Melting Arctic Sea Ice May Be To Blame For Endless Winter: Scientists It's an increas

[dmlfarmer]

We know you guys are good at cherry picking the data, but why cherry pick the last 800000 years of C02 levels? The earth and life on this planet is far older than that. If possible think critically for a second. During the Jurasic period the earth had 4 times the current C02 level. The earth during that time was extremely abundant fostering the largest creatures that this planet has ever seen. Look at the badlands of Southern Alberta one of the richest sources of large fossils on the planet. If you have ever driven through you'll understand that it must of been a much more abundant than it currently is. Plants thrive with C02 levels approximately 4 times higher than current levels!!! Ask anyone that grows in a greenhouse and adds C02.

To say that that higher C02 levels will have a negative effect on life on this planet is just plain ass backwards. Give it a rest DML, us real farmers have real things to worry about.

Here is why I did not go back to the Jurassic Era. Because the world looked nothing like it does now. North America had not started the continental drift to the North West. The entire west coast was volcanic islands, spewing out green house gasses. And the Canadian prairies and mid west US was actually a shallow sea. Now I am not sure why you think farming the area we do now would be better when it was covered by salt water, but what ever, you claim to be a real farmer. And do take a look at the graphic of the world land mass, and note how much smaller it was during the Jurassic Era because of much higher sea levels. Try and fit 9 billion people on this area without fighting wars and food shortages.

[dmlfarmer]

nice chart, but since you want to be so honest why don't you also explain that co2 lags temperatures? that in fact an increase in global temperatures is what increases atmospheric co2.

]

So if CO2 lags temperaturewhere was the temperature spike in that would have been needed to double CO2 over the last century, which we experienced? Why do temperature lines and CO2 lines correlate closely for 800,000 years except for the last century? Wait, could it be that the CO2 levels are not natural phenomena; but caused outside of natural forces - such as man - therefore the CO2 increase over the last century is preceeding temperatures?


Try reading more than denier websites devoted to downplaying climate change.

[biglentil]

How could there be dinosaurs around Lethbridge and other locations in SW Sask if it was a sea according to your image? Hopefully we can warm the earth enough with man made C02 to prevent the impending iceage.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Shows like PBS and articles like the NYTs could change the way people look at agriculture and could help us sell our industry and production as climate and environmentally friendly. We could get governments and enviornmentals off our back if we sold are farms as preventing climate change. I guarantee the organic farmers are already all over this. Yet conventional farmers are still arguing that climate change is fake. It is no wonder we don't get paid for sequestering carbon like we should be.

Very glad you brought up organic during this discussion, I was about to do the same. Because the marketing scam that is organic puts a lie to everything else you just wrote.

Organic is sold as being green, and the virtue signalling consumers buy into that just as they have bought into CO2 being evil. This in spite of very clear evidence that by nearly all measures, organic agriculture releases much more CO2 than conventional (especially no-till) agriculture as practiced in western Canada.

This does prove that the consumer will buy into any scam so long as there is a green label applied to it, but, but more importantly, proves that actual facts are in no way relevant to their decisions. The consumer is either blissfully unaware of the CO2 and environmental consequence of purchasing their organic food, or else could care less about these things. We could all be good hypocrites, and play along as you suggest, but the consumer has proven that they are not on the side of science. If they were, there would already be products in your local grocery store labelled as sustainably grown using the least amount of fossil fuels possible, minimum soil disturbance, and maximum productivity per area of land. Which would describe most no-till acres in western Canada. The consumer does not care about any of those actual real life issues, they are only interested in virtue signalling, and the scare tactics used by unscrupulous marketers.

[samhill]

Splain it to me Lucy:



http://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Land_vs_sea_ice
So when ice melts, it loses volume, sea ice melting would lower sea levels vs land ice melting and running into the sea. Seems to me sea ice is more than land ice. iDK. Too simple minded I guess.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Greenland if completely melted , would rise ocean 26 ft.
Antarctica completely melted another 120 ft.

