.......very warm for this time of year. I'm glad I don't own a ski resort!

RM


 o
RE: Global warming?

If anyone thinks that human activities doesn't contribute to global warming is a fool!

The earth is overpopulated!

But not just climate change

From Contact Report 437...[Extraterrestrial]

Ptaah:

The climate warms ever faster, whereby the snowfall is also absent ever more frequently in the deeper sites, while the Earth's polar ice masses, as well as the glaciers, melt ever faster, which leads to this: that by the year 2100, in some cases, the water of the seas will rise up to 160 centimeters. [5'3"]

Forceful natural changes have become unstoppable, consequently there is also a general change in the world of animals, birds, fish and the entirety of the fauna, as however also regarding the flora, because already it is all changing and is beginning to adapt to the new conditions of nature.

Thus, it is also the case with the migratory birds which remain in their home areas in Winter and are no longer drawn to other domains.

It is the same with migratory animals, because their pasturelands are changing and everything is taking on new forms.


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Wed, Dec 28, 11 at 20:32

I have a really weird view of this, although not as weird as Konrads :-)

The sun only has 6 billion years till it burns out. It will turn into a red giant that will make the earth uninhabitable long before that.

The short of it is all mankind and animals on earth will become extinct one way or another. Even if the extinction of mankind and animals could be put off a few billion years, so what. I don't understand the need people feel that their gene pool live forever.

I guess we could escape the inevitable if we all jumped in flying saucers and flew away with Konrad's friends :-)


 o
RE: Global warming?

My concern is no snow on the ground as of today. Snow on the ground in RI simply makes sense. Not a storm, not ice, just a nice snowfall for my trees. We have had a lot of rain in the past two weeks. It will be in the 20's tonight, but back into the forties and fifties tomorrow. Sigh


 o
RE: Global warming?

"The earth warms, the earth cools..been going on for billions of years."

"A very simple question... if you believe that humans are causing global warming, ask yourself what caused the last global warming? Hint...there weren;t any humans.

Again,

Coral Reefs are dieing (bleaching).
Without the ocean the balanced ecosystem is thrown off, not sure how longer it will take. most of our air comes from the ocean btw.

If no one believes it go look it up, Coral reef "bleaching"

We are dumping so much Co2 in the air, the oceans are becoming acidic and causeing coral to die.

Thats just nature though, right?


 o
RE: Global cwarming?

" if you believe that humans are causing global warming"

I didn't say causing...

Read again...I said contribute


 o
RE: Global warming?

Population decrease is a must if we don't want to destroy our planet!

Here is a link that might be useful: Ecological footprint


 o
RE: Global warming?

Here is a report from 1987

Billy:
What does the future hold in regards to rain, snow, climate warming, etc.?

Quetzal:
22. I explained before that the coming time will bring all sorts of disasters in terms of the weather and the climate, i.e. their change.

23. In the next few decades and well into the third millennium, the Earth and its humanity will be afflicted by many natural disasters.

24. Great earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and devastating thunderstorms, snowstorms, hurricanes, and violent cyclones will be rife, whereby tremendous amounts of water and snow will fall down from the clouds upon the Earth, causing enormous floods and snow catastrophes in the form of enormous avalanches, etc.

25. The origin for this will be in global warming, which will partially be attributed to natural causes but mostly to the environmental pollution, environmental degradation, and climate influence of the Earth people, as this has already been the case for many years.

26. The Earth�s climate is changing, and as a result, everything leads to greater evaporation of the seas, streams, rivers, and lakes, for which the greenhouse gas, CO2, is also to blame, which the people release into the atmosphere.

27. Through this, many other things also change in the nature of the Earth as well as in the planet itself, such as the circulation and the number and intensity of the winds, which are becoming increasingly stronger and more powerful and which grow into severe hurricanes, etc.

28. The two main factors, evaporation and stronger storm-related winds, make it that during the periods from spring to autumn, massive rain storms break out over the Earth, and enormous masses of water rain down and flood everything, while in the cold winter season, also vast amounts of moisture are driven over the areas of the mainland, forming into snow crystals in the cold air and leading to very unusually heavy and extreme snowfalls, which often continue for days.

29. This means, however, that the danger of avalanches will also very greatly increase in the mountains � especially in Europe � whereby the greatest destructions will be caused, and many human lives will have to be lamented through terrible deaths, when increasingly more, larger, more dangerous, and more destructive avalanches appear.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Global warming is a very polarizing topic. It seems people either believe it or they don't. I really think that the media has a lot to do with this. Some here tune into more liberal types of media sources (MSNBC, New York Times, Public Broadcasting, etc.) while others mostly get their news from more conservative sources (Fox News, Capital Press, Rush Limbaugh, etc.) A person's opinion is largely a result of where the news comes from. Sadly this has caused a great deal of division in our country, you can even see it in this thread.

One thing I think most all of us can agree on is that we all need clean air and clean water. Even if we assume that global warming isn't occurring, I think we can all agree that the world needs to do a much better job of protecting our air and our water. We can't even garden without clean air and water!! If doing something about GW means we do something to protect our air and our water then I'm all for it.

Happy New Year to everyone!

RM


 o
RE: Global warming?

konrad___far_north,

Read back. I was not disagreeing with you.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Yes, and I'm happy that allot of you gardeners helped along in making things better, in terms of planting trees, shrubs etc. like I have for the last 30 years.
China has done allot too in planting trees....as I have witnessed on a resent visit. The one Child policy has done good and population is decreasing but I think more has to be done. Europe population has also decreased. India is surpassing China soon...scary!
It's not the end of the world if we work together, but government have to act now!

Mostly to blame are the government who don't listen and act!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Olpea and others..

Talking about our sun burning out.

I link is the event timeline, more accurate then any scientist on earth has ever written.

Here is a link that might be useful: Event timeline


 o
RE: Global warming?

More about our sun.
We only have 1,500,000,000 to 2,500,000,000 year's left!!

Our scientist's got it all wrong, that's another reason why Billy Meier is not a hoax, I know, allot of you can't comprehend this, some will come to terms soon, or many year's from now.

This is a very new conversation from this year...

Extract from the 515th Official Contact Conversation of March 7th 2011 (Published in FIGU Special Bulletin No. 61, May 2011)

Billy:

But that which interests me now relates to our sun, its eruptions, the dark spots on the surface of the Sun, the magnetic field, the plasma vortex and energy mass, and the size in proportion to all planets and moons, and so forth, and everything of significance all around. I am especially interested in regard to the next year in which the Sun’s 11 year cycle of activity again occurs which, under certain circumstances, can lead to massive electromagnetic disturbances on the Earth, and in its outer realm of influence. If you can just say something general in a language understandable for us lay persons, about, for example, what occurred in recent years, what is happening presently and what can result in the coming time?

Ptaah:
To be said straight away is that the terrestrial scientists error to a large degree in regard to the Sun’s lifespan, because it is a dying star and its real remaining lifetime accordingly amounts to only 1,500,000,000 to 2,500,000,000 years. To say, further to that, is that the star has drifted for years in a weak dynamic phase, and only becomes more active now and again, for example, in March 2010. The dynamic of the Sun is based on cycles of approximately eleven years which, in turn, are connected with the magnetic fields which, however, also impede the emergence of the energy which surges from the interior of the sun. But an even greater number of other factors exists through which all processes are determined.

Dark matter, which for the terrestrial scientists is still very mysterious, also thereby plays a certain role, and indeed in particular in regard to the transport of the Sun’s hot energy, because without the influence of the dark matter this would not be possible. The around 6,000 degree Celsius hot surface of the Sun is heated up to 1,000,000 degrees Celsius by the thermal energy from the interior of the star. This, while the dark sun spots however only have a temperature of around 4,000 degrees Celsius and extend up to 1,700 kilometres deep into the sun’s interior by means of their tunnel-like, that is to say, funnel-like form. At these depths it is many millions of degrees Celsius in the star. As a result of these temperatures the inner material of the sun transforms into plasma - into electrically charged gas - whereby these masses shoot out all around the maw as flaming plasma at a speed of 100,000 kilometers an hour.

If dark sun spots emerge in groups, then enormous sun-storms emerge from them which release energies which are only comparable with the energy of thousands of millions of conventional atomic bombs. The Sun lives and hurls its monstrous energies out into its area of the system, even if it is a dying star which presently drifts in a phase of lesser activity. If the new, high phase of activity comes, which is to be expected immediately and in the next year, then it can be monstrously big and can cause very much damage in regard to nature and the human electronic technological advances.

Basically, violent plasma eruptions should have already been occurring for a long time, yet since the activity has, so to speak, dropped to a minimum, greater outbreaks have not occurred up to this point, but, with the new activity which is ahead, they can now be very enormous. The fact is that, currently, for that reason, in the Sun’s interior, enormous changes are taking place, which also show in the form of external effects.

For example, on the surface of the Sun, an extensive current of material has emerged which is driven by the residue of the magnetic field (which has arisen from the weakened, dark sunspots) in the direction of the poles of the Sun, to then sink again there up to 250,000 kilometers deep into the Sun’s interior, to then move back again in the direction of the equator.

At the mentioned depth of the Sun’s interior, the magnetic fields again lengthen and also become strong again, which means that they are newly charged with energy, after which they become newly active and break out yet again on the surface and form new, dark sunspots. From that it also follows that these material currents, together with the different, fast rotation of the surface of the sun, assures that a reversal of the magnetic fields of the Sun results, which manifests every eleven years. Normally the current of material moves very slowly towards the poles, and indeed at a speed of 2.7 to 3.7 kilometers per hour, yet for about seven years this speed has amounted to about 50 kilometers per hour.

