The New Climate Reality

Food will become the problem, and especially in poor countries with very high headcounts.

There will be rioting in those countries as regards food-distribution.

Neither are the US nor the EU countries that need worry. I live in farming country and the result this year will be only slightly short of last year. There will be enough food for the populations of both Europe and the US.

But, elsewhere? No guarantees ...

 

Mother Earth has a temperature because she's got an infection......Humans.

 

That's my point. @Jack Hays is claiming overall increases in vegetation are goods news from climate change. But we have no shortage in food on a global scale, indeed we in the West waste shed loads of it. So where it grows is far more important than how much more it grows.

However useful increased Co2 might be to plants, it is water that's the defining factor to their survival.

 

"The latest decadal predictions, covering the five-year period from 2020 to 2024, shows continued warming and decreasing rainfall especially over North and Southern Africa, and increased rainfall over the Sahel."
https://unfccc.int/news/climate-cha...f Africa has already,on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

No, it is not.

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . ."

 

Says Michael Crichton.
I say if most scientists agree on a theory it is very likely to be correct and that is consensus. Science is not just about what can be proven beyond doubt, but looking at the data and extrapolating a result. The more scientists that support the extrapolation the more likely it is to be correct and that is consensus.

 

Interesting subject. Perhaps it has a place here in the climate change realm. If people could find contentment without always resorting to consumerism there would be far less pollution of all kinds.

I’m glad he’s doing well. I’ve never been able to get much past 24 hours. I’ll bet keto helps with that. I eat too many carbs. But I’ve seen pretty dramatic things just in 24 hours.

The good thing about prairie dogs is they don’t like people so don’t often show up in your garden or yard like a rabbit. I’ve only seen crop damage from them once and it was because the cornfield they damaged was first year out of sod and right next to a pasture full of prairie dogs. It was our fault for taking their habitat. LOL

The cats definitely don't present a problem to our cattle! Although, they seem to be getting bigger and bigger with each generation. There have been reports of almost puma like sized feral cats in the Australian bush.

Yes, more remote it gets the wilder the cattle get. They are often rounded up by helicopter.
[/QUOTE]
Cats that big could certainly damage a cow/calf during calving. But I suppose if you have that many rabbits and rodents they would have no incentive to prey on anything else.

Yep, most of our small predators like coyote, fox, bobcat would be very hard to eliminate. We’ve tried to eliminate coyote to no avail.

I’ve never heard of feral cat populations anywhere I’ve lived. There are too many coyotes and owls. We get overpopulated with barn cats sometimes and there are toms that will move around a lot between groups of females at farms etc. These toms that roam and live long term are almost always grey or black due to the owl pressure at night. They will also often show up with injuries from coyotes. Why can feral cats multiply so much there? Don’t you have the dingo to help with the cat problem?

I still don’t go birding intentionally but I pay a lot more attention to all birds than I used to. They are actually pretty useful as information sources telling you how far your flood irrigation water has made it out in the alfalfa field or where you have a sick or dead animal in a large pasture.

This is our common toad.



They just eat a lot of insect pests.

I see both perspectives as well. I can probably shed a little light on the emotional response to predation though. It starts with knowing the average cattleman in the US isn’t in the cattle business for just money. Yes, it’s the livelihood for many but for most the lifestyle is the reason they do it. So when predation occurs the financial aspect is often far down the list of reasons for an emotional response. Here are a few “reasons” why when a calf is killed the response isn’t just about the $350-$1000 the calf would bring at the local auction market.
1) The owner has an emotional attachment to his/her whole herd similar to a person’s attachment to their pet dog or cat. The average herd size for a beef operation in the US is around 43 head of cows. Only about 10% of operations have 500 or more cows. This means most people “know” their cows well. You remember #39 calving in an icy puddle last spring and the calf spending an hour in your bathtub recovering from hypothermia. When that #39 calf ends up a pile of bones and some hide from a wolf predation, it is personal, not just a lost income.
2) This is related to point 1 above. Most producers believe they have made a binding contract with their animals that includes the owner doing everything up to risking their own life to preserve the lives of the animals in their care. Having animals in their care killed is seen as a breach of contract by the owner. They feel they have gone back on a promise made if they allow predation.
3) Some animals in many herds belong to the children of the cattleman. A lot of producer’s children show animals in 4-H and other organizations and many of these animals come from or end up in the commercial cow herd. It’s not fun to have to tell your kid their heifer calf they were going to show next year was lunch for a predator.
4) This is moving closer to the economic loss side, but an animal’s genetics have value to the producer that isn’t immediately recognized. A calf lost to predation may only be worth $700 as a market animal, but if it was bred by the producer to be a replacement heifer or a herd sire the actual lost lifetime value of that animal dwarfs the $700 that a restitution program would pay the producer. Such an animal may be the product of several generations of select breedings, and can be irreplaceable if the base genetics are unavailable in live animals or a nitrogen tank.
5) Much of the economic damage to an operation is not death loss. Domesticated cattle are not adapted to pack predation. This means herds of cattle hunted by a pack of wolves will always be in a state of stress. This will affect conception rates, spontaneous abortion rates, weight gain in growing animals, pasture utilization, water source utilization, overall health based on stress induced immune dysfunction and innumerable other stress based factors. Over time animals that do adapt to pack predation will be harder to work with and more dangerous to their owners. Over the long term herds will be less productive and harder to handle.

