More bad news for those climate change cheerleaders

[petercol]

Just came across this thread. And, in support of the global warming believers (I was NOT one until 2 years ago) I can tell you that I have seen the effects of the rising of the oceans myself. Whe I first came to Florida in 1985 to help my mother move into her new home on a deepwater canal just off the intracoastal waterway in Fort Lauderdale, the water in the canal at the highest tide was 2 1/2 feet below the dock, which was 1 foot below the edge of the wall. High tide now laps at the bottom of the dock. This is not a mirage. Whether it is man made or not, the earth is warming and the waters are rising as the ice melts. There are NO other factors - the land isn't sinking, there are no dams, locks, etc. between her house and the ocean. I have also seen beaches that I visited often 25 years ago shrink drastically, and there are local homes of friends that are beachfront and are now beach-top - they have lost the land between their home and high tide lines. 2 1/2 feet may not seem like much, but if it continues for the next 50 years at even that rate (and, by most accounts, it will accelerate), most of South Florida will be under water. That alone would be enough, but, having been born in Switzerland and having gone back every few years for 45 years, I can attest to the fact that the snow cover on much of what I skied in my teens, is gone. Again, I don;t believe there is any question that global warming exists, Whether it is a normal pattern of the Earth or man made is the real question. And, even if it is a "normal" pattern, it does seem to be accelerated by mans' presence.

[jasdon11]

You're saying the sea has risen 2.5 feet?

[Creature]

Just came across this thread. And, in support of the global warming believers (I was NOT one until 2 years ago) I can tell you that I have seen the effects of the rising of the oceans myself. Whe I first came to Florida in 1985 to help my mother move into her new home on a deepwater canal just off the intracoastal waterway in Fort Lauderdale, the water in the canal at the highest tide was 2 1/2 feet below the dock, which was 1 foot below the edge of the wall. High tide now laps at the bottom of the dock. This is not a mirage. Whether it is man made or not, the earth is warming and the waters are rising as the ice melts. There are NO other factors - the land isn't sinking, there are no dams, locks, etc. between her house and the ocean. I have also seen beaches that I visited often 25 years ago shrink drastically, and there are local homes of friends that are beachfront and are now beach-top - they have lost the land between their home and high tide lines. 2 1/2 feet may not seem like much, but if it continues for the next 50 years at even that rate (and, by most accounts, it will accelerate), most of South Florida will be under water. That alone would be enough, but, having been born in Switzerland and having gone back every few years for 45 years, I can attest to the fact that the snow cover on much of what I skied in my teens, is gone. Again, I don;t believe there is any question that global warming exists, Whether it is a normal pattern of the Earth or man made is the real question. And, even if it is a "normal" pattern, it does seem to be accelerated by mans' presence.

Erosion?

What about the sky, have you noticed any changes in the sky?

[petercol]

Yes, oh yes - the sky IS falling!!!
Or, maybe the moon is getting closer.

What's your point? I've stated personally observed FACTS - facts that have made me lean my very, very skeptical mind to lend more credence to the possibility that global warming is a reality - whether or not it is a naturally occuring phenomenon or man-made I am NOT willing to conclude, but I DO believe it is happening.

I certainly do not expect anyone to take my observations as the ultimate proof or truth - I wouldn't if I were you - I do live by the credo that I believe none of what I hear and half of what I see. I'm not asking you to change your beliefs based on my observations.

I am only stating facts and recounting them here - and, since I believe half of what I've seen, then the seas have risen 1.25 feet - 15 inches in 25 years. (But, it is really 2.5 feet difference.)

Analytically, allowing for any possible outside influences, I'm comfortable with stating, absolutely, that a rise, of some significance, has occured.

Take what you will from that. I will not argue the validity of what I have seen.

Erosion?

What about the sky, have you noticed any changes in the sky?

[Creature]

I am only stating facts and recounting them here - and, since I believe half of what I've seen, then the seas have risen 1.25 feet - 15 inches in 25 years. (But, it is really 2.5 feet difference.)

You would most likely need to measure at every high tide and every low tide over the 23 year period and factor in rainfall and whatever else to get conclusive evidence of any rise in sea level. If you check the official data, it MAY have risen around 1inch at the most since 1985, certainly not 1.25 feet, that would be incorrect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...ever-told.html

[Gerry]

Honestly, "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are two entirely different and two entirely distinct subjects.

[Creature]

Honestly, "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are two entirely different and two entirely distinct subjects.

Well you can't really have GW without the climate changing can you? Perhaps it should be 'global climate change' or 'climates changing' or 'global cooling & warming' or 'fear mongering'. Either way, the climate has already been changing for 4 billion years, so it's a bit late to get upset about it.

[katherine]

Either way, the climate has already been changing for 4 billion years, so it's a bit late to get upset about it.

The issue is with the speed of change ie. visible changes taking place in a few decades while in pre-industrial era it would take tens of thousands of years.

[Gerry]

Well you can't really have GW without the climate changing can you? Perhaps it should be 'global climate change' or 'climates changing' or 'global cooling & warming' or 'fear mongering'. Either way, the climate has already been changing for 4 billion years, so it's a bit late to get upset about it.

"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are two distinct and different entities.

And, yes, you can have Climate Change without having Global Warming and you can have Climate Change without having Global Cooling.

One is readily evident and measurable year to year, season to season...drought, torrential rains, flooding, record snow, record heat, El nino, La Nina, Cat 5 Hurricanes, growing season shortened, growing season extended, the "hundred year flood" happening every 15-20 years...this is climate change and data that is evident and measurable and not controversial. What can be controversial is the causes of it and that argument goes on.

