Impacts of Global Warming anthropogenic or natural.

[longview]

We are told our world is warming, regardless of the cause,
it is unlikely Humans could ever change what is happening.
Both sides seems to say that by 2100, Global temps will rise between .5 and 3 degrees C.
Lets look at what a 2 degree C change might look like.
Two Cities away from the coast with yearly mean temps.
Weather History for Des Moines, IA | Weather Underground
Weather History for Springfield, MO | Weather Underground
So for one thing If we increased Average Temps 2 degrees, Des Moines, IA
temps would look more like Springfield, MO.
Roughly 200 miles south.
This kind of change could prohibit some cold weather crops, but could allow other warm weather
crops.
What would a 3.5 degree F change do to where you live, think about the type
of plants that grow 200 miles south of you.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I bought land to retire on a few years back that is east of the Columbia river up in the mountains. In winter I can go 15 miles and there is no snow so I figured if the earth is warming and I think or thought it is, then I might get out of the snow soon and I won't have to plow 3 miles of road. So far every winter has been colder and had more snow.:doh

Just to clarify, I think or thought we are in a warming era not AGW inspired warming.

 

[longview]

I bought land to retire on a few years back that is east of the Columbia river up in the mountains. In winter I can go 15 miles and there is no snow so I figured if the earth is warming and I think or thought it is, then I might get out of the snow soon and I won't have to plow 3 miles of road. So far every winter has been colder and had more snow.:doh

Just to clarify, I think or thought we are in a warming era not AGW inspired warming.

You are clear, we are warming, if any portion of that warming is AGW, it would be difficult to
determine from the normal rise. Not even much warming going on in the last 15 years.
I am attempting to get people to think about what the warned temp changes would look like in a real
world scenario.

 

[Jack Hays]

We are told our world is warming, regardless of the cause,
it is unlikely Humans could ever change what is happening.
Both sides seems to say that by 2100, Global temps will rise between .5 and 3 degrees C.
Lets look at what a 2 degree C change might look like.
Two Cities away from the coast with yearly mean temps.
Weather History for Des Moines, IA | Weather Underground
Weather History for Springfield, MO | Weather Underground
So for one thing If we increased Average Temps 2 degrees, Des Moines, IA
temps would look more like Springfield, MO.
Roughly 200 miles south.
This kind of change could prohibit some cold weather crops, but could allow other warm weather
crops.
What would a 3.5 degree F change do to where you live, think about the type
of plants that grow 200 miles south of you.

An interesting departure from the usual back and forth of this topic. Well done.:thumbs:

 

[longview]

An interesting departure from the usual back and forth of this topic. Well done.:thumbs:

Thanks, the greatest skill Humans possess, is our ability to adapt to our environment.
Perhaps all of the money spent, researching AGW, may yet yield a return, if we can
get a reasonable picture of what is ahead, and prepare properly.

 

[Deuce]

We are told our world is warming, regardless of the cause,
it is unlikely Humans could ever change what is happening.
Both sides seems to say that by 2100, Global temps will rise between .5 and 3 degrees C.
Lets look at what a 2 degree C change might look like.
Two Cities away from the coast with yearly mean temps.
Weather History for Des Moines, IA | Weather Underground
Weather History for Springfield, MO | Weather Underground
So for one thing If we increased Average Temps 2 degrees, Des Moines, IA
temps would look more like Springfield, MO.
Roughly 200 miles south.
This kind of change could prohibit some cold weather crops, but could allow other warm weather
crops.
What would a 3.5 degree F change do to where you live, think about the type
of plants that grow 200 miles south of you.

This is one of the reasons people have tried to shift the popular term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." Because people hear "Global Warming" and make nonsense posts like this. It's not just about a mild shift in average temperatures. A higher average temperature can come in the form of longer, stronger heat waves, which have a major negative impact on crop yields. A couple extra days at the high temps or a few extra degrees hotter can make the difference between a decent crop and a disaster. Then there's the likelihood of increased drought conditions to deal with...

Also, you can't always just shift crops north. Soil conditions don't always allow that.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You are clear, we are warming, if any portion of that warming is AGW, it would be difficult to
determine from the normal rise. Not even much warming going on in the last 15 years.
I am attempting to get people to think about what the warned temp changes would look like in a real
world scenario.

