The New Climate Reality

loony tunes

 

I'll have a look.
At the moment my opinion is that since religion was removed from the equation science has been cooperative in the main. This highlights the excepts (Such as the treatment for Polio) as they make more interesting stories.

 

it took dad years to adjust. It's not easy! I myself have reduced my carbohydrates, but it's nothing along the lines of ketogenic. I eat carbs around and after exercise though.

There are a cute animal aren't they? I've always had a fascination with prairie dogs and our local zoo had a pack in an enclosure. There something kind of unsatisfying about rodents and squirrels up close though. It's not like you can connect with them. They seem a little brainless, but very good with their digits. Dogs are much more emotionally aware and relatable but those paws are pretty much useless for grasping and moving objects. Squirrels are yet to hit their stride evolutionary-wise. And get some true opposable thumbs. come on, - evolve!

Well, that explains why your cats really don't take off. There are a lot medium-sized apex predators and birds there they can keep them in check. No, we don't have any natural predators for our feral cats. The dingoes tend to go for kangaroos, wallabies and wombats and, in a pinch, small reptiles and birds, insects etc. (which is basically a crossover diet with our feral cats). However they will also go for rabbits, wild pigs and other feral animals and would keep them in check I'm sure - however, unfortunately they will also with equal ferocity hunt cattle by teaming up in larger packs (they are usually solitary and nocturnal i.e. " the dingo stole my baby"). This means in a given area dingoes rapidly come unpopular with pastoralists and therefore are not given the chance to flourish. And flourish they would, given their high adaptability. So, while widespread, yes, dingoes populations are relegated to the more outback areas by the pressures of human influence (i.e. the gun) - and also at the human population fringes by interbreeding with domesticated dogs which dilutes their genetic pool.

Yeah, I'm more of a casual observer as well.

Looks harmless enough! Ours are huge...

This is incredibly interesting. I have never considered the emotional factors that could come into play with cattle owners through attachment to individual animals, nor the stress induced physiological changes in the herd related to pack predation - nor that this could make them more dangerous and cause a whole bunch of secondary health issues. I always assumed unhealthy-looking cattle became that way through human neglect. I can see why farmers then would hate the predators with a passion. I'm sorry to say but the narrative that I get about American cattle owners is MSM-based and tends to involve maltreated "mad" herds that are fattened up on corn in restrictive pens. Accounts like yours emphasise why I have developed reserve about what I watch on TV/online now. The America that I visited a couple of years ago
was surprisingly different to my preconceptions. It's funny that I used to have very strong opinions when I was younger but now I am happy to change my mind based on new data and personal experience.

Creatures of habit! It sounds like you have a bit of an emotional attachment as well. Have you allocated any individual names to your herd yet?

I have a suspicion that horses were for a long time Man's "second best friend".

 

Nothing is being done to address the root cause issue - Industrialization of Non industrialized populations.

Over the last 25 years CO2 emissions went from 22-36 Billion tons/year. Yet .. over this same period - industrialized nations decreased emissions. All of the increase came from China/Asia. China went from 6% to 28% of global emissions (US is 15% for comparision)

Not only did we see a massive CO2 increase - but a concurrent increase to Ocean Pollution. The Ocean's are unlikely to survive the next 25 year cycle without catastrophic impact - but Biden's "Not in my back Yard - Dump it in the Ocean" environmental policy doesn't care.

We hear that warming could wipe out nations in 50-80 years which is scary but based on models and the timeline is debated. Whales in the North have Murcury levels so high - neurological function is thought to be near. We can measure this directly - happening "Right NOW" not in 80 years.

Breast milk of Inuit women is to toxic to put on a store shelf.

