Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Stories I have heard recently include that fish are getting smaller,

Which fish? Where? Why exactly are they getting smaller?

and apple farmers in North Carolina are losing most of their apples; all because of global warming.

What? Going to need to see your work on that one!

CA crops are suffering too. The skeptics may soon have to pay lots more for food, thanks to what they and their politicians deny.

Please don't try to help. Your scientific illiteracy is likely to swamp out any information that might be in the least bit useful.

Blaming crop losses from a single season on climate change is absurd. Establishing a pattern showing increased likelihood of crop losses can be linked to climate change.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I've heard both of these. There is a family in Florida that has been taking tourists on boats for fishing for several generations. Part of the ritual is standing on the dock taking pictures of the fish. They recently shared their fish picture archive with scientists. The fish are definitely getting smaller.

That is much, much more likely to do with past and current fisheries policies and angler behavior as well as environmental damage. Global warming, if even relevant at all, is going to be far, far down the list of culprits to blame.

During the Bush 43 years, and maybe still today for all I know, there were two sets of planting maps. Given one lives in a given place, what sort of plants will thrive in the climate? The first set of maps were put out by the government, and have not changed in decades. The other set of maps are put out by the seed companies, and have.

Now you are talking about changes that can be more easily linked to climate change!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Stories I have heard recently include that fish are getting smaller, and apple farmers in North Carolina are losing most of their apples; all because of global warming. CA crops are suffering too. The skeptics may soon have to pay lots more for food, thanks to what they and their politicians deny.

A quick google shows the North Carolina apple losses might be weather rather than climate. They had an early warm spell followed by a seasonal frost. The trees flowered early, then got caught by freeze.

Maybe global warming??? Still, things like this have always happened on occasion.

I have seen the game fish story, though.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Most plants do both (night and day) but net, true.

Brings uop the issue that more trees take a net of carbon out. More trees grow when it's warm. Balance.

It's way more complicated than that. Precipitation patterns (amounts and timing) shift. Soil evaporation increases. Growing seasons shift, etc.

Each ecosystem is going to change in its own way due to the multitude of factors and great deal of initial variances.

Originally Posted by B Butler

A quick google shows the North Carolina apple losses might be weather rather than climate. They had an early warm spell followed by a seasonal frost. The trees flowered early, then got caught by freeze.

Maybe global warming??? Still, things like this have always happened on occasion.

Exactly. It is possible that for some regions global warming might increase the chances for this particular pattern to occur. But, no single event can be blamed on global warming. Weather is the stochastic expression of climate.

I have seen the game fish story, though.

Trust me. There are a whole host of other factors that are far more likely to be responsible for that observation. (I used to do fishery research and data analysis for a living.)

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

That is much, much more likely to do with past and current fisheries policies and angler behavior as well as environmental damage. Global warming, if even relevant at all, is going to be far, far down the list of culprits to blame.

Well, nitpick, over fishing is a form of environmental damage. Also, around New England, we are starting to see a northward shift of species similar to that shown in the seed catalog case. Connecticut, Long Island Sound and Cape Cod Sound lobstering is struggling (though over fishing may be a factor), while lobsters in the Gulf of Maine are doing well. They are starting to see crabs in Long Island Sound that one might expect in the Chesapeake.

The oceans are having their problems, both with over fishing and climate change. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased acidity in the oceans. So far this has effected coral reef environments more than anything else. As many cultures are dependent on the sea for food this may become a problem in the future. Still, most of the media attention has been focused on warming, and it's harder to get data on the sea situation. At least, I haven't been following the Peak Fish situation as much as the Global Warming.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, nitpick, over fishing is a form of environmental damage.

But, the initial claim was that it was global warming at fault for the smaller fish today.

Asking that people be accurate and not just make stuff up is not "picking nits". It's the difference between being honest and a liar.

Also, around New England, we are starting to see a northward shift of species similar to that shown in the seed catalog case. Connecticut, Long Island Sound and Cape Cod Sound lobstering is struggling (though over fishing may be a factor), while lobsters in the Gulf of Maine are doing well. They are starting to see crabs in Long Island Sound that one might expect in the Chesapeake.

Those changes could very likely be due to climate change.