My point was I was trying to adapt to a warming world and it isn't working out as planned. I am starting to wonder if the warming era is coming to a halt and we might start going the other direction. Good God I hope not!

 

[longview]

This is one of the reasons people have tried to shift the popular term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change." Because people hear "Global Warming" and make nonsense posts like this. It's not just about a mild shift in average temperatures. A higher average temperature can come in the form of longer, stronger heat waves, which have a major negative impact on crop yields. A couple extra days at the high temps or a few extra degrees hotter can make the difference between a decent crop and a disaster. Then there's the likelihood of increased drought conditions to deal with...

Also, you can't always just shift crops north. Soil conditions don't always allow that.

I thought we were emphatically told, heat waves and cold spells were weather not climate.
Speculation about secondary effects of a single location being two degrees C warmer on an
annualized average, are just that, Speculation.
An educated guess would be to find a place at similar altitude, that is already two degrees warmer,
and see what is happening there.
Fyi: IF AGW , is real,(and that is a big IF) the most likely observation would be nighttime temperatures
not getting as cold. Raising the floor, raises the average just as well as raising the ceiling.
So far as I have read, no one is talking about the heat time delay(latency) that would be added
with the additional Co2.
A good question would be, since Co2 levels have already increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm,
how has the evening cool down curve change?

 

[Rainman05]

We are told our world is warming, regardless of the cause,
it is unlikely Humans could ever change what is happening.
Both sides seems to say that by 2100, Global temps will rise between .5 and 3 degrees C.
Lets look at what a 2 degree C change might look like.
Two Cities away from the coast with yearly mean temps.
Weather History for Des Moines, IA | Weather Underground
Weather History for Springfield, MO | Weather Underground
So for one thing If we increased Average Temps 2 degrees, Des Moines, IA
temps would look more like Springfield, MO.
Roughly 200 miles south.
This kind of change could prohibit some cold weather crops, but could allow other warm weather
crops.
What would a 3.5 degree F change do to where you live, think about the type
of plants that grow 200 miles south of you.

hey longview.
here's the idea.

Regardless whether global warming is man-made or not, investing in green technology and promoting a green lifestyle is beneficial to mankind as a whole. We do need to reduce CO2 levels and we do need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Regardless of global warming or of fossil fuel reserves. We need to do it because it's the next logical step in the technological direction.

homes with solar panels on top of them, better and healthier food production with green energy and less pesticides and less fertilizer, etc. Why do we need to go this way? Because we know that the sun is a better energy source than petroleum. We know that the wind is a better energy source than petroleum. Why? Because it's already here. It's always been here. You know those poems that talk about whispers in the wind? That's the wind telling us, mankind: USE ME FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION DUMBOS! And when the sun rises every morning it isn't kissing you good morning with it's rays, it's yelling at you because you haven't planted solar panels on your house yet.

 

[Jack Hays]

hey longview.
here's the idea.

Regardless whether global warming is man-made or not, investing in green technology and promoting a green lifestyle is beneficial to mankind as a whole. We do need to reduce CO2 levels and we do need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Regardless of global warming or of fossil fuel reserves. We need to do it because it's the next logical step in the technological direction.

homes with solar panels on top of them, better and healthier food production with green energy and less pesticides and less fertilizer, etc. Why do we need to go this way? Because we know that the sun is a better energy source than petroleum. We know that the wind is a better energy source than petroleum. Why? Because it's already here. It's always been here. You know those poems that talk about whispers in the wind? That's the wind telling us, mankind: USE ME FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION DUMBOS! And when the sun rises every morning it isn't kissing you good morning with it's rays, it's yelling at you because you haven't planted solar panels on your house yet.

If atmospheric CO2 is not a problem then there is absolutely no reason to move away from fossil fuels, reserves of which are enormous.eace

 

[Rainman05]

If atmospheric CO2 is not a problem then there is absolutely no reason to move away from fossil fuels, reserves of which are enormous.eace

I never said that CO2 isn't a problem, that would be stupid, only stupid people would say that... I did however say that the right and smart move is to go towards green energy regardless of CO2 levels. Promoting these means for energy production is the key to a better future from all perspectives.