The result of this fast current is that the magnetic fields are prevented from emerging on the Sun’s equator. This is also the reason why the last three years on Earth had enormously cold Winters. The dark sunspots which are surrounded by giant, funnel-shaped magnetic field line loops - which transport hot gas and plasma - show the actual magnetic wesen[1] of the Sun. If particularly big energy outbreaks occur, then the magnetic field lines and the plasma free themselves from the

Sun and shoot away from it. The plasma loops thereby reach, as magnetic energy, up to 100,000 kilometers in length and breadth if they break forth from the Sun, whereby giant dark zones then also come about on the Sun’s surface.

If more dark sunspots come about, then that results from the fact that magnetic field lines are increasingly breaking through the Sun’s surface. Therefore the stronger the magnetic field, the more dark sunspots manifest. If, on the other hand, it is weaker, fewer dark spots occur. The Sun’s magnetic field, called the heliospheric current sheet, has - in its rotating, spiral radiation form - an effect on the entire SOL system, and, in fact, up to the outermost realms of the Kuiper belt, and still some distance beyond. From these sunspots, magnetic field lines escape from the Sun’s interior, whereby the Sun’s ejected energy, which strikes the Earth, is monstrously high. On average, the Earth is struck every single second by an energy mass such as could be produced by approximately 155 �" 160 million atomic power plants.

The energy mass is therefore so enormous that 0.01 percent of it would already be sufficient to meet the energy requirements of the entire terrestrial humanity of 8 billion Earth inhabitants. And what there is to say concerning the size in proportion to the planets and moons, and so forth, in the SOL system, is that they come to only exactly 0.2 percent of the central heavenly body, which contains 99.8 percent of the entire material content in the SOL system. As said, the Sun is a dying star, which will still exist for between 1,500,000,000 and 2,500,000,000 years, with a presently active age of around 5,000,000,000 years. However its ur-ur

[2] origin lies very much further back and is based on ur-energies, the age of which, on one hand, the terrestrial scientists cannot calculate, and which appears fantastic to them, because it leads back to previous forms of the whole universe about which they lack knowledge and understanding regarding its existence. They do not understand, and are also not able to fathom, that the visible material universe is only the fourth belt of the universe, which consists of seven belts altogether, whereby only the fourth belt has galaxies, nebulae, suns, planets and moons, and so forth, while the inner three and outer three immaterial energy belts cannot be seen and, therefore, the inner and external energy belts, between which the material belt - that is to say, the material universe - is located, and from which the so-called background radiation emerges, cannot be seen.

Also, the terrestrial scientists do not know that the material belt renews itself every 49,000,000,000 years which, last time, was around 17,000,000,000 years ago, and that the current material universe is already the third form of the constant renewal and that the entire seven belted universe is already around 46,000,000,000,000 years old.

But back to the Sun: the Sun means life for all life-forms in the SOL system, and those lifeforms deep in the interior of the Earth, which live in complete darkness and never see a ray of sun, also profit from the Sun’s energy. And not only do the planets themselves rotate but the same thing happens with the Sun, which, with its own rhythm, rotates on its own axis once every four weeks.

However, it thereby has different rotation times and rotation speeds; at the equator, near the poles and in the middle latitudes; whereby that alone guarantees that it can sling the energies - which are generated in its innermost region - as far as the outermost edge of its system. Only as a result of the arising friction, between the different fast parts of the points of rotation which have different speeds, do constantly whirling electromagnetic field lines form.

What thereby happens is that the more extensive the whirling, the greater the activity of the Sun. Presently the Sun is passing into a weak dynamic. Consequently there is only a little activity, which is also expressed in few dark sunspots. They are not insignificant in their mass because they in fact often have a size into which the Earth would fit five or six times. Yet what there also is to say in regard to the size is that the Sun collapses into itself and therefore shrinks, and has indeed done so already for several hundred years. These are the first manifestations of decay to do with the dieing of the star, which will only exist for approximately another 1,500,000,000 to 2,500,000,000 years as a giver or life for the SOL system.

But also to say is that, with very high activity, the heavenly body can again expand some distance, or, swell somewhat, which however only occurs within a cyclical range after which the reduction, or, the shrinking, drops back again to the original starting-point form. Now, what occurs with the upheaval of the cycle this time is still inconclusive, yet it can be said that it can come to an inferno, if ur-worldly magnetic bows break through and all the Earth human being’s electronic technological advances on Earth and in the Earth’s orbit are thereby paralyzed.

The current electronic technology and thereby also the entirety of the electronics on the Earth is extremely sensitive in regard to storms on the Sun and other cosmic radiation; consequently everything can collapse if strong sun-storm eruptions send their energies to Earth and induce storms of electrons on Earth. These induce electric currents as a result of which enormous numbers of electrical - and therefore, also electromagnetic - apparatuses and devices of all kinds can be made inoperable just as can atomic and electric power plants as well as other plants, machines and vehicles, and so forth, which are in any way associated with electrical energy.

If something happens in this form then the whole thing is absolutely not harmless, because if such harmful consequences arise, then not only do large parts of the economy and medical care, as well as drinking water supply, collapse, but also the production and necessary transport of food stuffs, as well as general security measures against plundering. Not to mention that, in regard to all Earth human advances, a setback in development could result and damage could generally come about in all areas, which would take decades to rectify again.

The Earth human beings and their governments would also come to the brink of financial ruin, which means that they would become incapable of payment concerning being able to generally address and rectify the damage which had arisen. Criminality and wrongdoing would also climb, along with many other evils, which would be incalculable. This would be the case if a catastrophe in fact arose in the form in which it could with an overactivity of the Sun. But that happening is only a possibility and does not correspond to a prediction, because it still is not certain what will occur when the activity wakes the Sun from its slumber.

Billy:
Thank you. You have said and explained more than I actually expected. But it is certainly good that it has all been said.


 o
RE: Global warming?

In the 1970's the scientists were telling us we were headed for the next ice age due to a few cold winters. Preaching gloom and doom is what makes the grant dollars roll in. Those that study the climate have a vested interest in lying, as preaching "the sky is falling" feathers their own nest. Others don't care if it is true or not as long as it pushes their "green" agenda. Others are gullible and believe anything the media tells them and those like Gore rake in tens of millions while laughing all the way to the bank at the sheep.

All for clean air and water but that has to be balanced with growth and industry. People need jobs. The eco nazis have chased untold millions of jobs from this country.

I wonder about those that cry about momma earth....how many children do they have? What do they drive? Take Konrad....he lives in the far north......look at how much fuel he has to burn to keep his home warm.....that makes momma earth cry ya know. If you really believe this man made global warming nonsense and want to help the planet move to a city and get a shoebox apartment, give up the bigger more rural house, sell the cars, have no electronic devices....that would be the most efficient but it is easier to just wail "someone should......"


 o
RE: Global warming?

A rational middle ground (which is desperately needed)

1. Fact: the earth has warmed and cooled many times in it's history long before any influence from man

2. Fact: atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher and much lower in the past and prior to any influence from man.

3. Fact: Human activity has increased atmospheric CO2 levels.

4. Fact: many more people die every year from weather that is too cold than from weather that is too hot.

5. Fact: warmer winters are nice if you live up north

now we get to speculation.

1. Human caused CO2 increase may be causing warming. However, there are some very influential factors on warming (cloud formation at higher temps, plant respiration at higher CO2 levels, ocean photoplankton activity at higher CO2 levels) that are poorly understood making the computer climate models little more than wild guesses.

Scientists can't even predict the weather next year, why should we expect them to accurately predict weather decades in the future?

2. regardless of whether or not you believe in man caused global warming it is almost certainly a bad idea to dump ever increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we all breathe. I speculate that the most damaging effect of ever increasing CO2 is likely not even identified yet.

So ... you can question global warming and still be in favor of curtailing worldwide CO2 emissions.


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Thu, Dec 29, 11 at 9:32

"Olpea and others..
Talking about our sun burning out."

Konrad,

I was in a fey mood last night. Based on your other thread about extraterrestrials, you seem to take ribbing pretty good. That's all I was doing.

I do think people take extinction of our gene pool too seriously.

As a theist I believe in Natural Law outside of myself, outside of my feelings. That Natural Law dictates to me some responsibility to take care of the planet. What role that takes in global warming or human population, I'm not sure.

I do agree 7 bil. people , no matter how efficient, use a lot more resources and cause a lot more pollution than say, 1 billion. What the optimum number of people on the planet to achieve a certain goal, or what that goal would be, I don't know.

It's also unclear to me any CO2 emissions regulation would have any substantive effect on the eventual greenhouse problem, or what the cost of that regulation (in terms of hardship, poverty, etc.) would be.

A solution (if there is one) would seem very complicated to me, with action (or no action) on either side having far reaching, and probably nasty, unforeseen consequences.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Frank, where did the data come from for that map? There is no way in Hades that it is correct for my area in north central KS, temps. with lows of 20-30 and highs of 35-55 through Dec., that is much higher than 0.5 deg.. If this weather pattern keeps up I will already be half way done cutting wood for next year and I haven't even started yet, oh darned! Our lowest temp. to date is 9, not unusual but for this winter IT looks like the anomaly. If my wood shed is any indication, it has definitely been much warmer this year from Oct. through now.

Dennis, did that cold front you mentioned in your 12/28 post hurt the apples?


 o
RE: Global warming?

I'd certainly agree that a middle ground is what's needed on global warming and many other subjects like spending and taxes. Unfortunately I don't see that happening. So maybe we should discuss fruit. There are plenty of other places to discuss UFOs and such if people desire.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Michael-

That map is in C not F...

link:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/Soilmst_Monitoring/US/Temp/Temperature.shtml

Another one, but this one is in F:

Humans will burn everything (coal, gas, oil) so it doesn't matter (If GW is real or not).


 o
RE: Global warming?