Pack predators like wolves are worse than other predators in my opinion for reasons in #5 above.

I guess I don’t know the nutrient profile of musk thistle. Probably something I should look up! Animals do have some ability to judge nutrient value of feed, but their palate isn’t necessarily based on that. Years ago we bought some old cows out of the “sand hills” that had never eaten anything but grass—pasture in the summer and baled or stacked meadow grass hay in the winter. They never did learn to like alfalfa hay or corn silage at my place. It just wasn’t what they were used to and they didn’t want to change.

I haven’t really heard much about that. I am familiar with the idea in the context of permaculture and such but I didn’t know it was moving to pop culture. That’s a good thing. I’ve heard some claim there is no such thing as a weed—just plants we aren’t smart enough to understand their correct use. Probably true.

Good point about the similarities of horse uses in both countries. The history, economies, and cultures of both have been greatly influenced by the horse.

 

Agreed! What scientists and engineers are looking for is "agreement" - but not just an oral "Yes, you're right!". Whatever the proposition, it must be based upon repetitive analysis and correlation amongst the results. That is neither easy nor automatic in scientific/economic research because "proofs" must be qualified and re-qualified by inspection!

In economics it is even more difficult because requalification of Economic Statistics takes years-upon-years-upon-years of obtaining "significant" national data.

If not entire decades ... !

 

True, but "political infections" can have both bad and good sides.

Reducing the "infection" started by the Replicant Party in upper-income taxation and putting taxation levels back up to beyond 90% for incomes above, say, $10M is a good start. It brings more Weath back to the people who help generate it rather than being kept by those who benefit from very low-taxation to "obtain Wealth" from Income!

Why does anyone think that Unlimited Wealth (boosted by law upper-income taxation) is a benefit to the nation? Especially when far more than a third (37%) of the nation's inhabitants are living on an income less than $50K* a year!

Whilst a quarter (25%) of the population lives on less than $35K a year and more than a quarter live on incomes of higher than $100K a year.

Uhhhh - something is very wrong with the "distribution" ... and only taxation can level out the distortion ...

 

Government hysteria.

 

Democracy doesn't matter in science.

“Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]”

― Albert Einstein

 

Back in the Mesozoic era Colorado, a dry state that is mostly above a mile over sea level, was hot, humid and infested with dinosaurs. She had a higher temperature then and nature hadn't even considered yet the development of humans or even the ancestors of humans. The current warming is not severe and is a tiny blip in geologic time. Just goes to show you how egocentric humans are.

 

You're not supposed to take it literally.

 

Because we still don't know if Einstein's theory is correct. It was a theory that fitted most of what we could observe.
And furthermore its a trite remark. Would one author be able to disprove the theory of relativity when as a theory it relied on many unknowns.
Were the public at the time supposed to take one mans word for it?

 

Yes and yes.
On vacation this week. Fewer replies.

 

Then why did you write it?

 

Antarctic ice is back!
Antarctic Sea Ice Recovery Surprises Scientists… Classic Disinformation Technique Of Not Reporting
By P Gosselin on 15. August 2021

 

It was a play on words. Humans get a temperature when they catch a virus. The earth does not catch viruses and does not have an immune reaction raising its temperature.