 

[Jack Hays]

I never said that CO2 isn't a problem, that would be stupid, only stupid people would say that... I did however say that the right and smart move is to go towards green energy regardless of CO2 levels. Promoting these means for energy production is the key to a better future from all perspectives.

There is no reason to move to "green" energy. It's more expensive, less efficient, and diverts resources away from helping the truly needy in order to make comfortable people feel good about themselves. And there's no evidence that increased CO2 actually has a significant climate effect.

 

[Rainman05]

There is no reason to move to "green" energy. It's more expensive, less efficient, and diverts resources away from helping the truly needy in order to make comfortable people feel good about themselves. And there's no evidence that increased CO2 actually has a significant climate effect.

Really buddy? You may get to play that card with others but you can't play that card with me.

here are 3 videos.

NASA-Ask A Climate Scientist-CO2 and Temperarture - YouTube
Ask a Climate Scientist: Food Production - YouTube

NASA Hangout: Ask a Climate Scientist - YouTube

The first 2 are short 2min long videos supported by NASA. The last one is 51min long... so watch if you feel like it.
And if those don't make you happy, here: NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist - YouTube
Ask NASA yourself.

There is plenty of evidence out there and more than enough needed for any reasonable person to understand that something needs to be done.

And even if you think that there is no evidence, even if all of that doesn't make you twitch, fine, then here's an economic reason.

Energy production will be a big industry in the future. It already is now, but it will grow bigger. India, south america and africa are all 3 continents that are emerging in energy requirements and those requirements have to be met and due to the way things will work out, they will opt for green energy production methods. Would you not want the USA to get a big piece of that pie? If I were you, I would. But if the US doesn't want that, fine... China will be more than happy to get USA's share of the pie and so will many European companies who are investing, with govt backing, in renewable energy R&D.

So if you don't want to do support it because of the CO2 lack of evidence, support it for the economic motivations.

 

[polgara]

hey longview.
here's the idea.

Regardless whether global warming is man-made or not, investing in green technology and promoting a green lifestyle is beneficial to mankind as a whole. We do need to reduce CO2 levels and we do need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Regardless of global warming or of fossil fuel reserves. We need to do it because it's the next logical step in the technological direction.

homes with solar panels on top of them, better and healthier food production with green energy and less pesticides and less fertilizer, etc. Why do we need to go this way? Because we know that the sun is a better energy source than petroleum. We know that the wind is a better energy source than petroleum. Why? Because it's already here. It's always been here. You know those poems that talk about whispers in the wind? That's the wind telling us, mankind: USE ME FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION DUMBOS! And when the sun rises every morning it isn't kissing you good morning with it's rays, it's yelling at you because you haven't planted solar panels on your house yet.

Good morning, Rainman05. :2wave:

I checked into both solar and wind for my home. The Company told me that my area of the country...NE Ohio...does not get enough sunlight on a daily basis to warrant the cost. They stated that they would be happy to do the job, but that I needed to know the facts. Ditto with wind power. Since I don't have enough clout to order the sun to shine, or the wind to blow, my options are limited. I find that I am not alone in my dilemma, either, so what should people like me do? :shock:

 

[longview]

hey longview.
here's the idea.

Regardless whether global warming is man-made or not, investing in green technology and promoting a green lifestyle is beneficial to mankind as a whole. We do need to reduce CO2 levels and we do need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. Regardless of global warming or of fossil fuel reserves. We need to do it because it's the next logical step in the technological direction.

homes with solar panels on top of them, better and healthier food production with green energy and less pesticides and less fertilizer, etc. Why do we need to go this way? Because we know that the sun is a better energy source than petroleum. We know that the wind is a better energy source than petroleum. Why? Because it's already here. It's always been here. You know those poems that talk about whispers in the wind? That's the wind telling us, mankind: USE ME FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION DUMBOS! And when the sun rises every morning it isn't kissing you good morning with it's rays, it's yelling at you because you haven't planted solar panels on your house yet.