The oceans are having their problems, both with over fishing and climate change. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere leads to increased acidity in the oceans. So far this has effected coral reef environments more than anything else. As many cultures are dependent on the sea for food this may become a problem in the future. Still, most of the media attention has been focused on warming, and it's harder to get data on the sea situation. At least, I haven't been following the Peak Fish situation as much as the Global Warming.

No argument from me here. Oceans are changing. Those changes will radically alter our relationship with them. Most of the predicted changes will likely decrease the number of humans the oceans will be able to support, at least in the short term anyway (first few thousand years or so).

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

No. The relevant issue is proportion. If industrialization causes a 10% increase, that has an effect. If it's a 0.01% increase, probably not.

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 24% since 1958 alone. Forget pre-industrial revolution.

So answer the question. What percentage comes from industrialization in total.

Year to year increases are all due to human activities or feedback loops that our past activities have set in motion.

Then tell what percentage of that is from Amercians.

15.72%

Then tell me what percentage you are willing ot sacrifice.

Tell me what exactly the sacrifices will require and then I can let you know. Without specifics, there's no point to your question.

Originally Posted by B Butler

A quick google shows the North Carolina apple losses might be weather rather than climate. They had an early warm spell followed by a seasonal frost. The trees flowered early, then got caught by freeze.

Maybe global warming??? Still, things like this have always happened on occasion.

I have seen the game fish story, though.

Nobody says that global warming will be a smooth transition. What is at first abnormal weather (temperatures over 80F in March in Michigan) might be an anomaly in 2012 but not so anomalous in 2062. In 2062 a snowstorm that might have been normal early in March in 2012 might still happen and be seen as a freak event. Pf course, freak events of weather are usually disasters - heat waves, cold snaps, droughts, and floods.

The shrinking of the Arctic sea ice will of course influence patterns of weather. On the short end of the scale that may mean freakish events by contemporary standards. Earlier heat waves in the spring, later heat waves in the autumn, and longer and more severe heat waves in the summer or in seemingly-unlikely places will become more normal. Much-smaller snowfalls mean that some crops fail and that some watercourses become unnavigable.

Nature adjusts. Palms could appear in Dallas as the hard winter freezes are no more (chilly San Francisco has subtropical palm trees because it has no hard frosts), and someone watching then-very-old movies might find the idea of baseball players from the early twentieth century appearing from nowhere in an Iowa cornfield too much to believe -- not because of the failure of the conventions of fantasy but instead because nobody plants corn in Iowa anymore.

Global warming is increasing the likelihood of a new ice age, because the Gulf Stream conveyor is being slowed by increasing fresh water in the ocean due to ice melting.

http://youtu.be/N7lMJYiB23E

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Global warming is increasing the likelihood of a new ice age, because the Gulf Stream conveyor is being slowed by increasing fresh water in the ocean due to ice melting.

http://youtu.be/N7lMJYiB23E

In recent exchanges with Justin, we've been talking about the Medieval Climate Anomaly, which consists in part of the Medieval Warm Period followed by the Little Ice Age. These events are real, but the Little Ice Age is thought to be to a great extent local. It shows up clearer in the European record than elsewhere. I mentioned that said anomaly is messy and poorly understood, involving solar, volcanic and ocean conveyer belt changes.

One theory suggests that a warm period melted a lot of ice, put a lot of fresh water into the Arctic Ocean, which slowed the Gulf Stream ocean conveyor which resulted in less heat in the North Atlantic. This resulted in the Little Ice Age. The Gulf Stream is a major mover of heat from the equatorial region to the north. It is a good part of why Europe has warmer weather than other countries at the same latitude.

There has been concern for quite some time that such a pattern might repeat.

It isn't clear that it will repeat precisely. The current warming is looking to entirely melt the ice cap. This would make the arctic warmer that it was during the Medieval Warm Period, though a local cooling effect could occur in Europe if the Gulf Stream is subdued. I don't know that anyone is sure what the net effect will be.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Conservative in my book. Trickle-down theory, "other peoples' money" yadda yadda.

I'm happy here in CA, and CA is doing better. Silicon Valley is booming again. At least CA is doing something about global warming, so we'll have a better climate, even if some rich energy company execs have less money. I won't worry too much about that.

