5 of 6
5
Climate change killing mighty trees in Alaska
Posted: 06 March 2012 07:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

This is what we know: GW is a fact; AGW is probably true; we don’t know if GW has an effect on the shifting of jet streams. But people like to yap. So be it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
George - 06 March 2012 07:05 AM

This is what we know: GW is a fact; AGW is probably true; we don’t know if GW has an effect on the shifting of jet streams. But people like to yap. So be it.

By George, I think you’ve got it !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 07:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

Dr. Curry tries to be reserved. She says that the general idea behind the work is from Ewing and Donn circa 1958. This article outlines the idea http://strongasanoxandnearlyassmart.blogspot.com/2011/07/scientists-predict-another-ice-age-is.html

Modern man’s hunch that the Ice Age has gone for good is based on what he firmly believes to be common sense. How, we ask, can a new Ice Age possibly be shaping up when everybody knows that existing glaciers — like those in the Swiss passes and Alaska — are melting? How could new ice hulks creep in upon us while weather experts are announcing that even the North Polar ice caps are thinning? And what about the fact that weather records show the weather has been growing warmer over the years - so warm in fact that certain glaciers are melting fast enough to raise the level of the world’s oceans? Can such signs really foreshadow the coming of a new Ice Age?

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 07:42 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
Write4U - 05 March 2012 11:47 AM

Here are a few,

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
http://realclimate.com/
http://SkepticalScience.com/
 

CC where are you??

W4U what do you mean I thought you were doing pretty good on your own.
{but thanks for the compliment anyways.}

There is only one flaw in your approach -
that is, your explaining things, as though someone where interested in learning about it - instead what it looks like we have is another debate meister that’s purely focused on seeking out flaws and weaknesses, with little respect for their respective significance.

But, FC does bring up some interesting, if typical, misunderstanding that will be worth reviewing.
I’ll be back.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 07:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 06 March 2012 07:48 AM
Write4U - 05 March 2012 11:47 AM

Here are a few,

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
http://realclimate.com/
http://SkepticalScience.com/
 

CC where are you??

W4U what do you mean I thought you were doing pretty good on your own.
{but thanks for the compliment anyways.}

There is only one flaw in your approach -
that is, your explaining things, as though someone where interested in learning about it - instead what it looks like we have is another debate meister that’s purely focused on seeking out flaws and weaknesses, with little respect for their respective significance.

But, FC does bring up some interesting, if typical, misunderstanding that will be worth reviewing.
I’ll be back.

Please stop this flagrantly blustering, untrue ad hom attack. I have not impugned your character, and you have not one justification to do this to me.

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 07:56 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 08:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

More about Ewing and Donn

Glaciers, Dr. Ewing explains, are created purely and simply when more snow falls than melts. Sub-zero temperatures are only one factor. Greenland and the Canadian Arctic Islands, for instance, share the same frigid latitude. But snow-covered Greenland lies under a perpetual blanket of ice whereas the Arctic Islands, with only light snow precipitation, are not glaciated.

Drs. Ewing and Donn reason that the great Ice Ages were produced by practically continuous snowfall coming from some rich source of moisture which has now been shut off.

It is becoming known that the thickest ice concentration during the glacial periods was in the Hudson Bay region. The Ewing-Donn conclusion is that the snow clouds must have gathered their moisture from the Arctic Ocean.

In other words, the Arctic Ocean in the Ice Age was itself free of ice, and offered thousands and thousands of square miles of water surface to winds blowing towards Northern Canada, Europe and Siberia.

Our Yellow Cedar area , though, is receiving less snow. It would seem that so long as we don’t get really cold again, as in the 1880-1890 era or the 70’s… or worse….

I like to get a feel for “what is” wrt nature. I believe the Yellow Cedar is not a glaciation-loving tree, but more a mild weather tree.

It’s niche suitability and it’s Achille’s Heel, are the same It is a superior tree for life in shallow soil in mild climate, but it cannot compete with other species in the more usual type of conditions found in other areas. Severe cold and no snow, those two conditions coming together in an event,  will kill it.