I don't need any panel to tell me one year my crops rot because of too much rain and the next year they don't grow because we are in a drought. Climate change is exactly that - change.


Seems to me Global Warming would be a little bit more of a permanent situation and one that does not fluctuate wildly season to season - it would be rather consistent.

[jasdon11]

The issue is with the speed of change ie. visible changes taking place in a few decades while in pre-industrial era it would take tens of thousands of years.

That is only an issue if you believe those circumstances to be correct. You (we) don't know for sure because we have not lived through pre-industrial times, so we must weigh up the evidence we have.

Those who believe in mmgw, must still believe even though there is irefutable evidence that they;

* use cherry picked data to compile their computer models
* that they conspire to mislead the public at large, and in particular anyone who questions their figures or methods
* make ridiculous claims that they cannot confirm through scientific means
* lie to obtain further funding to keep their climate-ponzi-scheme going (btw, the funders are more than willing because it allows them to tax the world even more)
* blatently discount scientists from important meetings and processes, who state that mmgw is a myth
* have to my knowledge never attempted to disprove the evidence which proves all the above

These are the type of people/actions that I tend not to follow - can't understand how anyone could.

[Creature]

"Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are two distinct and different entities.

And, yes, you can have Climate Change without having Global Warming and you can have Climate Change without having Global Cooling.

One is readily evident and measurable year to year, season to season...drought, torrential rains, flooding, record snow, record heat, El nino, La Nina, Cat 5 Hurricanes, growing season shortened, growing season extended, the "hundred year flood" happening every 15-20 years...this is climate change and data that is evident and measurable and not controversial. What can be controversial is the causes of it and that argument goes on.

I don't need any panel to tell me one year my crops rot because of too much rain and the next year they don't grow because we are in a drought. Climate change is exactly that - change.


Seems to me Global Warming would be a little bit more of a permanent situation and one that does not fluctuate wildly season to season - it would be rather consistent.

In terms of growing crops and planning for the future, perhaps 'Climate Astrology' is the best heading to use.

[Gerry]

In terms of growing crops and planning for the future, perhaps 'Climate Astrology' is the best heading to use.

Mercy, there are still people that plant and harvest according to the Farmers Almanac.

This publication has been in continuous printing since 1818.

My wife's grandmother used to keep their calendar on her wall. Everyday she would write down the weather on that calendar to see if it matched up. It was so close to being 100% accurate. She did this for perhaps 70 years or more, from the time she was a young girl until her death.

I think that is just so cool!

[Creature]

Question is, would your wife's grandmother notice anything remarkable about the climate these days. Would they have lost or gained any more crops than usual. Would it not have been normal to have one or two good years followed by not such a good year.

Almanac (Texas):
Annual Weather Summary: November 2009 to October 2010
Winter will be colder than normal, on average, from the Metroplex north and westward, with near-normal temperatures elsewhere. The coldest periods will occur in the second week of December, early to mid-January, and early to mid-February. Precipitation and snowfall will be near or slightly below normal. The most significant snow and ice will occur in mid-December, early January, and early and mid-February.

April and May will be warmer then normal, with near-normal rainfall.

Summer will be hotter and drier than normal, with the hottest periods from late June through the first half of July and in early to mid-August. The likelihood of a major hurricane is below normal.

September and October will bring near-normal temperatures, on average, with slightly below normal rainfall.

http://www.almanac.com/weather/longrange/region/us/11

[Gerry]

She died several years ago.

But for me, the answer would be yes.

I have mentioned this in previous posts.

For instance, blueberry varieties that I planted perhaps 10 years ago are no longer productive.

No, I have done nothing wrong, they have not outlived theirselves. The issue is this variety (as well as most) have a "chill" period that they must undergo (like dormancy) to be productive. Those chill requirements are no longer coming and are sporadic. I am going to have to replace them with another variety.

This little micro-climate changes tells me that the traditional "zones" - recommendations for planting certain plants - are changing.

But I am not alone with this problem. Commercial growers are seeing some serious issues also with varieties grown for decades. Certain varieties of apples, peaches, strawberry, and other crops that are either early, mid, or late season are suffering from these fluctuations. The seasons are so screwy to predict. The biggest issue is these varieties is they are budding out too early. Along comes a frost or a freeze and all the buds are killed. You then have certain crops that will not produce their crop. Two particular varieties of Apple that I am concerned about (for the commercial growers) are Mutsu and Fuji. Last year, I could not find any Mutsu anywhere.

For me, it is my walnut crop. If you have never tasted a real black walnut in recipes or plain snacking, you are missing on a treat. My walnut trees are late bloomers and budding. I get about one outstanding crop about every third year. Again, a late season frost will kill all the buds and flowers. Now, I am not a commercial grower of Walnuts, but I could be. I have about 60 walnut trees on my property, some nearly 200-250 years old. I usually give them away by the 5 gallon bucket load or let people pick up their own - all free, no charge.

So imagine someplace like Georgia, the peach trees and pecans would suffer from the same effect - zones changing. And Florida and other heavy produce producers like California, Texas and so on.

It would be nearly impossible not to mention costly for some of these large producers to have to buy, replace, or create new varieties for commercial use. In the meantime, we end up importing produce and fruit from Mexico, Central and South America to make up for the loses or shortcomings. And we know their certifications of pest and disease free product is NOT on the standards of the USDA.


Anyways, those are my observation on the local and regional affects.

By the way, I disagree with the almanac in your posting. I think the likelihood of a major hurricane is VERY high based on El Nino and La Nina patterns we and other countries are experiencing right now.