Good morning Rainman05.
We should always be trying to improve peoples lives as efficiently as possible.
Our reserves of organic hydrocarbons are in finite supply, and we should be looking at
ways to minimize their use.
Our real challenge is energy storage, and man made hydrocarbons appear a good storage medium.

My thought in the thread is rough look at what a warmer world would look like,
and how that might impact life.
Very few of us writing here will be alive in 2100,
but what planning could be done to help out our children and grandchildren.
Some things might be as simple as rotating out current fruit trees, with a variety
that needs fewer chill days.

 

[humbolt]

Good morning, Rainman05. :2wave:

I checked into both solar and wind for my home. The Company told me that my area of the country...NE Ohio...does not get enough sunlight on a daily basis to warrant the cost. They stated that they would be happy to do the job, but that I needed to know the facts. Ditto with wind power. Since I don't have enough clout to order the sun to shine, or the wind to blow, my options are limited. I find that I am not alone in my dilemma, either, so what should people like me do? :shock:

Hey Pol. I think you should move. It's dark and cold up there. You could poke your eye out up there. The south is far, far more accommodating. Plus, we have rednecks - a little something that helps everybody else feel smart. That last little bit hasn't worked for me, but I'm an anomaly.

 

[polgara]

Hey Pol. I think you should move. It's dark and cold up there. You could poke your eye out up there. The south is far, far more accommodating. Plus, we have rednoltecks - a little something that helps everybody else feel smart. That last little bit hasn't worked for me, but I'm an anomaly.

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

I like rednecks! They're honest, so you know where you stand with them! :lamo:

My kids are urging me to move to Texas, where they get more hot sunny days than they can handle...and, as a result their electric bills are nearly triple what I pay here! Why does life require tradeoffs all the time?

 

[humbolt]

Good morning, humbolt. :2wave:

I like rednecks! They're honest, so you know where you stand with them! :lamo:

My kids are urging me to move to Texas, where they get more hot sunny days than they can handle...and, as a result their electric bills are nearly triple what I pay here! Why does life require tradeoffs all the time?

There are always trade-offs. However, I would point out that moving from northern Ohio to Texas is like shifting from the freezer to the oven. There are intermediate points which offer something of both without the extremes. My power bills run around $150/ month on average, and that includes heat, AC, hot water and everything else. We have 3 months of what we call winter here - it's nothing like a northern winter - which leaves us with 9 months of more pleasant conditions for the most part.

 

[polgara]

There are always trade-offs. However, I would point out that moving from northern Ohio to Texas is like shifting from the freezer to the oven. There are intermediate points which offer something of both without the extremes. My power bills run around $150/ month on average, and that includes heat, AC, hot water and everything else. We have 3 months of what we call winter here - it's nothing like a northern winter - which leaves us with 9 months of more pleasant conditions for the most part.

My kids have said the same thing, and they all grew up here, so they know our Winters versus their nine months of Summer. However, they're in Texas now only because that's where their jobs relocated them to, and that's subject to change. And I'm not comfortable with the miles and miles of refineries that I suspect might one day be a target for terrorism!

I own some acreage in the mountains of NC, and have been internally debating on whether to consider moving there. It's just that I like where I live...except for the ice and snow which have seemed to extend to six months of the year lately...but we do have a lot of fresh water around here in the Great Lakes and Portage Lakes which make boating fun, which I would not have in either NC or Texas on a comparable scale. Decisions, decisions!

 

[humbolt]

My kids have said the same thing, and they all grew up here, so they know our Winters versus their nine months of Summer. However, they're in Texas now only because that's where their jobs relocated them to, and that's subject to change. And I'm not comfortable with the miles and miles of refineries that I suspect might one day be a target for terrorism!

I own some acreage in the mountains of NC, and have been internally debating on whether to consider moving there. It's just that I like where I live...except for the ice and snow which have seemed to extend to six months of the year lately...but we do have a lot of fresh water around here in the Great Lakes and Portage Lakes which make boating fun, which I would not have in either NC or Texas on a comparable scale. Decisions, decisions!

It's hard to leave what one considers home. I do go back to PA from time to time, but I only stay long enough to remember why I no longer live there.