I was just saying today how nice it is....December 29th, and I was outside in just a sweatshirt putting my patio furniture away for the winter! Previous years it wold have had many inches of snow on it by now! But, here in southern WI, there is no snow anywhere, and we are around 40 degrees today. I do hope it's a short winter....


 o
RE: Global warming?

When we have questions about fruit we are interested in the research. When we have health problems we are more interested in the opinion of our doctor than our friends or people untrained in medicine.

It is the energy industry that has all the economic incentive to mislead about global warming. It astounds me that there are people gullible enough to believe that all these scientists are motivated by money to the point of lying to get grant money.

I will take the word of a scientist over a corporate businessman any day- there are no ethics in corporate business and that is how it should be. They should be regulated by laws and not ethics and do whatever is legal to make more money. As the tobacco industry made very clear, they will lie beyond legality for a prophet. Can anyone tell me in the history of science when an entire field of scientists deliberately conspired to spread a myth?

I will take my cues from the 90% of climatologists who believe that man made global warming is probably real and a threat to our survival. I figure the energy industry would probably pay higher to hear something contradicting this.

But I agree that it doesn't matter what I think because we will burn that oil and coal regardless- that's political reality. If it does lead to environmental disaster the denialists will just claim that it was natural warming. Of course if it doesn't, most who endorse the idea of man made warming disaster will just say disaster is around the corner.

Yeah BR, this time I'm chiding you.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Harvestman,

"they will lie beyond legality for a prophet"

LMAO......did you mean profit?

"it doesn't matter what I think"

You are correct.


 o
RE: Global warming?

"Take Konrad....he lives in the far north......look at how much fuel he has to burn to keep his home warm.....that makes momma earth cry ya know"

Take bamboo_rabbit...he lives in the south and burns fuel to keep he's house cool...that makes momma earth cry ya know"

>>I wonder about those that cry about momma earth....how many children do they have? What do they drive?<<

I have 3 children, all graduated university.
3 children now these day is the limit and if you have more, then you're a irresponsible parent.

"What do they drive?"

Right now I drive a little Honda, before I drove a fuel efficient
Volkswagen for about 25 years, I never owned a SUV or truck.

I'm disgusted with the North American attitude, building such
HUGE gas goglers and most of them use it to go from point A to B. On top of that on more or less flat road.
I drove in Switzerland with a 1000cc engine, had no problem going up the mountain.

Northamerican's need to wake up, they're the most wasteful people on earth.


 o
RE: Global warming?

The question is how much is man contributing to global warming and what will be the consequences, not just is there global warming.

Every year we consume more than 400 years worth of naturally created fossil fuels, clear more than 100 acres or forest per day, gone from 1 billion to 7 billion people in 200 years... at some point we will upset the earths natural buffer and cause long term catastrophic environmental damage to human kind. The question is when?

The day i read an experts opinion which also factors in the fact that the suns radiant energy to the earth varies via random sun spot activity and the fact that the sun is an unstable thermonuclear reaction, distance from sun
varies due elliptical orbit/axis tilt, effect of volcanoes , effect of comets, effect of natural forest fires, effect of ocean microbe life, effect of all the water vapor added to the upper atmosphere by airplanes, etc. with a verifiable conclusion will be the day i will jump on one bandwagon or the other.

No doubt Al Gores' movie raised eyebrows about the earths future, but even more disconcerting is his response by living in an unnecessarily large house, travelling the world in jets when video conferencing would work, etc.!

Hope we figure out the answer before it is too late! I think we will find the answer sooner rather than later as look how much better short term weather forecasts are versus 10 years ago!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Climate does change naturally throughout the eons. And it has seen extremes far beyond what scientists are presently predicting. But the rate of change is unprecedented by a enormous margin.
The evidence is consistent through sites all over the globe. Using hundreds of different indicators and tracking modes in dozens of different scientific fields.

Predicting the consequences of such a change will of course be near impossible. Odds are they too will be unprecedented.

I just don't understand how anyone can continue to ignore climate change in the face of the evidence. I was involved in climate lab work 15 years ago, and even then the community was fairly certain.
There is no conspiracy to hide information or data contradictory. Any researcher would love to find anomalous indicators. They would be note worthy and generate tremendous interest. Instead all projects simply reinforce the well established climate time line.

I am not at all hopeful of societal change, and certainly not in time. I hope for my children's sake I am terribly wrong about the severity of the consequences.


 o
RE: Global warming?

What Rob said.

:-(

M


 o
RE: Global warming?

I think the evidence is overwhelming the impact we're having on our environment--and it is predominantly negative. I also don't think we'll reforest everything and abandon the concept of monoculture that has made civilization what it is. However, I'd also like to give Nature the credit it deserves. I believe it's a lot tougher than anyone imagines. It's always been part of the design to create and destroy, and life has managed to adapt and even thrive in spite of all the adversities. In some way, I think it's stroking our ego to think we really matter that much at all in the history and future of this planet.


 o
RE: Global warming?

For those who say the human species doesn't really matter, I definitely can embrace that philosophy, however defeatest. But on another note, I quote John Jeremiah Sullivan- "What's true of us is true of nature. If we are conscious, as our species seems to have become, then nature is conscious. Nature became conscious in us, perhaps in order to observe itself. It may be holding us and turning us around like a crab does its eyeball. Whatever the reason, that thing out there with the black holes and the nebulae and whatnot, is conscious."

On that note I throw in my vote to the importance of human survival. Happy New Year everyone!


 o
RE: Global warming?

37 degrees here in Florida this morning...that darn man made global warming:)

Konrad,

You have 3 children so you have made the problem much worse. The real problem on this planet is unchecked human growth. You have simply added to the problem as human population expands exponentially. Those 3 children you so selfishly produced will harm this planet more than 1000 SUV's. Each human produces/causes to be produced about 20 tons of carbon a year. Want to help the planet limit yourself to none or one child.....

I have growing here a couple hundred bamboo that I planted......one of the best if not the best carbon sinks we have. One has to wonder of those here whining "we are killing the planet" do you own your own home? Do you own a car/cars? My bet is yes to both. It is so easy to say "someone should do something!!!!" Do your part.....sell your cars, sell your home and move in to an apartment of 200sf, that will help the planet. Then you will have the right to preach.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Frank: thanks for the deg. F map, I'm a real boob for not reading the info. included indicating the scale, musta been tired. Now to be a whiner, north central KS isn't on the new map so I can't see my house on it, WWWWWAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!

I did notice at least this time that the new map is showing the departures from mean (1981-2010), that sure helps.

Harvestman: I dug deep in the rotting grey matter in my skull for an example of conspiring scientists and could only come up with Thomas Edison's going around proclaiming how dangerous alternating current would be (Tesla's line of pursuit for electrical transmission lines) vs his own, DC transmission. Edison was wrong as far as which method was going to work obviously as there is zero DC transmission in this country. Can't blame Edison too much I guess, he was trying to sell his idea and make a killing at it. Good thing somebody invented the transformer or Tesla's idea wouldn't have gone very far either.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Harvestman, you nailed it, scientists have no dog in the fight while industry has both dogs.

What people don't realize is it's not what the temperatures is locally, it's what's happening globally that matters. Where you are living could have 20 years of cold winters and yet "globally" the earth is still warming.

Like I said, this is a polarizing topic, some believe, some don't.

Nevertheless, some facts that are impossible to ignore from National Geographic.

1. Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910.

2. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several thousand years according to a number of climate studies.

3. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.

4. The IPCC report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming.

So, I guess if one still wants to ignore the report of 2,500 climate scientists from 130 countries then I don't think any amount of data will change your mind.

I am a fisheries biologist and have been in this profession for 25 years. I am often in the company of dozens of other biologists at various meetings, conferences, etc. Global warming will on occassion come up and it is universally accepted as being something real and anthropogenic (human caused). Among biologists, GW is as accepted as the earth is flat, there is no debate. The only discussion folks have is how it will ultimately impact our planet.

Globally we burn 84 million barrels of oil per day (2005 data)! Do you really think this isn't having an impact?

I just hope it doesn't hurt my blueberries!! :)

RM


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Fri, Dec 30, 11 at 13:59

"For those who say the human species doesn't really matter, I definitely can embrace that philosophy, however defeatest. But on another note, I quote John Jeremiah Sullivan- "What's true of us is true of nature. If we are conscious, as our species seems to have become, then nature is conscious. Nature became conscious in us, perhaps in order to observe itself. It may be holding us and turning us around like a crab does its eyeball. Whatever the reason, that thing out there with the black holes and the nebulae and whatnot, is conscious."

Hman,

Since I was the one who said that, I'll respond. I realize this is "off topic" but the whole thread is off topic and people don't have to click on it if they don't want. There are a lot of threads I don't click on because I'm not interested.

My point is an extrapolation from the relevance of a single life. No ones life is remembered beyond a handful of Millenniums. Even those who have provided mankind with amazing discoveries perhaps never really changed the world much in the end. Someone else would have eventually discovered the same thing. How much more irrelevant when the whole planet is extinct and absorbed by the Sun?

I understand your point that Nature is conscious. From that perspective I suppose one could reason that Nature itself might feel remorse/pain at the death of a race. For that matter one could reason that a conscious Nature may rescue us in the end?

It's a religious discussion, so I can't disagree with you, since much of religious discussion is opinion.

In the end, my own opinion is similar to yours. A "conscious Nature" which is outside of oneself is more or less a God. My own view of God (although not a "conscious Nature") would say that humankind is significant, even down to the individual.


 o
RE: Global warming?

"you nailed it, scientists have no dog in the fight while industry has both dogs"

Are you serious? Grant dollars buy their homes and feed them....they have a vested interest in preaching gloom and doom. Where money is involved humans will lie to get it....as a bunch of scientists already were busted making up data. Remember the same scientists in the 1970's were telling us we were heading for a new ice age lol.....

