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

[furrowtickler]

throwing my hat in .
do not shoot.
I just watched a Nova PBS program .
Decoding the weather machine .

no matter your position, you should watch it. Sask. carbon capture even got a mention.
they certainly lay out a good case ,
the carbon levels rising are a result of humans .

the first part was proving that , the next was the effects.
then on to possible mitigations .
including what we do now , no till.

eg. that if all of NA agriculture did no till , it would soak up all the car emission's in north America .
if we can do something , to put the carbon back , we can still use the fuels. sort of.

probably most interesting is the oceans are soaking up 97 of the added heat
right now, which would make sense .
we are lucky we have that for now , , but in the long run , they would be a little tough to cool off.

I think it is well worth your time , no matter where you stand

Thx Sawfly for an informative look at things .
PBS seems to be non bias good reporting.
My question is ... which hummans pay? And who pays ? At what cost ? And for what , who’s ultimate benefit, people like Al Gore ?
Why you / me / our kids who are extremely responsible to the environment already compared to 90 % of the worlds population?
No doubt the earth is being polluted horribly , but who is going to pay the ultimate price ? Us and our children, while the elite , major corporations will get a free pass?? ... that’s the unfortunate truth .
I can’t stand the hypocrisy of those telling us what we should do while they jet set all around the world burning up carbon like its fireworks on the 4 Th of July and will not for one minute change their lifestyles, while making the average Joe feel guilty and give up everything we and our forefathers worked for a basic life in comparison .
Sorry this is why most of us hate the real climate change agenda , it’s being extremely exaggerated by the very people causing the problem, and so many people are buying into this propaganda b/S that it’s our fault and we must pay its crazy.

The last real data I seen on long term temperature world wide was 0.8 C above normal over the last 200 years and it is declining due to weakness in sunspots.
We are still well below any real higher world temps recorded in ice cores from the past 2 million years . Also well below CO2 levels on average from ice core data from hundreds of thousands of years of ice core data .
Are any of you willing to sacrifice yours or your children’s ability to farm to pay for the third worlds , big corporations and elites pollution responsibility? After trying to be as best of stewards of the land as possible in your generation compared to 90% of the rest of the worlds population?? I am not .
I will do what I can , but I will not pay
Carbon tax’s for others misuse of the environment while already being miles ahead of that 90% . This responsibility does not land on the average joe . But that who is going to pay , and no amount of money we pay in tax’s still will not ever change our global climate ... ever.
30,000 farmers in western Canada will never be as responsible for “man made climate change” as 4 billion in Asia ... that’s a fact as well .

[dmlfarmer]

Good posts Sawfly. Especially about the part that agriculture could play in mitigating climate change.
Just yesterday the New York Times ran an entire magazine section on how agriculture could save the climate. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/magazine/dirt-save-earth-carbon-farming-climate-change.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/magazine/dirt-save-earth-carbon-farming-climate-change.html

This is the battle we should be fighting, not whether or not climate change is real. 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.

Instead tymrefield tries to confuse us with math from Watts up. The author claims to be an engineer, but does not even mention thermal expansion of water which is the major driver of rising sea levels under global warming. Yes ice melt does increase water depth but not near the amount thermal expansion does.

And then he tries to impress (confuse) you with the math of the energy man would need to expend to melt all the ice and the years it would take. But he does not even mention that the sun puts out about 6000 times the energy in one day that humans use in a year. And it is the energy from the sun which melts the ice. We only contribute to it by building up green house gases which increase temps on earth. So if our addition of greenhouse gasses increase only by a fraction of a percentage, the effect is more radiant energy from the sun is held in the atmoshphere which does account for the energy needed for ice melt.

So much for honest data and information from deiners.

The last point I want to make is on the charts from furrowtickler. Why go back to millions of years when the earth was young, the crust was warmer, volcanos were rampant, and there was only one continent to talk about climate. The earth has been stable for the last 800,000 years, and we have seen regular cycles of warming and cooling as you point out. But the one thing we have not seen in this stable cycle were CO2 levels this high. And the increase has only come in the last few hundred years, when man truly harnessed fossil fuel energy. This is the chart we need to be concerned with.

[biglentil]

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.

[tmyrfield]

[/QUOTE]

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.

http://https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/ http://https://principia-scientific.org/atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-lags-temperature-the-proof/

co2 is a so-called green house gas but it's effect is already at the maximum it can have. adding more co2 won't have much more of an effect on temperature


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/

the alarmists will try to refute these arguments by putting up their own arguments, all is fair in an open debate. just read a lot and use your own judgment. it has been mentioned that the sun puts out 6000 times the energy in a day than humans do in a year...well this just tells me that the sun is the main driver of climate.