 

[polgara]

It's hard to leave what one considers home. I do go back to PA from time to time, but I only stay long enough to remember why I no longer live there.

Was it a decision that was originally difficult to make, if that's not too personal?

 

[Rainman05]

Good morning, Rainman05. :2wave:

I checked into both solar and wind for my home. The Company told me that my area of the country...NE Ohio...does not get enough sunlight on a daily basis to warrant the cost. They stated that they would be happy to do the job, but that I needed to know the facts. Ditto with wind power. Since I don't have enough clout to order the sun to shine, or the wind to blow, my options are limited. I find that I am not alone in my dilemma, either, so what should people like me do? :shock:

I don't know what people like you should do here are 2 things.

There are areas that are more privileged for certain green energy sources than others. This goes without saying. But the regions where green energy is possible, all efforts must be made towards it.

As for solar panels... Germany for the most gets about as much sunlight as Ontario, Canada. And yet, it is investing like crazy in solar energy and the Bundenstag is the greenest government building in the world with over half of its energy needs being provided for all year round by solar panels. So there's something.

 

[humbolt]

Was it a decision that was originally difficult to make, if that's not too personal?

No, it really wasn't. I traveled back to PA to see family every few months for years and years. The truth is that life in general is much, much simpler here. I found that it is much easier to focus on that which I consider important without the distractions and complications of life up north. It's not just the weather.

 

[Rainman05]

Good morning Rainman05.
We should always be trying to improve peoples lives as efficiently as possible.
Our reserves of organic hydrocarbons are in finite supply, and we should be looking at
ways to minimize their use.
Our real challenge is energy storage, and man made hydrocarbons appear a good storage medium.

My thought in the thread is rough look at what a warmer world would look like,
and how that might impact life.
Very few of us writing here will be alive in 2100,
but what planning could be done to help out our children and grandchildren.
Some things might be as simple as rotating out current fruit trees, with a variety
that needs fewer chill days.

I don't know about what solutions are for the climate change if it gets warmer... i don't know how we will respond, but what I can tell you is how climate change affected nations in the past when agriculture was the dominant production and being a farmer was the occupation for the majority of people.

Ancient Egypt is the most famous example of a nation brought to its knees by the fact that for just a decade or so, things did get warmer in the past and caused many problems with agriculture and water supplies. Now they were caught offguard and they never recovered. I do hope that we now, since we can predict what will happen, will either
A) be prepared as best we can for the changes and face them... basically play russian roulette with our lives
b) try and prevent the unfavorable scenarios from happening.

 

[Jack Hays]

Really buddy? You may get to play that card with others but you can't play that card with me.

here are 3 videos.

NASA-Ask A Climate Scientist-CO2 and Temperarture - YouTube
Ask a Climate Scientist: Food Production - YouTube

NASA Hangout: Ask a Climate Scientist - YouTube

The first 2 are short 2min long videos supported by NASA. The last one is 51min long... so watch if you feel like it.
And if those don't make you happy, here: NASA | Ask a Climate Scientist - YouTube
Ask NASA yourself.

There is plenty of evidence out there and more than enough needed for any reasonable person to understand that something needs to be done.

And even if you think that there is no evidence, even if all of that doesn't make you twitch, fine, then here's an economic reason.

Energy production will be a big industry in the future. It already is now, but it will grow bigger. India, south america and africa are all 3 continents that are emerging in energy requirements and those requirements have to be met and due to the way things will work out, they will opt for green energy production methods. Would you not want the USA to get a big piece of that pie? If I were you, I would. But if the US doesn't want that, fine... China will be more than happy to get USA's share of the pie and so will many European companies who are investing, with govt backing, in renewable energy R&D.

So if you don't want to do support it because of the CO2 lack of evidence, support it for the economic motivations.

There are plenty of other threads here to take on the CO2/AGW discussion. Count me as a skeptic. As for green energy, it's the wave of the future . . . and always will be. It's a complete bust and the USA will profit by staying out of it. (India is not a continent, btw.) Don't know much about South America, but I've lived a substantial part of my life in Africa. Green energy? Never.:lamo:lamo:mrgreen: