Wake Up Call for Green Energy

[Ianab]

Not long ago it was observed by everyone that the earth was flat. Scientists (and science) of the era confirmed that this was true.

Well the first person to work out the diameter of the Earth was Eratosthenes, around 200 BC. and he also calculated the tilt of it's rotation. He got both about as close as you can expect with the measurement tools he had available. Since then various people have Believed the Earth was flat (and some still do), without trying to emulate a 2200 year old experiment that showed not only that is it round, but lets you measure the size. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Measurement_of_Earth's_circumference

Why did(do) some people believe the Earth was flat? Because they blindly believe what they have been told. Science CAN be wrong about things, because of insufficient or incorrect data. Difference between science and dogma is that if new and better data turns up, you have to adjust your theory. Not use dogma (political / economic ./ religious) to explain away that evidence away. 

Galileo (1564-1646) was the guy that worked out that the Earth was orbiting the Sun, and got into a lot of trouble with the local Church, who insisted that it worked the other way, because that's what their book said. In the end it turned out Galileo's observed facts and maths were correct, and the Church's belief in that regard were incorrect. 

So see my post above about the Tasman Lake above. When you can actually see a 4 mile long lake appear in your own lifetime, maybe the climate IS changing, and it might be faster than we can comfortably adjust to. 

[Southside]

How far has magnetic north shifted east over the past 25 years?  Did humans do that too?  What impact does that have on climate as it relates to solar energy passing through the atmosphere?  I grew up in northern Maine - it's all rocks and lousy dirt to farm.  Know why?  Because the last ice age moved all the top soil south and created New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware, where they have nice dirt and no rock.  What caused that glacier to melt?  

We don't know what we don't know.  To claim the appearance of a lake over the span of a few years in a 4+ billion year history is a direct consequence of our activity is a far stretch and exactly what causes "climate science" to have a credibility problem.  

At the risk of repeating myself I will again say, I can dig up shark teeth 8 miles from our farm in Kansas.  Great BIG shark teeth in Kansas.  They didn't swim across the prairie to just die there.  

[Ianab]

100% agree that the Earth's climate changes naturally, same as it's geography has changed over millions of years. 

You can dig fossil oysters and crabs out of the stream banks a few miles inland from me too, places that are now ~500ft above sea level. That's tectonic action at work there, which although a different effect is a real one. Something you don't usually observe, because it takes a million years to make much change. But even then you can sometimes directly observe it. There is a spot on the coast of the Sth Island that suddenly popped ~20ft out of the ocean in a few seconds. Only 20ft, but repeat that every few hundred years, and that former beach soon becomes a small Mt range. But we don't notice, because the change is relatively gradual. Same as your Kansas shark teeth. X million years ago that part of Kansas would have been underwater. Maybe Kansas was lower, or the sea higher? Don't know, but whatever changed took millions of years. 

We KNOW that certain natural events, like a large volcano can temporarily change the climate. If Yellowstone or Taupo let loose again it will affect the whole world climate, but there isn't much we can do about that. Volcanic ash has the opposite effect of CO2 to the climate. A super-volcano WOULD affect the climate, and probably create multi year crop failures, not an extinction event, but serious famine / economic / social upheaval.   If you dump a comparable amount of CO2 into the air as a super-volcano can eject ash, then maybe you might expect a different effect but on that sort of scale?

So the fact that natural events can change the climate actually makes it more plausible that man made effects could as well. The main issue is the speed that the change could occur. Change the climate over a 50,000+ years and you can easily abandon Florida and start growing bananas in Greenland and Alaska. If the change happens in a 100 years, that's a problem. 

[SwampDonkey]

They only look at weather events as their evidence, things that have happened naturally for ever and really beat the drums over it. There were just as severe events in the past as now, long stretches of bad weather, followed by calmer times. The talk now is that PEI is eroding. It's been happening all along. It has no rugged rocky coastline, it is a giant sand spit on shallow ocean. They have this idea that things are always constant. Some people don't understand the dynamics of sand spits all the sudden. There are some places on the planet where a earth quake caused tsunami will wipe out a town, there is no elevation there. When you flaunt with nature on the edge of harms way, what do you expect in your lifetime? The floods in Pakistan, huge population on a natural flood plain, no elevation, has been flooding there a very long time. Their agricultural practices with make shift levees and berms have proven to be no match for monsoons. Those people are continually being made destitute because they periodically lose everything and still want to live in it. Nothing new there. Look at Bangladesh, they have lifted themselves up, once considered a basket case.   Companies are scrambling for resources to fulfill pipe dreams. We need to continue research and development, we can not afford to come full stop. It will result in economic collapse. You can see what turning off the gas line is doing to Europe.