I also hope the warm does not hurt my BB:) But hey I am just a bit too cold for mangoes so come on global warming. Plus I am only 42 feet above sea level...if the caps melt I will be ocean front ;)


 o
RE: Global warming?

It looks like bamboo_rabbit can't stand the truth.

Yes, 3 children max. is the right amount.....that doesn't mean every family has 3, some would only have 1 or none, some have 2. Three children also seems the magic number for the Pleiadians. In your country I would start with the state of Utah first.

All I'm talking about is scaling back and get rid of your hunken chunken vehicle what you don't need, get rid of some fast food places and stop producing chunk food, the world already would
be a better place with less obesity. Again, it has to start from the top first. No chunk food manufacturing = no pollution, health care cost down etc. a good thing all the way!

America and some others are known for bigger is better, more is better, that includes high rises, oil rigs, tankers, planes ships..etc.

It's time America to scale back, go home with your War Machines and clean up your own back yard.
US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet.
US military usage at 320,000 barrels of oil a day!

For a start, cut Defense back by 50% and average Joe does a little homework himself, then we wouldn't need a Oil Pipeline from Canada to USA

OH..about home, a good thing you mentioned it again.

Yes, I do live in a box in town, I could have build out on the land 20 years ago but instead I have reforested and given it back to nature, ..you're right, having a HUGE home out in the country is not good!...You're barking up the wrong tree bamboo_rabbit

The great nation of USA has come to a crunch and not much liked anymore amongst the rest of the world.
As the saying goes...all good thing come to a end.

I just hope your Government & others can turn things around but first, they have to come down their nice comfortable chairs first!

Here is a link that might be useful: US Department of Defense is the Worst Polluter on the Planet


 o
RE: Global warming?

Olpea, the quote I posted means to me not that there is some other consciousness- that is unknown. What it celebrates is the unique (amongst earths creatures) human quality of a consciousness that allows us to witness nature and the universe, and because we are of nature and the universe we are its consciousness.

If our species dies the earth becomes unconscious. If nature (or God) protects us, it will be through our action.


 o
RE: Global warming?

"Are you serious? Grant dollars buy their homes and feed them....they have a vested interest in preaching gloom and doom. Where money is involved humans will lie to get it....as a bunch of scientists already were busted making up data."

You would have to believe that there is a world-wide conspiracy involving thousands of climate scientists who produce fraudulent research to mislead the public. Reminds me of my uncle who believes cancer has already been cured but that the secret to cure is being hid by drug companies so that they can sell more drugs. If all a climate scientist was interested in is money then the easiest thing to do would be to get funding from the fossil fuel industry and then go around giving talks making claims that global warming is not caused by humans. Indeed, of the extremely small fraction of climate scientists that are skeptics of human-caused global warming, most if not all are funded by oil and coal companies. The comparison to the behavior of tobacco companies a few decades ago is spot-on.


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by bob_z6 6b/7a SW CT (My Page) on
    Sat, Dec 31, 11 at 0:02

Earlier Olpea hit the mark saying that there is a built in expiration date on the Earth. To me, one of the major goals of humans (as a species) is to start colonizing the stars before it's too late. We don't necessarily have 6 billion years either- we've been broadcasting signals into space for 50-100 years. So we may only a limited time before something nasty hears them and pays us a visit (however many light years they are from us, plus transit time).

Bamboo, 42 feet is probably enough for a while, but if all the ice melts, the estimates are in the 65-75 meter range. Climate change itself doesn't sound fatal to me- droughts, violent weather, and losing ~10% of the land area (granted it is heavily populated). But it could easily destabilize the world and push survivors into wars which could finish things.

Rather than cutting carbon in the short term to prevent global warming (that ship has sailed), I think we need to be investing as much as possible in sustainable energy. Because if we wait until we really need it, it will be too late and have much more dramatic impacts on quality of life. This article describes the "energy trap" we could find ourselves in if we wait too long.

Bob


 o
RE: Global warming?

On the subject of conspiracies and foil hats I thought I'd say something in defense of those convinced that there is an international conspiracy of climatologists to perpetuate the big lie so they can keep the grant money rolling in.

As silly as this conspiracy theory may sound to those of us not steeped in certain elements of the media that tend to promote myth as news, (well this could be argued of all media, but I'm talking about pushing a specific political agenda in unabashed and carefully crafted propaganda) a rational person can easily be persuaded to irrational conclusions. Propaganda works, and those who buy into it consider anything contradicting it propaganda.

A speech writer for the first President Bush recently stated in an interview in the NY Times (can't recall his name) that class warfare in this country has never been between the rich and the poor but has instead been between the better and less educated.

What he didn't say is that this war is perpetuated by political powers that fear a true populist democracy and therefore pursue a divide an conquer strategy involving disinformation and fanning the flames of anger and resentment between the knows and the knows less.

A couple of years ago on the eve before the Tea Party took over congress I was somewhat miraculously at a party attended by Roger Ailes. I worked my way into a conversation with him just so I could congratulate him on the creation of the Tea Party but I got cold feet. Instead I listened to him quote some poll that had him quite concerned. The poll seemed to indicate that the majority of Americans left to their own devices would gravitate to a much more socialistic government that would soak the rich and unfairly deprive the wealthy in our country of their just desserts.

He and his buddy Rupert are much too smart to let this happen.


 o
RE: Global warming?

There is no conspiracy......same way there was no conspiracy in the 70's when the same scientists wanted to dump ashes on the poles to save us from the looming ice age. What you have is a group of people stating their opinion as fact and others agreeing. The easily misled among us believe it and all of a sudden it becomes fact. People tend to be sheep and it is easier to go along than think for yourself. There is no proof man is causing global warming.....what there is is opinion. Climatic scientists have a monetary interest in pushing that opinion forward, they also have a eco nazi agenda. Look at how the same eco nazis have forced ethanol on us..it ruins engines and you get less miles per gallon from it and costs more energy to make than you get out of it and all the while causing people to starve. It all started from a "green" agenda and the scientists still can't admit it was a mistake.

Bob,

Alternative energy is great but you can't make something that is not economically feasible so by just hoping and wishing for it. People need jobs.....you want an unstable world, force the planet in to a new world wide depression.

The real problem this planet has is over population. People like Konrad who breed like rabbits selfishly just to do so. His 3 children each have three children and their kids have 3 children..... exponential growth. Cut the earths population and the energy stresses and resulting pollution lessen.

The planet is warming.....that we know is a fact. It has warmed and cooled thousands of times in the past...did we cause that also?


Harvestman,

"I was somewhat miraculously at a party attended by Roger Ailes. I worked my way into a conversation with him just so I could congratulate him on the creation of the Tea Party but I got cold feet"

Stop lying......you are acting like a petulant child.


 o
RE: Global warming?

"Eco-nazi....lying....breed like rabbits"

Nothing like name calling and exaggeration when you find yourself short on information to continue a debate. Best thing you can do to insulate yourself from the truth is to start vilifying others and shouting so you can't hear what they have to say.

By the way, no one gets into climate science to get rich. Peer review is remarkably effective in keeping research honest.


 o
RE: Global warming?

BR, you constantly make claims unsupported by evidence. Even with me you assume I'm lying with absolutely no evidence. I was at that party- the man lives in my county and his wife was being honored at an event I was invited to. I tend the orchard of the man who threw the party and he invited me and my wife- probably to add some local color.

No wonder you assume the climatologists are lying. You seem to come to that conclusion of everyone who disagrees with you. You believe you understand climate better than people who spend their entire lives studying it and you probably have the same attitude about all people who have different opinions- even if those opinions are based on much more work and due diligence.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Short on facts? All I have expressed are facts. Man made global warming is an opinion....apparently that fact hurts :) The gullible turn opinion in to fact. The gullible are brainwashed to not think for themselves. Fact is there is a eco nazi agenda in this nation and they will lie cheat and steal to get what they want. Fact is that over population of this planet is the real problem.

The planet has been warming since the last mini ice age 500 years ago...that is a fact. Did man cause that ice age? Did man cause the earth to warm after that ice age? Did man cause the planet to warm the last thousand times it has done so?

Forecast is for 28 degrees here in central Florida on Tuesday..that darn man made global warming.


 o
Harvestman

Harvestman,

You got beaten up in our last thread and you have been whining about it since. All I am asking for is evidence, proof not more of your "stories". It is easy to say I was at a party with blah and he claimed blah blah.....just more of your useless drivel that adds nothing to the debate. Like your self professed title as worlds greatest pruner this is just more of your hot air.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Rabbit,
Do you even know what a "nazi" is?

No one has disputed your assertion that overpopulation is intetgral to the problem.

I have already addressed your point regarding past climate change. Do you have a specific argument against the present scientific consensus...or you just don't like it and it doesn't fit your politics?

Do you disagree with thier data gathering techniques?
DO you feel not enough hard data has been compiled?
Can you offer alternative explanations for the overwhelming correlations presented?
Do you have anything other than yesterdays regional temps to support your slander of the entire scientific community?


 o
RE: Global warming?

BR, yes, of course I'm incompetent as are all the climatologists and everyone else who disagrees with you. You ask me for evidence but you make claims constantly without evidence. Of course I've never claimed to be the world's best pruner- what evidence do I have of that- about as much as you have in stating I said it.

The claim I made was about the amount of fruit tree pruning I do, not the quality of it. The only reason I put the claim out there was to find out if it was true- if anyone knew of someone who prunes fruit trees every working day for about 7 months of the year- or more. I don't consider that to be much of a claim to fame but it's about the only one I have in my life.