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 08:37 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2012 09:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 06 March 2012 07:48 AM

only one flaw in your approach -
that is, your explaining things, as though someone where interested in learning about it - instead what it looks like we have is another debate meister that’s purely focused on seeking out flaws and weaknesses, with little respect for their respective significance.

But, FC does bring up some interesting, if typical, misunderstanding that will be worth reviewing.
I’ll be back.

citizenschallenge,
For while you’re busy composing, here’s a question that you might like to consider:
Supposing
1. That the Yellow Cedar dies if it gets it’s roots frozen too much or too badly.
2/ That the Yellow Cedar niche is shallow soil.
3/ That the climate from 1880 till the 1980’s or so, the century of mini ice age conditions cycling in and out, has been when noticed increased mortality of Yellow Cedar occurred. 

If you had the control knob on temperature…and had only the Yellow Cedar interests in mind, would you lower the global average temperature right now, to pre- AGW level ? Only you would be responsible either way, for what ensued wrt Yellow Cedar forests.

[ Edited: 06 March 2012 09:30 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 08:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
FrenchCurve - 06 March 2012 09:26 AM

citizenschallenge,
For while you’re busy composing, here’s a question that you might like to consider:
Supposing
1. That the Yellow Cedar dies if it gets it’s roots frozen too much or too badly.
2/ That the Yellow Cedar niche is shallow soil.
3/ That the climate from 1880 till the 1980’s or so, the century of mini ice age conditions cycling in and out, has been when noticed increased mortality of Yellow Cedar occurred. 

If you had the control knob on temperature…and had only the Yellow Cedar interests in mind, would you lower the global average temperature right now, to pre- AGW level ? Only you would be responsible either way, for what ensued wrt Yellow Cedar forests.

================================
The thing with the Yellow Cedars is localized and has understood causes and dynamics -

Why do you imply that particular symptom has anything to say to us about the greater question of global AGW dynamics?

And what is this “control knob” non-sense?

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 08:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 March 2012 08:30 AM
FrenchCurve - 06 March 2012 09:26 AM

citizenschallenge,
For while you’re busy composing, here’s a question that you might like to consider:
Supposing
1. That the Yellow Cedar dies if it gets it’s roots frozen too much or too badly.
2/ That the Yellow Cedar niche is shallow soil.
3/ That the climate from 1880 till the 1980’s or so, the century of mini ice age conditions cycling in and out, has been when noticed increased mortality of Yellow Cedar occurred. 

If you had the control knob on temperature…and had only the Yellow Cedar interests in mind, would you lower the global average temperature right now, to pre- AGW level ? Only you would be responsible either way, for what ensued wrt Yellow Cedar forests.

================================
The thing with the Yellow Cedars is localized and has understood causes and dynamics -

Why do you imply that particular symptom has anything to say to us about the greater question of global AGW dynamics?

And what is this “control knob” non-sense?

The control knob nonsense is a hypothetical. If you could, would you right now lower the temp on these trees, make the climate as it was during their difficult times ? Of course, the trees are not all of the world. There are so many concerns.

It’s illogical to assume that higher temps or climate changes will be adverse to every system and creature. So if you were the Yellow Cedar Steward , in control, would you reverse temp increases for the welfare of these ? We could even give you some comfort, in saying that it would not hurt any other systems or creatures. Just the Yellow Cedar forests would be affected . Would you push the button to turn back the temp increase ? If they all died and were gone forever, it would be on your decision,  and you’d have to live with that.

If you would hesitate , then you have learned to differentiate, to take responsibility for your announcements, which would be a good thing.

Patiently waiting for your report on even ONE of my many misconceptions !

[ Edited: 07 March 2012 08:46 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 08:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 08:35 AM

The control knob nonsense is a hypothetical. If you could, would you right now lower the temp on these trees, make the climate as it was during their difficult times ? Of course, the trees are not all of the world. There are so many concerns.

Sorry not into those kinds of hypothetical games.
The real world situation is tough enough to get a handle on.

To me it seem like crazy-making and distraction from what we should be worrying about.