[stavebuyer]

100 years back the world's population was under 2 billion. Now we are at around 8 billion. I am certain an extra 6 billion or so probably has an impact and not sure that it will be possible to sustain that many people. Assuming that the "Al Gore-Greta Thunberg" disciples are correct and fossil fuels are the cause of all evil I remain skeptical that any current alternatives present a realistic solution on the scale required. I also strongly believe that the "change" required to mine, manufacture and build the infrastructure to replace all fossil fuels in a couple decades on such a massive scale represents impacts that very well could be worse than the issues they intend to "fix".

I also have an inkling that the poor peasants being regulated into starvation may decide that while they agree that something must change, they may have a slightly different view of what or who actually threatens their existence. The ones going to round up the cows and gas scooters from the peasants for the "greater good" might well add to global warming as they find themselves burned at the stake.

[SwampDonkey]

Yes for sure, the impact on resources is real, way more demands on them with 8 billion people, especially with most of them concentrated in one large region. Mitigation and remediation with infrastructure improvements will go a longer way than shutting off the gas line.

[newoodguy78]

A friend of mine stopped by the shop last night and this topic came up. He's an engineer/manager for a big company that produces filters and parts of all types, small engine oil filters right up through def, dpf filters and everything in between. Some of their customers are CAT,John Deere,Kubota to name a few. He was saying they essentially have two lines of product the ones that get painted the buyers trademarked colors and ones that get painted olive drab or some military color that they use on government contracts.

Everyone of the parts painted to military spec has zero emissions compliance none,stripped down this is what works best we don't want anything complicated type. Anything painted company colors is and has to be within regulations for US needs. If it's headed overseas apparently it's hit or miss depending on final destination.

Wasn't surprised but when the same group that's ordering non compliant parts and telling me that by not using them I'm them problem.Hang on a second.  What am I missing here? I don't get it.

The whole cow argument and the thought that they're killing the planet is another one I can't wrap my head around. Does that mean that shooting off all the buffalo was a good thing? They have the same  digestive system as cows. Imagine if they were still around contributing to our demise.

I fully agree things are changing they have been since time started ,just went through one of if not the hottest and driest summers I can remember. Also have noticed it's not uncommon to get early October weather in mid November the last few years. But when the weather man can't accurately tell me what will happen in 3-4 days I'm not sure I'm gonna listen to intently to his buddy telling me what the weather will be in 100-200 years.

[SwampDonkey]

We went though several wet cool summers here 2008-2012, then 3 hot dry spells 2018-2020 with hardly any rain. Last two summers here have been normal, not that many 90 degree days, a few 60's in July as well. All normal from my 55 year experience. However I have seen the seasons shift. The spring now is colder, the early fall is warmer. Net effect is we can't grow any more, it's only shifting the season. My dad used to plant grains in mid-late April up here, that is rare now.

[doc henderson]

no one is dismissing the "evidence".  I choose to dismiss the hyperbolic rhetoric and talking points.  We do dumb things when we panic, and the goal of the green agenda is to make people panic.  I choose not to panic.

[Southside]

Temperatures are forecast to drop 30-40 degrees here over the next week or so. Seems we never hear much about the polar shift these days but I have topo maps, purchased new, that are no longer accurate with respect to magnetic deviation. 

I don't believe that isn't impacting us in a significant way, but nobody can point the finger at anyone over it and witch hunt guilt, so it stays in the shadows. 

[Ianab]

I wonder if anyone has correlated the movement of the magnetic poles with historical climate data? It's possible that there is a link, so the scientific approach would be to look at the data and see if it supports (or disproves) the hypothesis.  Like I know the magnetic poles have even reversed at various times, do those correspond with a hot or cold period?  I haven't dug into the subject, but I'm sure someone will have looked at it. 

[Southside]

Well pole shift accompanies magnetic field fluctuations, which allows more or less solar radiation to penetrate through the atmosphere, so there has to be a link.  If you are standing by a camp fire and someone crosses between you and the fire that's the same effect the magnetic field has on solar radiation, you feel less heat, the planet must feel less heat.  

[Ianab]

I get the theory, it's just that previous magnetic field fluctuations and even full reversals haven't caused any serious climate effects. The climate events and magnetic field disruptions don't align.

That's not to say there is zero effect, just that it's too small to really count. The particles the magnetic field blocks are the high energy charged ones (that can be problematic to staying alive). But they are only a small % of the total energy, and would mostly interact with the upper atmosphere anyway. 99% of the suns energy comes as light (UV through IR), and the magnetic field has zero effect on that. 

The other thing is that even in a pole reversal event, the field is still there, just more jumbled. Your compass might point any direction from year to year, and aurora would follow the temporary poles (there might be several) as they moved. Last time this happened was about 45,500 years ago. The poles actually reversed for about 500 years, before flipping back. But there was no major disruption to the climate during this period.