Obviously, I can't provide proof of the party, but it was thrown by a man named George Whipple. He has an orchard in Carmel, NY which I installed about 15 years ago and have tended since. His father is the man who did the Charmin toilet tissue adds years ago where he reprimands the women in a super market for squeezing the Charmin, "Ladies, please don't squeeze the Charmin!"- you may not be old enough to remember.

Roger Aile's wife was being honored for being the editor of the nations longest running newspaper which Roger bought for her- can't remember the name of it, although it is our local county paper. Roger met this woman- about 30 years his junior,because she was also in the news business- judging from her looks I'd guess as a broadcaster.

I did lie about the date of the party a bit. It was on the weekend before the Tuesday election- I think it was Halloween, and it was an afternoon party in the Whipple House- an historic building overlooking the reservoir in Carmel, NY.

Why do you think I'd lie about such a thing? Why do you turn people who you don't agree with into monsters, or at leas into villains. I figure you are probably a very nice person and a loyal friend to those who know you. You don't know me so why invest all of that? Some people like to divide the world into heroes and villains- keeps the old juices flowing. War mentality. Is that it?


 o
RE: Global warming?

Wow, what a great thread! All I can add being a California native, but having lived in other parts of the world for the past 40 years, I'm sure glad someone invented the catalytic converter and the EPA mandated that all new cars starting in 1975 have one. Can you image what the air quality would be, especially around our cities, if that mandate didn't happen?

Back in the early 80's I had the occasion of flying into Riverside CA and then driving on the hwy heading to San Bernadino because of business. I still remember driving into the smog cloud that covered San Bernadino. Not a pretty sight. Can you imagine having to breathe that stuff every day? Maybe someday someone will invent a "catalytic conveter" for coal plants and the EPA will mandate their use as well. I know the cost will be past down to us consumers, but to me it would be worth it.

OK, that's my 2 cents. Happy New Year everyone!!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Like I said, people generally believe or they don't.

Nevertheless, if this can't convince you, nothing will.

The IPCC report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming.

RM


 o
RE: Global warming?

It looks like I don't need to add anymore to Bamboo Rabbit.

I was just thinking again about the massive oil consumption of 320,000 barrels a day the US Department of Defense uses.

I wanted to make a kind of picture in my head to what extent that correlates with our Tarsand Oil production, [Suncor] in Fort McMurry, my Daugther works as a Chemical Engineer amongst others of about 13000 employees, not counting other private contractors keeping this plant going.

It turns out the production of such facility can just barely keep up with National defense.

I don't want to know what a pipeline this magnitude to the United States brings to global warming and Environmental set backs.

Here is a link that might be useful: Monthly Oil Sands Production


 o
RE: Global warming?

Harvestman,

"BR, yes, of course I'm incompetent" "I lied"

See I was right on both counts ;)

Riverman,

"The IPCC report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries,concluded" IE opinion. With a fact you don't need to conclude anything. As I said and you proved it is simply opinion that man is causing this event there is no proof.

Do you remember back in 2004 when all the hurricanes hit the US? The climatologists all agreed that it was "proof" of man made global warming and said that would be the new normal. Because of that "the sky is falling" prediction insurance rates along the coast and in all of Florida tripled and guess what hardly any activity in the US since. Just like Harvestman scientists tend to be "know it alls" and will attack anyone that dares proffer an opinion that differs from theirs.


 o
RE: Global warming?

By the way, I don't believe people who study these issues closely ever endorsed ethanol in gasoline. All along it was a political posture to get mid-western votes and appease mid western politicians. Takes almost as much oil as it saves to grow the corn and convert it as I understand it.

My hunch is politicians figured it would convince the ignorant that they take alternative energy seriously without actually reducing the use of petrol and loosing support from big energy. Call that a conspiracy theory if you like- I suppose it is one.

For the heartless it can be endorsed as an ecological plus, however. It's driven up the price of food and is therefore responsible for increased starvation on this planet- the cruelest kind of population control.

Corn growers are getting rich and politicians lost no campaign financing in the bargain.

I agree with you that too many human beings is the largest problem, although citizens of my own country do much more damage per-capita than humans in any other part of the planet, including myself, although my life style is relatively streamlined by the standards of my country I'm an energy hog compared to the average citizen of Bangladesh- that's for sure.

Population growth is like a ponzi scheme where the older you get the more you benefit from the population beneath you. The value of real estate and almost everything goes up with each new person and the economy generally expands. This, and religious superstitions stops politicians from ever addressing this as an environmental issue.

BR, you claim you are an original thinker but to me most of what you say sounds like a Fox News echo. I believe the claim that all climatologists seized on the idea of a new ice age in the '70's is an absurd exaggeration- really more a lie than a stretch. I had a drinker of the FN coolaid e-mail what he had to back up that cliche and it came to a couple of magazine articles in which the concerns were very preliminary and stated quite cautiously. Nothing even vaguely similar to the extensive data and near unanimous alarm being sounded by climatologists today. If you have something more than this I'd like to see it.

And before you attack my ideas as being unoriginal, bear in mind, I've made no claims to be original. Better to let others decide that.


 o
RE: Global warming?

BR,
One of the latest National Geographics has a wonderfully written article on global warming and the predicament for Florida isn't pretty. I bet your blueberries won't like the salt.

And Konrad, you'll benefit in the northern latitudes as things warm up a bit. You may not get the chance for exquisite winter pictures very often, but the color of the fruit will attract our friends(nod).

H-man's critical thinking wins. C'mon though, I thought the Koolaid was good. Don't knock the Koolaid , man!
That's a good one. Happy New Year!



 o
RE: Global warming?

Harvestman,

"I agree with you that too many human beings is the largest problem"

And who said you couldn't teach an old dog anything.

The ethanol is yet another "green" scam. It is another way to push forward the "green" agenda.

I'm not sure what Fox or any media outlet has to do with this and I have no idea what they have to say. I am not much of a TV watcher but if you are glued to the boob tube 24/7 that is ok with me but all that electricity usage is not very green.

It really boils down to this....I want facts, hard cold (pun intended) facts. Until they can prove their theory it remains theory. Just like when the scientists assured us ethanol would save us, that it would help momma earth. While the sheep all cheered some of us were unconvinced. You were lied to then and bought it and now you are heading down the same path with this man made global warming. You would have thought you would have learned your lesson.....

Noogy,

As I said....gloom and doom....it makes grant money roll in and increases viewership or readership as the case may be. When the sea starts swirling around my ankles I will let you know but so far the ocean is right exactly to the milimeter of where I left it:) Know what else my now blooming blueberries won't like? The now 24 degree forecast low for Tuesday morning.......that damn global warming.


 o
RE: Global warming?

BR, I was a member of ZPG (zero population growth) 25 years ago. I wasn't really an old dog then- not sure I'm still learning new tricks, but offer me a treat and I'll try.

If there had been an organization called NPG I would have joined them instead.

The affect of good propaganda travels through the culture like the ripples of a thrown stone. You'd have to be a complete hermit to avoid the Murdock waves. It is a propaganda that appeals to anger and resentment and discourages civil and logical discussion. Whether it's had any affect on you, I couldn't say. I'd rather take your word for it and wish you a happy new year.

I'm no hater.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Its not the warming but more the high levels of Co2 which could be causeing the "warming". The ocean, provides 80% of our Oxygen, is the biggest problem.

Just somthing to consider.

As a farmer/gardener I wish to have a clean planet to farm so I agree we need to slow down as well.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Yes Noogy, I have taken advantage of our global warming for many years already and growing tasty European plums [zone 5].

Happy New Year!
Only the truth will prevail!

Photobucket


 o
RE: Global warming?

Sweet.
What do I see growing in the combo tree? Lemme guess. Gage/damson/superior?
My stanleys have been flowering, but have produced (1) fruit in the past 2 years. I happened upon it in September walk through and it was super ripe. Wow! They're so easy to process. Wash, poke, pack, top with syrup, heat.


 o
RE: Global warming?

MrsG47 - 'just a nice snowfall for my trees....' I don't think you need to worry. The conditions you describe (roses at Christmas and no snow) are normal where I live and the fruit trees are perfectly happy. So far this year there has been 1 frost in my area (ie below 0c) but I am quite sure there will be fruit as along as other conditions (late frost/bugs etc) don't intervene.


 o
RE: Global warming?

http://alleghenysc.org/?page_id=395

Here's something published by the Sierra Club back in 2006 where, in a long list of suggested energy policy, biofuels are near the bottom and corn based ethanol is negatively revued.

I sincerely tried to find any evidence that the environmental movement ever recommended corn based ethanol and I'm not suggesting that my 30 minute search proves no complicity, but clearly the ethanol subsidies and their blending in gasoline were primarily created by the political thrust of big ag and big business-equally supported by Dems and Repubs from everything I could find.

If anyone can find anything contradicting this I'd love to see it. It's somehow peaked my interest. I think I must be a frustrated wannabe journalist.


 o
RE: Global warming?

I have 2 comments.

1. I am saddened and disappointed by the name calling and judgements stated in the above.

2. It is my understanding of one of the above threads that Global Warming being caused by mankind is only a theory, and not fact. There are other theories such as the theory of relativity, theory of evolution, theory of plate tectonics, theory of constraints, theory of gravity, theory of black holes, and theory of the big bang. It is my belief that scientists around the world accept these and many other theories, and I hope that they have not lied to us about them for monetary gain.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Ben, thanks for the reminder of the actual definition of theory in science. The general public often defines theory as just a guess. This leads to a lot of confusion, although not among scientists, who are taught from their very first introduction into science the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Does this forum not have moderators? GW has so many sub forums maybe they should make a "Insulting your fellow members" forum where BambooRabbit and Harvestman can trade insults and argue with each other. I also suggest an "Extra Terrestrial Gardening" section for Konrad.

Happy New Year


 o
RE: Global warming?