To suggest that a single variable (co2) in a hugely multi-variant system is the main driver of temperatures is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.

The alarmists will not change their minds no matter how much evidence refutes that a gas measured in ppm that is absolutely essential for life on earth is responsible for the earths warming that hasn't warmed for 20 years.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/list-of-excuses-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

[chuckChuck]

It’s all part of ,and admitted by head UN officials .... it’s a wealth distribution plan first and foremost - on record saying so .

Chuck I just want to say , *** you .
You a self proclaimed farmer , do you actually understand the implications of Agenda 2030 to your future farm ? Or are you selling out and gone ? How about cutting your current income in half or less , or you kids living on 1/3 of what you are currently ? Do you think that’s sustainable for them ? Under this current direction , that exactly where they will be . But also , then giving your or your kids land away to “others “ as part of the wealth distribution plan before your kids even have a chance. It’s 100% in that agenda 2030.
That is what this whole climate scare , discrimination and inclusion horseshit is about , and admitted .. openly by the UN.
This is the plan , they have said it, in public , this is what they will do if we are stupid enough to fall for this b/S .
The amount of paid off corrupt enviro scientists that sheeple believe is staggering now .

BTW , most of us on here are not “assholes” as you called us , we are not climate change “deniers”, we are simply climate change critics of the absolute b/S extremism from the likes of you and the paid off “science “ experts. It is insane the b/S that is coming from the drivel you post . Humans do have an impact , that we all agree , it’s the extreme climate events blamed and going to be paid for by us that is horseshit while the very people polluting the earth horribly get off scot free , that is the issue that most of us here see through. The Greenland ice sheet will not disappear in thousands of years or 100% of the arctic ice . Those believing so are have been hypnotized. The ocean levels will not raise 10 feet in our lifetime or any of your grandchildren’s lifetime . Simple fact , why do the central banks and long term investors still dump billions of 20-40 year mortgages into ocean front properties for condos , hotels and on and on ????? Because they know this whole global warming and ocean level rising 10 ft is absolutely horseshit . They would never put their money at risk if that was the case .... ever.
The UN agenda 2030 will crush any average Joe who owns land that is not a in the extreme wealthy club . The elite will maintain 100% of their wealth while jetsetting around the globe , burning massive amounts of carbon telling us and our children how to correct our evil lives .. are you fukin kidding me ! While maintaining 3-4 mansions and a few cheap foreign workers to scrub their toilets to live like kings and queens. No different than 200-300 years ago . We are falling into the same trap ... it’s all our fault and we must pay . How’d that go back then ? Oh ya , our ancestors, including yours got the hell out of Europe for that reason .
That’s from everyone one here that has any common sense whatsoever.

Again the “carbon tax “ is a complete scam the rob the “wealthy” middle class to pay for the guilt of the massive pollution of this earth that the very elite class has profited from for the last 100 years . It’s called passing the guilt to the “gullible “. And by any means possible they are trying to accomplish that.
It is simply sickening to witness.
The majority of farmers in Western Canada are already miles ahead of most countries in conservative environmental practices . How many other countries are using teir 4 B engines ???? Very fukin few ... that’s a fact . How many others are using zero or min tillage ?? Very fukin few .. that’s a fact . Yet we are set to be punished far worse that others .... that’s a fact .

Furrow. I know you like to hang your hat on "climate change is a socialist plot" Harper said it along time ago.

I think you forget the main reason why climate change will be a problem. There will be huge costs for most countries and tax payers will be stuck with paying the bill. I just happen to believe that we shouldn't **** up the planet and expect future generations to pay for our mistakes. To do so is a huge transfer of wealth from future generations to previous generations.

There are lots of Canadians who benefit from wealth transfer. European settlers for one, received incredible benefits by taking land from First nations and putting most first nations on marginal land with poor economic opportunities.

Farm subsidies are also another form of wealth transfer of which you have also received. Some subsidies are good policy, others are not.

I am not sure why you are getting all bent out of shape, because governments collect all kinds of taxes and use them in a variety of ways to benefit the sick, poor, unemployed and ordinary Canadians with Education, healthcare, infrastructure Etc. These are all forms of wealth transfer.

The Fraser institute showed that many businesses across Canada including in western Canada are receiving subsidies. Another form of wealth transfer.

Farmers have been transferring wealth to the farm input and grain marketing sectors for many decades. Agriville is full of complaints about this, but most continue to do business as usual.

Whether you believe in the science of climate change is irrelevant because no Canadian government is saying the science is wrong.

What we do about climate change is the important question.

[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.