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 08:50 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 March 2012 08:49 AM
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 08:35 AM

The control knob nonsense is a hypothetical. If you could, would you right now lower the temp on these trees, make the climate as it was during their difficult times ? Of course, the trees are not all of the world. There are so many concerns.

Sorry not into those kinds of hypothetical games.
The real world situation is tough enough to get a handle on.

To me it seem like crazy-making and distraction from what we should be worrying about.

You’re already hesitant to say what should take you only a few seconds of thought (Yes, reverse GW !!!)

Good thinking. Lowering global temps is not necessarily good for the things we love. Raising temps the same; not necessarily good. That’s a start.

Since you refuse to declare that IYO it would be good to reverse GW in this instance, then next time you hear “do nothing”, you need not necessarily burst forth on autopilot, declaring that the statement is treasonous. True ?

[ Edited: 07 March 2012 09:06 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05

Sorry not into those kinds of hypothetical games.

Filed for reference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4400
Joined  2010-08-15
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 09:09 AM

Sorry not into those kinds of hypothetical games.

Filed for reference.

FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 08:50 AM

Since you refuse to declare that IYO it would be good to reverse GW in this instance, then next time you hear “do nothing”, you need not necessarily burst forth on autopilot, declaring that the statement is treasonous. True ?

Didn’t take long for you to make my point.

For me it’s about learning about our biosphere. . . Earth. 
And to appreciate what scientists are discovering and recording - - -

I dare say you are more into the parlar-room debate end of things. 
Find the smallest distraction to hyper-inflate and then draw implications that aren’t justified in the first place.  Winning the argument is paramount, even over factual integrity,  if that don’t work resort to hypothetical headfk games, and so on and so forth.

Wish I had more time to converse since there’s a bunch I wouldn’t mind asking & saying about some of your comments in these threads… but alas the task master has caught up with me and it’s time for actual work.

cheers

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2012 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  82
Joined  2012-03-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 March 2012 09:37 AM
FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 09:09 AM

Sorry not into those kinds of hypothetical games.

Filed for reference.

FrenchCurve - 07 March 2012 08:50 AM

Since you refuse to declare that IYO it would be good to reverse GW in this instance, then next time you hear “do nothing”, you need not necessarily burst forth on autopilot, declaring that the statement is treasonous. True ?

Didn’t take long for you to make my point.

For me it’s about learning about our biosphere. . . Earth. 
And to appreciate what scientists are discovering and recording - - -

I dare say you are more into the parlar-room debate end of things. 

You dare inadvisably.

Find the smallest distraction to hyper-inflate and then draw implications that aren’t justified in the first place.  Winning the argument is paramount, even over factual integrity,  if that don’t work resort to hypothetical headfk games, and so on and so forth.

Are you making this ad hom declaration about me ? Please stop . It’s untrue.

Wish I had more time to converse since there’s a bunch I wouldn’t mind asking & saying about some of your comments in these threads… but alas the task master has caught up with me and it’s time for actual work.

cheers

So just shove out some ad hom attacks…is that going to be the sum total of your report on my misconceptions ? Not even one ? Disappointing ! You had some people depending on you.

Here’s some help; if you check, you will see me begin to investigate the Yellow Cedar report. Initially I went this way and that, looking here and there, as some things caught my attention.  Try there.

[ Edited: 07 March 2012 09:54 AM by FrenchCurve ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 March 2012 07:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6166
Joined  2009-02-26

FC, the focus on the Yellow Cedar is not an effort to save it. It is however illustrative of climate change in general. The primary concern is “less snow”, as evidenced by the plight of the cedar.
Less snow or ice, does not only affect trees or animals, it affects the entire earth in uncountable ways, but as these effects usually take a long time to manifest themselves globally, we can only look at “indicators”.  And if humans are responsible for (some) aggravating causes, it behooves us to identify those causes and if possible modify them.
I see mankind as a viral parasite (so far) and certainly not a beneficial organism to the greater host, as our own bodies are benefitting from billions of symbiotic organisms.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 6
5