MLEP,
Aw c'mon it's not that bad. We need to have clarity in our discussion and if our logic challenges us in its pursuit, it's OK.
Besides, HMan and BR are brothers and it's best not to intervene.
In the Great Encounter there will be more unifying us than dividing us and this will all be trivial. Hahaha!
Imagine all the people...!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Melike, where precisely have I insulted BR? I've been called a liar and knowitall, accused of making statements I've never made, taken parts of my statements out of context to make them mean something else, said my contributions are hot air and worthles, and just because I probably come off as pompous (I can't help it, it's my writing style and possibly my unchosen- sorry-born-that-way personality type) you're going to equate my behavior to BR.

Besides if you aren't enjoying the show why are you still here? The script has been pretty clear for a while. Obviously me and BR are having a pretty good time, as it seems are a few others still tuned in, so why condemn it? And if you're going to condemn it, at least don't act like the lame media and equate our two sides of this argument as being equal.

Actually I don't mind being equated with BR, I'm beginning to like the prk.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Noogy there is nothing wrong with debating global warming, or religion or politics. I just don't think a "Fruit/Orchard" forum is the place for it. There are many forums dedicated to discussing those topics. I'm new to growing plants in ground and I read many threads to learn. This is not the first time I've checked a thread to "learn" something and seen harvest and BR going back and forth with each other. I appreciate when they post about their growing and cultivating practices but not this other stuff.

As far as the alien stuff it was kind of funny when I first saw it in another thread but now it's distracting from the "Fruits & Orchards". I wish there was (or maybe there is) an "Other" or "Everything else" forum where members good discuss all these other things. Or at least moderators could move the threads there.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Lemme guess. Gage/damson/superior?

Yes, Green Gage, Mt. Royal and Patterson's Pride, some more on the other side, Stanley, about 2 German Prune Plums.

>>I just don't think a "Fruit/Orchard" forum is the place for it<<

It was started by MrsG47 and I'm pretty sure she regrets by now that she did, but some of us like to take it a bit further, you don't have to click on it....tons of other thread's or start something your own.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Melike, you didn't respond to me. My point is that this thread had long since run its course on issues pertaining to fruit trees and you certainly must have realized that some time ago. Who is making you read this stuff?

I spend hours of my time answering people's questions about fruit trees here as does BR which you clearly don't appreciate enough to let us have a little fun at no one's actual expense.

A few others have even tuned in to say they've enjoyed the thread.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Melike, in all the hundreds and hundreds of threads where I've posted answers I've only got into a run in with BR on a single other occasion. On that occasion I didn't even take the bait and every single one of my posts was about the subject of the thread.

I believe BR finds my writing style arrogant and also doesn't much appreciate the experience I bring to the table- which is fine. I'm actually grateful to him for explaining a method of pruning blueberries that I didn't know about, although it may not apply to my region.

Sometimes it is disheartening how little appreciation there is for the effort made to share information in the computer age when everyone takes free access to info for granted.


 o
RE: Global warming?

MLEP,
Debating global warming is directly relevant to plant culture as temperature is a limiting factor in plant growth. If the portrayal of societies base structures (religion, politics, economies) as interfering with the processes of critical thinking causes some cognitive dissonance, so be it. Our survival as a species depends upon if we can work through the static.

I've noticed that sometimes we read into text on an emotional level and sometimes our reaction is a reflection of our own subconscious, insecurities, and ego defenses.

!Viva las Plantas!


 o
RE: Global warming?

NASA faked the landing of the men on the moon.
The medical establishment is hiding the cure for cancer.
The president's birth certificate is fake.
The UN has secret military bases in America ready to establish one world government.
Human activity has no effect on the climate.
And you'll NEVER convince me otherwise. I know because I'm much smarter than you. If you challenge my unsubstantiated assertions and irrelevant facts, you are obviously a stupid, gullible sheep and a liar. None of your "facts" make any diference to me because they are all lies made up by scientists who conspired together to fabricate all their so called "research" just so they can get grants from the government. I know this because I'm not gullible like you.

Poales Rodentia


 o
RE: Global warming?

Concern over global warming has been the wrong thing to get people motivated to make changes. It is hard to prove, easy to dispute, and is not happening according to the predictions (let the record freezes in N. America, Europe, and Asia over the last two winters speak for this, as well as the negligible warming trend over the past decade).

And let's face it, global warming is much better than global cooling for life on the planet. BUT, the myriad other more tangible environmental problems we cause by our abuse of resources should be paid more attention to. What ever happened to conserving simply for the sake of using less?


 o
RE: Global warming?

Fab, your analysis simply in no way is in sinc with the vast majority of people who study this issue,study and accumulate the data and are trained to do the analysis. Of course the exact map of changes is impossible to construe accurately and specific predictions are not going to be accurate.

In the vast majority of the scientific community, the only logical debate going on about global warming is how much economic sacrifice is justified to bring about a reduction in green house gasses. There is a logical argument that reducing the use of oil would cause more economic damage than than the ecological benefits.

Your examples are irrelevent because they are about local weather issues. If you read what has been posted here you would find data that leaves absolutely no doubt of a steady rise in global temps. The experts have said all along that local weather changes would be erradic. Weather events globally will tend to be increasingly extreme on both sides of the thermometer as well as weather events in general.

This in no way means that it is impossible that some unknown factor could render the theory or the predicted outcomes as being wrong. Does this mean we should ignore the possible consequences if the moderate predictions of experts might be overblown? I guess that should be up to an informed public to decide, but to suggest that there is a controversy about the general reading of accumulated data isn't really true, unless you consider anything a controversy that hasn't reached 100% consensus.

Some of the media likes to portray this as a legitimate controversy, but you should read some of the dialogue that goes on between people who have some credentials for knowing what they are talking about(i.e. climatologists)before you buy into that, I think.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Benny,

The major difference is comparing man made global warming theory to the big bang theory, evolution or the theory of relativity ect ect is quite simple. With none of those other theories is there an agenda. None of those other theories are they hugging a tree or trying to save momma earth and using that as a basis to skew their data or opinions intentionally or not. Those other theories that are unproven have no real affect on us as a nation or a people.

With the man made global warming theory if we do what the world wants us to it will cost the USA trillions of dollars and millions of jobs and put us at a dramatic economic disadvantage in the world.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Konrad, I regret nothing. We all have opinions, that is why this is called a forum. I have learned so much about my trees, soil, and their culture in this forum that my question was answered through the first to third post.


 o
RE: Global warming?

OK..good!.. I'm glad your'e still with us.

Happy growing!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Whew!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Ha, yes the sun is heating up, which is why 'global warming' is happening. It's melting the dry ice caps on Mars and turned one of Jupiter's icy moons (Io I believe) into a huge slush ball. Earth's magnetic poles are overdue for a major shifting, and don't forget, this year is the year that the Mayan calender resets to '0'. Edgar Cayce predicts that there is supposed to be a major upheaval for the earth, with parts of it sinking, while other parts will rise (see "Edgar Cayce on Atlantis"). Even the Bible (New Testament) predicts that a massive earthquake will cause 3 1/2 years of trials for those of us on earth. I've noticed a lot more earthquake activity in the USA, so who knows. Should make for an interesting year.
The whole 'carbon dioxide is a pollutant' is really misguided, as carbon is one of the major elements on Earth! Also, plants absorb carbon dioxide, maybe if it's such a 'hazard', then shouldn't there be a moratorium on clearing forests to put in new housing developments? Shouldn't everyone plant more trees? Sounds like a good idea, less building, more trees! Maybe all those chemtrail planes are contributing to all the 'global warming', they sure aren't helping with their super polluting jet exhaust.

11/2009


 o
RE: Global warming?

Wow, I thank you for that pic. I can point some things out.

See those "chemtrails" or smoke trails from the jets, The atmospher 30 years ago, those would disappear faster, way faster.


 o
RE: Global warming?

We're about 800 year's away when we have a better world....but first we have to work on that.

I found these predictions from the old prophets very interesting.

PREDICTIONS OF THE PROPHETS JEREMIA AND ELIA

Here is a link that might be useful: PREDICTIONS OF THE PROPHETS JEREMIA AND ELIA


 o
The Cause of this Climate Change Problem

The Cause of this Climate Change Problem

This is a partial insertion from the Bulletin 2007
Ptaah
However, that thereby irresponsible know-it-alls - in particular those in any relationship to scientists with doctoral and professorial titles who are devoid of responsibility - publicly still offer their nonsense and lead terrestrial humanity into error with their stupidity; that should be punishable, because their acts are criminal.

Still to say is that, as a rule, all the irresponsible gentlemen doctors and professors, and so forth, who name themselves scientists, and dispute the climate debacle, earn much money with their nonsense, because they often work, profit-greedily, for multinational industries, and so forth, and construct for them, through false climate models, analyses which are foreign to the truth, and which have nothing to do with reality and truth.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Cause of this Climate Change Problem


 o
RE: Global warming?

Gee, Konrad, thanks for closing the debate so effectively. Nice to know the ET's are on the side of reason. Let's see BR come up with a rebuttal to the man from the stars.

Anything's possible, I guess (and I'm not talking about BR and his rebuttal).