Dead zones in increased from 100 to over 400 - Nitrogen pollution (fertilizer-Sewage) - stimulates bacteria which use up all the oxygen creating an anoxic zone where fish, marine life, corral can not live - found one the size of the State of New Jersey .. imagine being told "Don't go in to that area - No oxygen"

This is just the tip of the iceburg - and this is right now -- not 80 years hence - we have enviro policy that seeks to increase both Ocean Pollution and CO2.. dumb and dumber Policy on the basis of the Political Bandwagon - not Science and Logic .. and simple mass balance.

 

The drought in California lasted 8 years. 30 percent of trees in California were drought stricken. The drought killed 140,000,000 trees. The wild fires are not the result of poor forestry management but drought. Dry trees burn fact. Dead trees are dry.

This is global warming for real.

 

The SOTC needs to learn how to manage their forests and how to collect water... They also need to learn how to not abuse the water table.

Fix those things and the fire/drought issues in the SOTC largely go away.

 

Not if it don't rain enough. That's what drought means.

 

I think it comes from a sense of desperation and fear, some of which is legitimate I suppose. Because in the worst-case climate change scenarios time is of the essence. But I think that the climate change scientists that really fudged did so for the glory of it, for example the "hockey stick guys". That was a big boost to their careers!

I can't find the posts, but you mentioned something about the buildup of undergrowth in old-growth forests having a cooling/impeditive effect on the spread of wildfires (which we call bushfires).

This piqued my curiosity and I had a look through a few articles.

The context here is that we have a culture of both controlled burns and also "burning back" undergrowth, which is actually a last-minute emergency burn when fires are on the horizon.

Controlled burning is done off-season and when this task is neglected it is thought to exacerbate dangerous fires. However, some of what I have read suggests that the necessity and culture of controlled burning is more relevant to human designed pastures and wooded areas, especially those that adjoin houses. You really don’t want weeds and crap building up near your house as it’s like a wick to a can of petrol! (gasoline) We have very strict rules about distances between the nearest trees and houses in rural settings, due specifically to fire hazard. Every time we have lethal fires, they restrict it more.

However, indirectly, your idea is supported. Even though there is no evidence that it will make a fire cooler, our truly dangerous fires - the ones that destroy and kill - are so powerful that prior undergrowth burning is irrelevant. They are more like a fireball than a fire and they tend to sweep across the crown of the forest as much of the undergrowth. Also finally given the prevalence of high winds on extreme bushfire Fridays, embers travel many kilometres through the air and ignite areas far away from an active fire.


Further, controlled burning itself has inherent risks. You have to time it just right when it isn’t damp but also before it gets too hot. We have had a few get out of control. So for old-growth forest, it can be a mixed blessing, but I am thinking overall worth considering.

Historically, of course the aborigines used controlled burns with alacrity.

"Firestick farming" created a variety of habitats to meet a variety of needs: hunting, removing woody regrowth, and protecting forests that they valued. Aborigines in Central Australia used controlled burns to allow plant communities in different stages of fire recovery to protect against wildfire.

Of course it depends on the area. fires occur naturally in dry forests in as often as 3-4 year, but perhaps only every 100 years in mountain ash areas. This is changing though with GW.

All good, same here We've had our hands full with 3 people who want to come to the farm stuck due to Covid delta lockdowns. I confess I have been a little distracted by the Afghanistan withdrawal too. Under duress my brain resorts to small soundbites.

 

It rains enough there. The SOTC just needs to learn how to collect water and to not abuse their water table.

 

And death, for those who employ denial because it soothes them when edgy ...

 

I don't think they call it a drought if it rains enough. The trees in the forests are tinder dry, this is nothing to do with reservoir water levels or human consumption. The rain is not falling in the forests so the trees can't take it up.

 

The SOTC is getting enough rain. Their issue is that they do not collect water and they abuse their water table. IOW, they have Democrats as oligarchs.

 

The personal references are deep. Now move on.