Housing costs a lot here, because it's such a great place to live. But those who can't afford it anymore have to move to Texas. I understand that. But that's not a place you'll "see me." I don't need to move there.

Well, it is other peoples money.

Tell me about California when your green policies send gas to ten dollars a gallon and elecity to a dollar a kilowatt.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Don't forget that libertarian can go left and right just as easily as authoritarians can. For every nanny-stater trying to regulate the size of soda you can buy, there's a counter-part on the right holding up a bible and preaching for legislation to end of some other social vice.

Similarly, there are some people who are libertarian in outlook, yet understand things like utilities, economic commons, positive/negative externalities... They don't really agree with the anarcho capitalists who think we'd all be better off if five companies were competing to build independent road networks through your neighborhood.

Conservatives are like libertarians on some issues.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

It's way more complicated than that. Precipitation patterns (amounts and timing) shift. Soil evaporation increases. Growing seasons shift, etc.

Each ecosystem is going to change in its own way due to the multitude of factors and great deal of initial variances.

True. But carbon is supposed to be about temperatures.

So. If you think that carbon is a major component on climate change, what temperature do you think is ideal? If you could, would you go back to colder temperatures?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by 24% since 1958 alone. Forget pre-industrial revolution.


Year to year increases are all due to human activities or feedback loops that our past activities have set in motion.



15.72%



Tell me what exactly the sacrifices will require and then I can let you know. Without specifics, there's no point to your question.

I doubt that 100% of carbon change is due to human activity. Carbon (and the climate) changed long before people were building fires.

You can predict what happens if we chuck the industrial revolution.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I doubt that 100% of carbon change is due to human activity. Carbon (and the climate) changed long before people were building fires.

You can predict what happens if we chuck the industrial revolution.

This is unnecessary. We can have a vibrant economy with diverse goods and services, and do it in a low impact manner. Instead of coal-fired electricity, we can have nuclear (fission now and fusion later). Automobiles can be electric or hybrids at the very least. And the greatest source of enegy with no carbon foot print and very low cost: conservation.

Are these anathema to the right? If so, why?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I doubt that 100% of carbon change is due to human activity. Carbon (and the climate) changed long before people were building fires.

Year to year increases are due to human activity. The changing isotope ratios of atmospheric carbon demonstrate that. I did mention that occasionally huge natural events will add small bumps to a particular year's change. But, prior to industrialization, carbon entering the atmosphere was typically balanced out by carbon leaving it. That balance no longer exists and the excess carbon entering the atmosphere is "old" carbon from fossil fuels. We can measure it!

You can predict what happens if we chuck the industrial revolution.

In other words, you have no idea what sacrifices we might want to make to deal with the problem but you are totally against them none the less. Sounds legit.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is unnecessary. We can have a vibrant economy with diverse goods and services, and do it in a low impact manner. Instead of coal-fired electricity, we can have nuclear (fission now and fusion later). Automobiles can be electric or hybrids at the very least. And the greatest source of energy with no carbon foot print and very low cost: conservation.

Are these anathema to the right? If so, why?

And since we have solar and wind, we don't even need nuclear. But what we lack is the renewable resource of political will. But, at least if the Republicans don't get let back in the big white house, fuel standards are high enough that eventually the cars will go electric and to other alternatives.

They are anathema to the right, because anything that challenges business and its money, or anything else of the status quo, is anathema to the right.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

True. But carbon is supposed to be about temperatures.

No. Carbon dioxide is about heat. Heat and temperature are not the same thing. The sooner you understand the difference, the sooner we can have an informed discussion about heat redistribution and its affects on different regions.

So. If you think that carbon is a major component on climate change,

It's not "what I think", it's what the data shows.

what temperature do you think is ideal? If you could, would you go back to colder temperatures?

Temperature? You don't really understand what the word climate means, do you?

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Conservatives are like libertarians on some issues.

Conservative libertarians are only concerned about the "freedom" of "free" enterprise; "freedom" for businessmen to screw the rest of us without "interference in their lives."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This is unnecessary. We can have a vibrant economy with diverse goods and services, and do it in a low impact manner. Instead of coal-fired electricity, we can have nuclear (fission now and fusion later).

Coal is cheap. Coal is relatively easy. The process of switching to fission itself will require massive resources that will increase our carbon footprint.