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by jolj 7b/8a-S.C.,USA (My Page) on
    Tue, Jan 3, 12 at 13:12

harvestman, there are one or two in every group/forum on Gardenweb.
They seem to know more & grown more then the most of us.
Are always willing to tell what they did & what works for them.
Thank you for being one on the Fruit forum.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Yes, there has been a very small amount of temperature rising in the last 100 years......and yes, we are still not as warm as Greenland was when Leif Ericson "discovered" America and some still thought the world was flat......and yes, the scientific "community" would disparage anyone who questioned global cooling in the 1970s....an idea that was considered a scientific "no-brainer" at the time.
These theories come and go and scientists have to be continually humbled.
As someone who works part time in a public school system I can see how a certain "agenda" can get pushed as science and how people can be silenced who oppose it.
It is clearly NOT true that all scientists support the notion of global warming. While you might get a field of biologists who support it (and are also intimidated from teaching anything different) I happen to know that the scientists and very very bright PhDs who have an interest in some of this at our Naval Weapons Research lab almost universally do NOT believe in global warming. So neither optical engineers or biologists are climatologists and even the climatologists are influenced by who pays their paycheck.
What does any of this have to do with gardening? Well, nothing in a way. But I work with a lot of groups of people who really want to plant fruit trees and they want to do this because they believe they are saving the planet. Hardly any of them have the fruit expertise of just about anyone on this forum, but they are starting to want to learn as the locavore and environmental movements are really taking front and center right now.
I don't argue with them....I just think that by planting a fruit tree and learning to care for it, they are saving something all right....it ain't the planet....but a part of what makes us caring human beings.....and so I work with them.....they with their agenda and I with mine.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Donnie, I've seen objective and comprehensive surveys of climatologists and related experts and from that it appears to me the consensus is almost as close to unanimous as it could be for something so complex. Do you have an objective source that indicates more controversy amongst these people? I don't think I'm exaggerating but am very open to other sources.


 o
RE: Global warming?

To give you an idea, we are still coming out of the last ice age. We are in a ice age right now, the end.

I cant say it again, the level of co2 (past 350 ppm) in the air is the problem. The level of co2 and o2 is off, we have off set that. There was more "air" in the air "back then". Its a FACT. This is just what I heard on the radio!!


 o
RE: Global warming?

Going back a few posts...
H-man, my message was not intended to be any kind of analysis -- rather just an observation about how global warming is portrayed to the public and how it plays out in the public mind. I am well aware of the consensus on this issue, studied it in graduate school in fact, so I have seen a great deal of the data you refer to. I am not refuting the existence or absence of human caused global warming, but saying that there are better ways to mobilize people to make positive environmental changes.

For the record, the very weather data I mentioned that feed the non-believers (in global warming), are matched by the high temp data that cause folks to give the global warming cry, despite climatologists pointing out that you really can't attribute individual local weather phenomena to global warming.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Fab, I get it, but I think that we need to overcome the political power of the faith based community in order to make any meaningful progress in terms of tactical adjustments to increase the odds of the continuing survival of our species.

The age of enlightenment was about allowing science to lead our religious interpretations of the universe, but the resistance to this has never gone away. If you combine the political power of the part of our population that believes no matter how much we screw up the planet God will fix it if He wants it fixed with those who have their shortsighted focus on profits and wealth you may well have a plurality that will vote humanity into oblivion.

I think the global warming issue may be a pivotal battle for science based political decisions. Whether the subject is energy policy, education policy, or economic policy if we go by guts instead of brains we are bound to lose.


 o
RE: Global warming?

23 here this morning in central Florida. Below freezing in Tampa also...........if this man made global warming gets much worse I may just freeze to death.


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 4, 12 at 10:36

"the part of our population that believes no matter how much we screw up the planet God will fix it"

Hman, I believe in God, yet I don't believe that. A cursory glance at history shows we pretty much have always slept in the bed we've made.

At times suffering has even come from what appeared to be no fault of our species, and yet there was no miraculous rescue. The bubonic plague didn't just last 100 years. It killed for 14 centuries. At its worst, some pretty grim accounts. People fearful not understanding how it could spread from one town to the next like an invisible malice. Carts ran daily to haul away dead like a trash service. Prayers, fasting, weeping, did nothing for those towns which 95% of the inhabitants died from the black death. They were not rescued.

When I said earlier, "For that matter one could reason that a conscious Nature may rescue us in the end?", I don't believe that myself but was merely responding in logical progression to what I thought you might believe.

I'm still unclear why you are disturbed at the extinction of our race. If humans are Nature's consciousness and humans become extinct, there is no pain/remorse/loss after extinction, since the human consciousness would cease.

Again we are not talking about extinction vs. no extinction, we are talking about when the extinction will take place. Like death and taxes, extinction is a given.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Olpea, this is a pretty weighty philosophical question. It reminds me of when I was a very young man and my father told me he didn't see the point of life insurance because if he wasn't there how would it make a difference?

In his defense I should mention that he didn't mean that therefore he should keep that money for himself but instead wanted to gift his family while he was alive so he could enjoy his generosity, therefore doubling the value of the investment for all involved and infinitely increasing his own.

Extinction is not inevitable IMO just almost inevitable. I like the idea of making life a sport of survival. As an individual I can only win the game for so long but it's been a great game so far and I'd like to extend it for as long as my pleasure exceeds my pain.

The greatest pleasure in my life comes from my relationships with my wife, son, and other close family. This now includes a 1 year old grandson.

So my reasons for wanting to postpone our extinction as long as possible is primarily emotional and based on an empathetic desire for all these people to have as many interesting and pleasurable days as I've enjoyed and am going to enjoy. I know my grandson will probably wish that for his children and grandchildren should they join humanity.

About the chance of humanity permanently avoiding extinction- well anything's possible. I could provide you with some science fiction scenarios including the idea of humanity creating such an advanced technology that it could transcend its biological self and create a consciousness that could survive the big bang, or whatever the universe can dish out, maybe even rewrite its rules. If we could stick around for a few million years maybe we could become God. Anything's possible.

Maybe we really are God's children, waiting to grow up.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Yes..your'e getting there, HM.

One has to look in how creation was made or how did our universe and our world come into existence?

Here is a link that might be useful: How did our universe and our world come into existence?


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Wed, Jan 4, 12 at 23:37

Hman,

I concede an emotional bond with loved ones motivates measures for their well being, whether the matter is life insurance or green house gases. Anyone truly human feels it.

However, it breaks down after a certain number of generations in the future. That same bond is lost. The converse is also true. Most people have no special affection for ancestors, say, 20 generations past. Indeed in most cases people don't even know who their relatives were 20 generations ago.

In that case, the only emotional bond relevant would be what one feels for humanity in general. However, even that would be negated if our species were doomed to certain extinction. A sinking ship is going to eventually lie on the bottom of the ocean, no matter how hard you bail.

I can see believing the human race may escape extinction provides a way out of the emotional dilemma. It could provide a great deal of utility believing one's actions (in a small way) could help secure a permanent future for mankind.

In reality, my own views are not near so severe and sterile as I'm making them out here and somewhat similar to yours.

I feel a sense of duty and a level affection for humans in general and hate to see gratuitous suffering. I also see a difference in nature causing extinction and pain vs. human beings accelerating it unnecessarily (the latter being worse). Lastly my belief in God would dictate he would probably be displeased with the premature extinction of mankind. Even if we become extinct, I believe he will continue, so there would still be someone around to feel the loss.

That said, I've no idea the solution (if there is one) to the greenhouse phenomena. Sometimes we as human beings want to do something to fix a problem, even if that something won't really fix it.

For example, cutting defense might make a significant impact on greenhouse emissions, but it could also destabilize what is perceived as a balance of power, emboldening nations into more wars. A large war releases lots of C02 in the atmosphere. Not saying this would happen, just using it as an example of the possible complications to a given solution.

As stated, no one is really going to voluntarily sacrifice enough to afford any serious action to this problem. Heck, many nations (U.S. included) don't even have the discipline to run a balanced budget. If we can't even do that, knowing we will eventually pay the piper (like Greece) how can we even talk seriously about the severe sacrifices required on a world wide scale to reduce greenhouse emissions?

Barring some disaster that wipes out most of the population, reducing the birth rate is probably the only realistic long term solution to CO2 release.



 o
RE: Global warming?

This is a hot topic for me,

If a person looks at things logically, and gathers the real information from science, its a no brainer, the Earth is getting warmer, Heck we do not need scientist to even tell us this. we can see it happening around us, Pole ice is shrinking, glaciers are disappearing etc.

Some would prefer to believe an outlandish conspiracy theory, where tens of thousand of scientist from every religious, political and social background all conspired to make up a big hoax, in order that Al Gore can make money.

That is what some media outlets, would have you believe. it has now become just another political tool.

The REAL question is, how much of the warming is man made if any?

A failed logic many put forth are:

The Earth has been through warm cycles before, etc.

The failed logic here is, since it can happen naturally it must mean the current trend is natural.

If that was true, then using the same logic, all forest fires must be natural right? - wrong.

Another big fail I see, is, when someone comments on how cold it is outside. There is a BIG difference between local weather and global climate. other factors such as sunspots, El Ni�o, La Ni�a, volcanic activity can affect world or regional climate to some degree for a period. so yeah cold records will still be broken, in some areas, when scientist speak of Global warming, they are only talking about a few degrees, over many decades on average.

Then we get to all the Hoax theory pushers, another argument is, Someone is going to make money of this global warming thing, so it must be false. again, fail logic. Firemen make a living putting out fires, does that mean fires are a hoax? of course not.

I agree with many, I do not like the so called Carbon Tax, solution, it really doesn't do much to help global warming. or stop the heavy polluters, which are allowed to keep doing business as usual, while just paying out some cash.

I have seen all the arguments, for example.

Other planets are getting warmer, so its the suns fault.

FALSE, Mars was warmer, for a period, because sand storms, lifted up darker sand, and absorbed more heat from the sun, other Planets have not warmed up, and solar monitoring, if anything, has shown the Sun actually putting out less energy due to its currently low sunspot activity.

Another story thats popular, some pseudo scientist , put up a chart showing as proof, that the Earth is actually getting cooler.
Again, False, he cherry picked, data, picking a year with higher than normal temps, and a later year with a below normal temp, drew a line, and said, see? Earth is getting colder , sadly many people actually believe this crock. you do not Cherry pick data, that you like, and leave out what you do not.