 

Drought is weather, not climate.
New York Times Misses the Fact That Drought is a Weather Phenomenon, Not Proof of Climate Change
DROUGHT AUGUST 26, 2021

 

Climate alarmists are a rich source of humor.
Friday Funny: Climate Change Bingo
Charles Rotter
Climate Change Bingo

Climate Change Bingo, Josh

 

interesting experiments. For every prolific crop there is always a nasty waiting to take advantage of the situation! I went to pull up some carrots today in a raised garden bed and found out that they have all been eaten. By a large rat that has found a way to climb in. (I know this because I saw him scurry away ) Lesson learnt!

I think we grow a fair amount of soybean, I couldn't find the exact amount but it's a high yield crop in the northern wet areas over the summer. I'm scrambling for exact data, but I remember from reading years ago coming to the conclusion that crops like soybean and rice that require high irrigation and large amounts of water should be carefully considered for Australian conditions. Since our water is limited
it makes sense to grow crops that aren't so thirsty.

It sounds like you're very open to GM cropping then - I note the word "engineer", rather than breed! I'm definitely against it for a number of reasons - and really don't think it should be necessary.

Would you think about fungi? It just occurred to me to ask this after the discussion about pathogens (many of which are fungi ) going on a bit of it detour here I think fungi are highly underappreciated and my understanding is they are vital for trees to grow properly. Something to do with the how they interact with the roots and nutrients. Can't remember the exact details as I moved into zoology fairly quickly! I recall a scientific experiment that was done some years ago that caught my eye. I think an area that had entrenched toxic waste was given over to scientists to redeem in various ways. By far the most successful was the guy who used fungus.
at the end of the allotted experiment he pulled up the cover and not only was the toxic waste converted but also the area had become enriched with various micro flora and fauna - all due to the initial work of the fungus.

Yes we seem to have escaped natural evolution and replaced with cultural revolution. I wonder how long before mother nature decides enough is enough!

Wow, that some beautiful countryside. You've picked a good wife and a good location clearly! It is quite different from what I expected - which was flat plains in contrast to the mountainous areas of Colorado. I can see the lushness from your humid summers. What you lack in the winter growing season you surely make up for in the warmer weather. We simply don't have that sort of lushness during summer. Our winters are much wetter except it's cold then of course. The exception is pockets up further north, where it gets really hot and humid. I suspect that is definitely an untapped agricultural area, but nobody wants to live in that kind of wretched heat. Lots of flooding and difficult land to get around in. We have started where it is easiest.

I'm sure you are correct. These things take time and many seasons and only someone working on the land closely is going to have that opportunity

I'm sure you'd enjoy them. I don't really idolise him because he's "just dad". But then I look around me and I do appreciate him. I like the ask questions, listen & observe bit! Your father sounds quite amazing, and I wonder how common he would be. Or put another way, I wonder if you are you typical of the regular farmer in that area?

The aborigines here call the land mother. So to hurt the land or try and exploit it is literally like exploiting your mother. I suppose that's why they made the best original custodians. But I do sense that same connection in farmers that our family has known well. I have been a little remiss at spending quality time on our property recently, but as a child and younger adult I remember we used to visit a neighbouring farmer and his wife right at the top of our land on the plateau. I used to play with his children. I sensed a similar love of the land, however he wasn't really into cropping. It was sheep and cattle, so things were a wee bit denuded, unfortunately.

 

False climate hype is increasing at an unprecedented rate.
Today’s Madagascar Drought Entirely Normal, 2000 Years Of Data Show…Link To Climate Change “Not Correct”
By P Gosselin on 31. August 2021

Share this...
Madagascar’s current drought is perfectly within normal range. Droughts were even worse in the past, 2000 years of precipitation reconstruction data show…
Linking Madagascar drought to climate change “scientifically not correct”

Not surprisingly, there been lots of climate doomsday talk about the drought and hunger situation in Madagascar, all coming from the usual suspects. The media like the climate sensationalization to attract clicks and activists like to exploit it to pound their fund-raising drums.