Just to take one example. These two facts from the PBS program are completely true, but how are they relevant to the climate change discussion? On what time scale is that going to occur, please do some research and find out(keeping in mind that the cycle of ice ages is only 100,000 years total, 80+ percent of that being glaciation). Making such grandoise claims in the middle of a discussion about mans effect on climate change serves no purpose except to scare people into thinking that the two are in any way related, when sea level rise is measured in fractions of a mm per year. That is blurring the lines between science and showmanship. No different than me trying to sell you on the global cooling scare and saying that if the sun burns out tomorrow, we will all be dead within .... days. Absolutely true, and scary, and distracts your attention, but has nothing to do with my argument.

[dmlfarmer]

Very glad you brought up organic during this discussion, I was about to do the same. Because the marketing scam that is organic puts a lie to everything else you just wrote.

Organic is sold as being green, and the virtue signalling consumers buy into that just as they have bought into CO2 being evil. This in spite of very clear evidence that by nearly all measures, organic agriculture releases much more CO2 than conventional (especially no-till) agriculture as practiced in western Canada.

This does prove that the consumer will buy into any scam so long as there is a green label applied to it, but, but more importantly, proves that actual facts are in no way relevant to their decisions. The consumer is either blissfully unaware of the CO2 and environmental consequence of purchasing their organic food, or else could care less about these things. We could all be good hypocrites, and play along as you suggest, but the consumer has proven that they are not on the side of science. If they were, there would already be products in your local grocery store labelled as sustainably grown using the least amount of fossil fuels possible, minimum soil disturbance, and maximum productivity per area of land. Which would describe most no-till acres in western Canada. The consumer does not care about any of those actual real life issues, they are only interested in virtue signalling, and the scare tactics used by unscrupulous marketers.

It was poor wording on my part. I am only saying that Organics is already claiming to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly as a marketing ploy and they are successfully selling it to consumers.
I totally disagree with this and feel that zero till is head and shoulders above organic grain production in sustainability and sequestration of carbon. And zero tillage was mentioned in the article, but just in passing. More focus was given to organics in the article and my point is organics will use this article as support for their marketing scheme were as, zero till farmers who have the opportunity to actually sell their system as sustainable, low cost, enviornmentally friendly way of combating climate change instead are fighting amongst ourselves if climate change is real.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So if CO2 lags temperaturewhere was the temperature spike in that would have been needed to double CO2 over the last century, which we experienced? Why do temperature lines and CO2 lines correlate closely for 800,000 years except for the last century? Wait, could it be that the CO2 levels are not natural phenomena; but caused outside of natural forces - such as man - therefore the CO2 increase over the last century is preceeding temperatures?
[ATTACH]2839[/ATTACH]

Try reading more than denier websites devoted to downplaying climate change.

We had a thread about this graph a while ago. It clearly shows that CO2 levels have lost their correlation to temperatures above a certain level. It shows that the earth has some negative feedback mechanism which limits any runaway greenhouse warming every single time. It shows that the greater risk is lower temperatures, not higher.
And most importantly, It shows that we really should be exceedingly grateful for living in tis extended interglacial period that we do. That we really need to make the most of it while it lasts, and quit fretting about Every minuscule bump in the graph as compared to the magnitude of the temperature swings in the past.

[chuckChuck]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Climate Myth...

We're heading into an ice age
"One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years. And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago…" (Ice Age Now)

According to ice cores from Antarctica, the past 400,000 years have been dominated by glacials, also known as ice ages, that last about 100,000. These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent. Is this a valid claim?

Figure 1: Temperature change at Vostok, Antarctica (Petit 2000). The timing of warmer interglacials is highlighted in green; our current interglacial, the Holocene, is the one on the far right of the graph.

To answer this question, it is necessary to understand what has caused the shifts between ice ages and interglacials during this period. The cycle appears to be a response to changes in the Earth’s orbit and tilt, which affect the amount of summer sunlight reaching the northern hemisphere. When this amount declines, the rate of summer melt declines and the ice sheets begin to grow. In turn, this increases the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, increasing (or amplifying) the cooling trend. Eventually a new ice age emerges and lasts for about 100,000 years.

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits.

Basic rebuttal written by Anne-Marie Blackburn

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chuck, you are spreading your paid propaganda on too many websites, you've obviously lost track of what you copied and pasted and where, you just posted this same thing a few days ago. How about contributing to the overall forum, instead of cut and pastes defending your mantra. Possibly even offer some original thoughts, especially pertaining to how this topic relates to agriculture.