 

Have a good time.

 

It's been a brutally hot summer. Experts say this is just a glimpse of the future.

"Sizzling temperatures in the United States and Canada and persistent heat in parts of Europe and northern Africa are creating dangerous health conditions, aggravating droughts and fueling wildfires. To many experts, these events offer just a glimpse of what lies ahead in future summers because of climate change."

https://www.nbcnews.com/science/env...=857693951420692326&utm_medium=Email Sailthru

We are moving into survival mode..

 

Difficult in a Debate forum.

Especially when one-liners are the return argument. How dull they can make an exchange of opinion ...

 

Surprise, surprise?

The scientific community has been trying to tell us the bad-news for quite a while. But not enough were listening. We were too bust keeping-up-with-the-Joneses next door.

They ARE listening now, however!

A science teacher once said in class, "It's amazing how people cannot understand the fragility of our eco-system until the moment the system fixates upon them drastically ... "

 

This is because he uses the same defective selective bias as others do saying climate change increases rain which puts out forest fires.

Its so idiotic as to defy a response. Climate change may make some areas get more rain and warmer temperatures but it ALSO creates much more draught and desert and forest fires that destroy land in other areas. People like Jack Hays omit the parts of climate change they don't want to acknowledge. They pretend they can isolate its beneficial effects and tout them while ignoring the other effects.

Its deliberately manipulative and intellectually dishonest.

 

The science explaining the difference in temperature rise compared to past cycles is there. The science explaining the corelation between CO2 emissions and increased global warming is there. The cycle of forest fires, flooding, hurricanes, increased rainfall in fat shorter compact time periods, the draught, desertification, famine, rising sea levels, its all there.

What we see happen is that people engage in denial. Its a basic psychological device mechanism that kicks in when someone doesn't like what they hear and it may require they change their current behaviour.

Denial is about trying to block out something someone feels gives them anxiety from being unable to control it and its often done by selectivity, i.e., avoiding facts and information that doesn't allow for denial.

On this and other threads deniers start with subjective statements that are patently false. Sometimes they quote articles that are purely subjective opinions they want to hear but contain no proof of anything. If they do provide data its done selectively like Jack hays does. On the one hand they will argue all data about global warming is incorrect as it doesn't properly take into account what happened 10,000 years ago. When told it does they simply deny it does.

Then as Jack has done and others do, they snapshot. That is to say they take an article that isolates a specific time period only, then from that say....you see forest fires went down so there is no global warming the article says so. Then when you read the article in its entirety you see it says the exact opposite.

Global warming deniers can't grasp concepts that are not all or nothing simplistic formulas as we can see on this and other threads. For example the fact that the amount of land burned by forest fires may have gone down in certain areas, does not mean there was no global warming. That makes no sense. What scientists can show is that the amount of land that burned went down for certain reasons other than global warming but at the same time the chances of more wildires as the temperature rises goes up. There are definitive studies that show this in Australia and yet we have people on this thread who would have you believe the wildfires in California, Australia, Nothern US and Canada are coincidences that would have happened anyways for other reasons. When you show the statistics as to how increases in temperatures dry out and make forest fire conditions more prevalent these same geniuses will tell you....oh no...its good...we can grow more plants.

What idiot suggests global warming is good for more growing? I will tell you. The kind of idiot that ignores the other parts of the planet that turn into desert from global warming and for each supposed acre of land that has become better for a farmer far more areas of land have become unihabitable and unable to sustain any kind of life.

Denial requires you engage in selective tunnel vision and block out what you do not want to hear.

My attitude is talking to a denier is like talking to an alcoholic, cigarette smoker, gambler. People with self destruictive behaviour deny it and until it hurts them, they will not change and even then before they change they will go through years of denial trying to drag down everyone with them.

The planet has no time for deniers. It requires and it is finding people who are doing things about the man made activites exasperating our climate and polluting and poisoning our planet. It will mean in coming years the deniers will whine and complain as their booze and alcohol prices go up but until they get lung caner or liver disease they will keep smoking and drinking and even then many will demand hospital services and time of doctors while they take their iv's outside to get a smoke.

Such is life,.

 

That is, quite simply, a lie. I have never made any claim about rain and forest fires.