Fusion power is decades away and has been decades away for several decades now. It can't be considered part of any real solution plan at this time.

Automobiles can be electric or hybrids at the very least.

The rare earth materials necessary for massive scale production will generate a huge carbon footprint initially. Much, much later recycling efforts will be able to reduce any that cost.

Electric cars merely shift the carbon impacts onto our power grids. See problems with coal and fission above.

Some sort of delocalized solar network might help to ameliorate some of that. Think parking lots with solar panels for each stall at work and home. Problem is that current solar cells are expensive and fairly high maintenance when used on massive scale.

And the greatest source of enegy with no carbon foot print and very low cost: conservation.

That one's our best short term and will be a key piece of any long term strategy.

Are these anathema to the right? If so, why?

You are talking about massive public works projects which will require government oversight and management comparable to projects of the thirties through the fifties. Big government sends the right into conniptions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And since we have solar and wind, we don't even need nuclear.

Solar and wind suffer key weaknesses. They cannot be relied upon to provide consistent levels of power able to be ramped up whenever needed by the grid. Nuclear can provide consistent power levels but is also limited in its ability to be ramped up when demand spikes. The most flexible and reliable source of power is hydro-electric dams. But, they come with their own ecological price tags to be paid.

But what we lack is the renewable resource of political will. But, at least if the Republicans don't get let back in the big white house, fuel standards are high enough that eventually the cars will go electric and to other alternatives.

Electric and hybrid car technology can not be ramped up to replace all current cars. We simply don't have the natural resources necessary for that. And getting those needed resources will cost more use of fossil fuels in the short term.

They are anathema to the right, because anything that challenges business and its money, or anything else of the status quo, is anathema to the right.

In, general that seems more or less accurate.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Coal is cheap. Coal is relatively easy. The process of switching to fission itself will require massive resources that will increase our carbon footprint.

Fusion power is decades away and has been decades away for several decades now. It can't be considered part of any real solution plan at this time.

Coal is cheap if we socialize the environmental costs, otherwise, not so much. Likewise, coal is easy if we ignore the things we need to address just to make it suitable in the 21st century.

Fission is much less daunting than you assume. There are new technologies, like modular reactors, that lower the inital and decommissioning costs dramatically. Fusion is a long term effort, but the forecast for the ITER project is still moving on the original timeline. Commercial power is expected in 2045.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

The rare earth materials necessary for massive scale production will generate a huge carbon footprint initially. Much, much later recycling efforts will be able to reduce any that cost.

Electric cars merely shift the carbon impacts onto our power grids. See problems with coal and fission above.

Some sort of delocalized solar network might help to ameliorate some of that. Think parking lots with solar panels for each stall at work and home. Problem is that current solar cells are expensive and fairly high maintenance when used on massive scale.

The answer will be all of the above. We should be trying everything. Some ideas won't work well; others will. We won't know which are which until we give them a go. With new technology, failure is an option. In fact, it's expected at some level ... hopefully low and inexpensive.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

That one(conservation)'s our best short term and will be a key piece of any long term strategy.

Not everything is hard or complicated

Originally Posted by Vandal-72 ...

You are talking about massive public works projects which will require government oversight and management comparable to projects of the thirties through the fifties. Big government sends the right into conniptions.

Fusion is already underway, hiding under the radar in the south of France. I agree, it's not possible here.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... Electric and hybrid car technology can not be ramped up to replace all current cars. We simply don't have the natural resources necessary for that. And getting those needed resources will cost more use of fossil fuels in the short term...

Not true. The resources are on the bottom of the ocean, which will be commercially available once the Law of the Sea Treaty is signed ... if the signing authority isn't permanently blocked.

Yet another reason to fire every Republican in sight.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Not true. The resources are on the bottom of the ocean, which will be commercially available once the Law of the Sea Treaty is signed ... if the signing authority isn't permanently blocked.

Yet another reason to fire every Republican in sight.

Did you just ignore the following sentence that pointed out that getting the resources will cost more fossil fuel use? Or do you imagine that dredges, freighters, processing plants and shipping systems run on pink fairy farts?

Second, to say that those resources are just there implies that strip mining the ocean bottom is somehow easy and not an environmental catastrophe in its own right.