[SwampDonkey]

Here is sea ice coverage in the Arctic in March 2022. The red outline is a 30 year median 1980-2010. You can see Canada has gained more sea ice in northern Quebec and lost way less around the Maritime region, a net gain in sea ice in Canada. NB and PEI and the Gaspe is still locked solid in ice every winter. The losses are Asian and European and some off Alaska. I'm not convinced this gives a stark picture. I also question methodology, how is the 30 year snapshot chosen? Why is that significant over any other 30 year period?





Now look at March 1981, my region is practically ice free and Northern Quebec and NFLD is less ice. :D

[barbender]

SD, you are supposed to pick the 30 years or whatever time period that best fits the narrative you're pushing.

[sharp edge]

That proved that fresh water off the caps freezes quicker than salt water. This is what I understood back then.

SE

[Mooseherder]

Warm water freezes faster than cold water  I used to help lay down ice at the Skating Rink. :D

[SwampDonkey]

This is all sea ice. Baffin Island is a big ice mountain, that is glacier.  Adventure tourists go there to climb those ice mountains and look at polar bears down on the sea ice, not up on top of those ice mountains, no seals up there. And lemmings don't go up there to jump off like Walt Disney told ya. ;D Although one place Attenborough dared suggest walrus somehow fell off a cliff because of climate or something and what really happened was a family of polar bears moved in on them and they had no escape but over a sea side cliff and they jumped, rather than face being eating alive. Evidence showed the film drones also spooked some of the walrus enough to go over the cliff. These cliffs are not glaciated.

Icebergs floating by Newfoundland every spring is an annual event going back further than industrialization. Most are from Greenland, the rest from Canadian glaciated Islands.  And the journey can take 3 years.

[SwampDonkey]

This is all sea ice. Fresh water don't melt in freezing cold winter. Baffin Island is a big ice mountain, that is glacier.  Adventure tourists go there to climb those ice mountains and look at polar bears down on the sea ice, not up on top of those ice mountains, no seals up there. ;D

[jake pogg]

Here is sea ice coverage in the Arctic in March 2022. The red outline is a 30 year median 1980-2010.

Sorry there boss,it Can't be right-the Bering Strait part of the map is WAY off-the ice has never extended that far South (frozen coast to coast clear to Aleutians-those seas haven't frozen Ever,i don't think!:))

I think you interpret that map wrong,possibly what's meant by it being a map of "ice and Snow" is a possibility of snowfall at some point in winter?

Looking at the ice-cover in March i don't think is a great way to calculate how much Arctic ice remains,it Isn't a question of how big an area forms on some cold night but how much of the old,permanent ice is left.

[SwampDonkey]

I know where ocean water is and where an island is. All mainland is shown in green. Doesn't change the extent of sea ice. I'm quite certain that the Hudson Bay exists as a water body, and Baffin Island or Greenland are a glaciated land masses. The red line indicates 30 year median. It's not an over night observation, it's month long data and the median for the month displayed. That means an equal number data points is to the left as to the right.  March is very representative because winter is several months long, not just the first month of winter and say the rest of winter doesn't count. : If I measure river ice here in Dec 21, it might be 12", the shore line not solid. In March it's 6 feet thick and that shoreline is solid.

[SwampDonkey]

The Bearing Sea is actually the one place it hasn't retreated a bit when comparing  the 30 year median.





NASA notes that ice extent is the area with at least 15 percent ice cover, the minimum at which space-based measurements give a reliable measurement.

[SwampDonkey]

July 2022





July 1981





July 1979





I see similar ice from Greenland toward Canada in 1979 and 2022.  Most losses again are in Asia and Europe. That straight up by Greenland can be froze in one year and maybe not the next, looking at 79 and 81 data there. But it changes back and forth.

Look at the sea ice in 2022 around the northern and southern tips of Newfoundland. Not there in the other photos shown.

[jake pogg]

The Bearing Sea is actually the one place it hasn't retreated a bit when comparing  the 30 year median.

I'm not in the habit of processing scientific data,and will not argue. (i even find it reassuring,and hope that's the trend indeed).
It's Not the impression that i'm left with however, for whatever reason, but again-would like to hope that i'm wrong. 

[SwampDonkey]

Jake it's constantly changing boundaries because weather, the thing we observe day by day is always changing and seasonal changes within. Some areas like Asia and Europe are loosing ice, in Canada I see no significant loss. Some, yes.  Furtwängler Glacier in Africa is considered ephemeral, on the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro and only existed continuously since about 1650. So it comes and goes over the centuries.That's no 1000 years by the way. ;)