Recently Die kalte Sonne here looked at the situation in one of its climate videos and finds that blaming manmade climate change for the misery in Madagascar doesn’t hold any water.



Citing scientific data from a 2021 publication issued by Europe’s Copernicus global observation project, there has indeed been a drought in Madagascar. But how does it compare in a historical context?

Well within range of natural variability . . .

 

To the climate change deniers let me simply illustrate it thusly. Jo Ann, when asked by Jack if she would sleep with him one time for a million dollars answered yes. When Jack then asked Jo Ann if she would sleep with him for five dollars she slapped him in the face demanding of him just exactly what kind of a girl he thought she was. He immediately replied that it had been established what kind of a girl she was, and that now they were haggling over price.
Climate change is real, it is here, and will be with us unto our great-grand children. What needs to yet be determined is how much will it change and how fast will it change. Pre-dating the beginning of climate change and perhaps outstripping it in terms of its impact on the planet is the 6th mass extinction, and this one is being caused almost exclusively by human activity. What a wonderful world we leave our children and our children's children.

 

That's an old joke. Lost its punch after the first 100 or so times I heard it.
Climate change is not a problem and there is no 6th extinction under way.

 

It turns out the water over which Ida strengthened was actually cooler than normal.
Hurricane Ida and Global Warming: Unsupported Claims
Guest Blogger
But it is easy to demonstrate that real data shows that these claims are without basis, and that National Public Radio, the Seattle Times, and others are publishing stories that are contradictory…

 

When you make judgements that the SOTC is getting enough rain what do you base that on. Your subjective feelings and assumptions are meaningless. Do show the statistics showing California has not been in a draught and while your at it the attempt to turn this into a political partisan determined issue is absurd. Its based on science not your Trump projections.

 

Even in a drought, they can get enough water... Wisconsin was in a drought this year and we had no water issues... Then again, we know how to collect water and we don't abuse our water table.

 

It's complicated.
Disentangling California Drought
2019 › 01 › 17 › disentangling-california-drought
Disentangling California Drought ... Devastating droughts are a great concern. Droughts disrupt ecosystems ... more severe droughts, historically, Californians are not experiencing more severe droughts. Despite low

". . . During my research in the Sierra Nevada, a meadow we were monitoring began to dry; willows died, and bird populations crashed. Many suggested it was just what global warming models predict. However, we determined a railroad track built over 100 years ago had caused the meadow’s stream channel to cut downwards, draining its groundwater. I initiated a watershed restoration. Vegetation quickly recovered, and wildlife increased. Despite California’s years of extreme drought, the restored meadow remained wetter than it had before restoration and before the drought.

So, I warn: knee-jerk reactions simply blaming climate change for devastating dryness, blind us to real causes and real environmental solutions.

Jim Steele authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism."

 

I think this discussion would benefit from more research data.


Scientists: No Correlation Between Climate Change And Wildfires In California – Or Anywhere Else On Earth
By Kenneth Richard on 17. September 2020

A “potential connection” between anthropogenic global warming and the frequency or intensity of wildfires in California has yet to emerge in the trend observations. Scientists have found a “lack of correlation between late summer/autumn wildfires” and “summer precipitation or temperature” in coastal California. In fact, “there is no long-term trend in the number of fires […]

Posted in Fire | 3 Responses


Analysis Of 7 California Stations Shows No Precipitation Trend Change
By P Gosselin on 7. April 2019

By Kirye and P. Gosselin We often hear how the climate is changing everywhere, like in California. Listening to the media we get the impression that the Golden State is drying out and risks burning up, before heavy rains hit. Others claim the state is facing “weather whiplash” because climate change will make the weather […]

 

Why are all your stories from unknown websites and guest bloggers, are there no scientific institutions to back your claims?
You see your claims such as "the water over which Ida strengthened was actually cooler than normal." are misleading. Which bit of water Hurricane Ida strengthened over was colder than normal? All of it or just the bit convenient to the claim?