And finally, The so called Greenland was warm not long ago.
Ice core samples have shown this to have been a regional warming not global, again we are talking GLOBAL not regional or local climate.

And one more point, why are people fighting the global warming thing so much, who is to gain if we all get together and find cleaner ways to live on this planet, even IF tere was no global warming at all, it makes sense for health and economic reasons to get off our addiction to coal and oil. and to not pollute our Oceans, rivers, air, and food with Chemicals and other toxic substances, so again, who is pushing for the Global warming is a hoax, who is spending money pushing the hoax theory? yes I believe there is a bit of conspiracy going on, but its not the thousands of scientist, its more like a few dozen who have something to lose if we start going green.


 o
RE: Global warming?

>> NASA faked the landing of the men on the moon.<<

<And you'll NEVER convince me otherwise. I know because I'm much smarter than you<<

Since I can't comment on these because you're smarter then all of us, I have looked what ET say's on the moon landing.
Apparently it was fake but only the very first landing on July 20th, 1969.

To claim NASA was right, they have shown pictures, "FAKE"
most likely from other landings.

Here is a link that might be useful: Swiss Prophet Predicted NASA�s Fake Photos


 o
RE: Global warming?

Olpea, of course any action is a roll of the dice, but advocating alternate energy sources and voicing a willingness to suffer some economic loss to do so might be just the action that ultimately tips the balance- like I've said (and I think a few others) anything's possible.

Same for advocating for a government not so under the influence of corporate money so decisions can be a little more objective. The industrial military complex comes to mind since you brought up reducing the military. I think corporate muscle may be clouding the reading of climate science as well. Something as fundamental as campaign finance reform might help form a more responsible government.

Incidentally, I don't think we have to worry too much about the U.S. government spending more than it brings in at the present time. I believe that we are the first country in the history of civilization that can simply print money when we need it and the rest of the world is forced to accept it without devaluing it. It's really an amazing phenomena that most people fail to grasp and the politicians don't want to grasp. Anyone that wants us back on the gold standard is insane- this is the best hustle of all time.

As I understand it, we've tripled the volume of our currency since the bank crash and the rest of the world just keeps acting as if the dollar is worth about the same. The empire may have no clothes but those Chinese shoes and coats are sure keeping me warm. The rest of the world does our bidding (makes us the stuff we want) and the main thing we do really well is print money the rest of the world believes in.


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 5, 12 at 10:56

Hman,

I'm all for advocating alternate energy sources. Global warming aside, eventually we are going to run out of oil and coal. I'm just saying reducing green house emissions to any level that would make a substantive difference would require sacrifices beyond what most people could imagine.

The last statistic I heard was that Americans use about 32 barrels of oil (fuel and other petrol related products) per capita. Typical oil statistics are lower but I don't think they take into account all the imported oil related products/packaging etc.

China and India are around 2 barrels per capita. The problem is these countries are trying to pattern their economies after the other industrialized nations but China and India have 4 times the populace of the U.S. each. When these countries finally become industrialized (which they will) the world won't be using less fossil fuels, but more, no matter what the U.S. and other current industrialized nations do. Africa will eventually follow suit.

Unless there is some clever new energy source developed, humans will use fossil fuels at an increasing rate until they're gone, regardless of what the U.S. and other current industrialized nations do.

I don't fault developing nations for trying to raise their standard of living. Life is very hard, and it's natural for anyone to want to make it less so. I'm just pointing out anything we do likely won't really address the problem, rather will just make people feel good they are doing something.

One the subject of money, the reason for the relative strength of the dollar is due to foreign (Chinese) purchase of our debt (keeping demand for dollars high). Eventually that debt will have to be paid back.

When that happens all the "good" things that have occurred (i.e. cheap foreign goods) to keep our standard of living artificially high, will happen in reverse.

I agree reverting to a currency backed by precious metals is preposterous. As we've already discovered, it's impossible to keep the government set price of the precious metal equal to the market price. In the past it produced constant market speculation and the government had to continually "revalue" the currency. Continually revaluing a currency based on precious metals is no different than the fiat currency we have now.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Insane weather this afternoon.... for early Jan...warmer in South Dakota then Cancun, Mexico.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Image and video hosting by TinyPic


 o
RE: Global warming?

Olpea, as long as the debt is paid with dollars we only have to keep the printing presses running. I know it sounds crazy but I've run it by a couple of economists and while they were well aware of what I was saying they'd never thought about it the way I stated it. That is that this is the biggest hustle ever played by any nation on the rest of the world.

The Europeans are trying to make the Euro an alternative currency but there's no way for manipulating their currency right now the way we can. No one country can just print them.

The Chinese are in a bind. Their only power is to say that the dollar is no longer worth a dollar which it shouldn't be after we tripled its quantity out of thin air, but they have to pretend the empire has clothes or they are as naked as we are. If the dollar is worth less their goods will cost more and the economic engine stalls with all their billions of people needing it to continue expanding.

Of course this can't be perpetuated indefinitely but for the foreseeable future we have it made in the shade like no other country ever has.

I agree with every point you make about the oil and coal being used up no matter how any of us feels about it. I stated as much about 80 comments ago. I still believe in fighting the good fight, but maybe that is naive. The only way we can put any dent in this is with an international treaty which includes China and India. China is certainly investing heavily in alternative energy sources as I'm sure you know.


 o
RE: Global warming?

  • Posted by olpea zone 6 KS (My Page) on
    Thu, Jan 5, 12 at 20:38

Hman,

It is likely we will print our way out of debt. It's the easiest way and in dire times nations generally can't resist that temptation.

Of course paying the debt back with worthless dollars has problems of it's own. Likely it would cause the same hyperinflation Germany experienced in the 1930s, or Argentina experienced in the 1980s.

In the late 1980s I worked for a commodities company that did business in Argentina. Some of the managers involved told me it was extremely difficult to do business in that environment.

Because inflation was so high, managers had to spend all their time trying to keep their products priced correctly to make a profit. Because prices changed continually, the day to day efficiency of the operations didn't matter. Everyone's time was spent managing finances. It encouraged a very inefficient economic model. Argentinans are still feeling the effects from that debacle.

I think our situation could be much worse. Because we are larger there won't be anyone (like the IMF) to bail us out. You've heard the phrase, "too big to [let them] fail" applied to various business during this recession. The U.S. will be too big (to be able) to save.

What will probably compound the problem is that at the same time we are trying to inflate our way out of debt, the U.S. dollar will probably cease to be the dominant world currency. Nations don't want to tie themselves to a worthless and unstable currency. The effect of this would add to inflation.

In worse cases, hyper inflation encourages a barter economy (very inefficient), unemployment, and political instability.

As a side note, we talking about printing money, but I'm sure you're aware the gov. doesn't even have to fire up the printing presses to increase the money supply. Only about 5% of the money supply is actual dollars. Most of the "money" is in "demand deposits" i.e. checking accounts, etc. All that's necessary to increase the money supply is to add a few zeros to the end of the U.S. Treasury's account.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Olpea, the historic examples I'm well aware of as everyone keeps bringing up German's hyper inflation. Google Krugman at NY Times and you will get a better explanation than I can give of why our situation is not the same as pre-war Germany and Argentina. Suffice it to say that neither were the center of capitol. Their positions were weak to begin with.

Your thinking is widespread, but not so much amongst economists, although as usual there is no unanimous consensus. But it is another case where people, including politicians, trust their guts more than their experts. Everyone believes that they are the rare person with common sense.

You can give me examples where countries have borrowed their way into hyper inflation, but how about some examples of where austerity has helped governments avoid a depression when confronted with deep recession?

I admit that I really don't understand economics- I haven't spent my lifetime studying it. My entire adult life has been an obsession of learning about music and plants- in that order. It's still important to try to have enough understanding to assume a responsible political position. I figure that's what we're doing here.

Maybe we should continue this conversation on e-mail as other members seem to have dropped out anyway and I could sure use my spell-check.


 o
RE: Global warming?

I've been reading about "tidal mills" as a possible alternate source of energy. Its been used for well over a thousand years as a power source. I've also read about generators that use wave motion for power. Here in Kansas we have unbelievable wind power but its not guaranteed or contstant - it seems that tide or wave power would be a great constant source of energy - what's the downside if there is one? I know you would have the initial construction but what are the hidden costs?


 o
RE: Global warming?

The environmentalists would never allow it as its construction may hurt a fishes feelings.


 o
RE: Global warming?

I'm an anthropogenic GW denier - but I'm hedging my bets: I'm planting both Southern and far-northern pecan varieties.

Here is a link that might be useful: Ice Age Now


 o
UFO Convention 2006 about Billy Meier

For those of you who are interested,.. some great information/video with Wendelle Stevens, Michael Horn & a representative from FIGU, Christian Frehner, Switzerland.

Here is a link that might be useful: UFO Convention 2006 about Billy Meier


 o
RE: Global warming?

Dear Konrad, I love your photographs and great growing insights and information, but I do believe you need to start a new thread for your UFO and Extra-terrestrial information. New people come to this site everyday and want information about cultivation of fruits and fruit trees, please respect the basic questions. Many thanks, Mrs. G


 o
RE: Global warming?

Ups...I understand, sorry for bothering you,.. will that include the
economics?


 o
RE: Global warming?

there is a solution to both global warming and population pressures, but you may want to be very careful in its implementation... nuclear winter... just a thought.


 o
RE: Global warming?

Hi Y'all,
My mom who lives south of Saugatuck, Michigan, Zone 6,
harvested the remaining 15lbs of brussel sprouts left from her ...er...winter garden. No green house needed. Just think of what she could do with a green house!
This morning it's in the low 20's.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Fruit & Orchards Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here