Condolences to our Svens and Olies up in Wisconsin and Minnesota!

https://insideclimatenews.org/...aebb44a024-331099294

I can only hope climate change can save a few liberals so we can still read this kind of stuff.

Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

Riverside used to use smudge pots in the groves to protect the oranges.
We haven't seen a hard frost in ten years, and there are no Canada geese.
Something's not the same. Don't believe in it? Show me some geese.
I'm getting ready to take my goose decoys to the swap meet and peddle them.

If the migration is stopping because of global warming, then why is the duck hunting in Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana so good still?

What you are seeing is like MN- we have screwed up the system of rivers and loafing ponds so that they choose to migrate in a different pattern than before. 2-3 degrees of temperature (more than what the GW folks claim) is not enough to make MN or IA wintering grounds.

Locally, our DNR drew down one of the best waterfowl areas to deal with "invasive species" and doing so had the lake down to almost nothing (and with poison in it to boot) during the migration a few years back... and the migration patterns have not came back after over 10 years.

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
Riverside used to use smudge pots in the groves to protect the oranges.
We haven't seen a hard frost in ten years, and there are no Canada geese.
Something's not the same. Don't believe in it? Show me some geese.
I'm getting ready to take my goose decoys to the swap meet and peddle them.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
If the migration is stopping because of global warming, then why is the duck hunting in Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana so good still?

What you are seeing is like MN- we have screwed up the system of rivers and loafing ponds so that they choose to migrate in a different pattern than before. 2-3 degrees of temperature (more than what the GW folks claim) is not enough to make MN or IA wintering grounds.

Locally, our DNR drew down one of the best waterfowl areas to deal with "invasive species" and doing so had the lake down to almost nothing (and with poison in it to boot) during the migration a few years back... and the migration patterns have not came back after over 10 years.

quote:

Originally posted by TomP:
Riverside used to use smudge pots in the groves to protect the oranges.
We haven't seen a hard frost in ten years, and there are no Canada geese.
Something's not the same. Don't believe in it? Show me some geese.
I'm getting ready to take my goose decoys to the swap meet and peddle them.

Not a lot of water in the rivers. L.A. has had 0.16 inch of rain since May.

Duck hunting down south has seen a decline. There is a lot of noise about the lack of migration.

Duck hunting made me a believer in climate change.

Worst is the dry conditions in what little nesting habitat there is.

A common biological refrain against banning the bag on hens is it would do create zero benefit to not shoot hens only to have them fail produce a hatch back in nesting zones that are shrinking and ever poor.

The geese all left here early this year, the far NE. Even the snowgeese, who usually come by most of Dec, were done by mid Dec. No idea where they went to from here??

Still a lot of geese around here.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

so true. we tried hard every year since we moved to canada in opening windows when the wood stove is too warm or letting run cars and pick up trucks when it is too cold outside.

i just noticed we have now more ducks staying for the winter never seen or hear before and this year we did not get so far our -40c or f shares but winter is not winter and warmer weather means less cold for bison hunting and no one will complain about that ... and historically klondike had always some strange weather fluctuations but it was never said it was due to humane activities. and we tried to change it lol

Humans, we constantly want everything constant but if it is constant, then we complain that it’s boring
never ever in history of the planet was there ever constant climate

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

It's your opinion versus science. Let me think which one I agree with.

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
Humans, we constantly want everything constant but if it is constant, then we complain that it’s boring
never ever in history of the planet was there ever constant climate

this.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

It's your opinion versus science. Let me think which one I agree with.

current cali wildfires have erased the last 7 years (including covid lock downs) of c02 sequestration - humans are not, meaningfully, changing the climate --

i saw a diagram of the ice sheets over greenland -- little sliver of pre last ice age, a bit more left over from the last ice age, and the bulk of the ice is post last ice age -

it aint cars

the climate IS changing, and almost always has been

Dems, Lemmings and Dodos…who can jump of the cliff faster as a group?

I know the climate is changing. It's part of the reason I sold my farm in the north and moved south. But Im not intelligent enough or have the time to sort out whether it's humans causing it, or some natural cycle.

I don't know.

What I do know is that by and large, we treat our planet like shit, and it makes sense to me to each try do what we can too lower our impact. If electric cars achieves some of that, then cool. As long as I have the infrastructure to enable me to use them, I will happily.
Im focussed on my farm on making the best of my best land, and retiring the worst and planting trees. Im lowering my use of imported nutrients, and using them more efficiently. Instead of taking irrigation water from the river in summer, Im building a surface capture system too gather rainfall at peak rain periods when much is lost too flooding. And I have reduced the historic herd size of the farm from 700 too 600.

Just makes sense too me to do what we can, because as an outdoors person, I really like my rivers and trees and everything that gos with those.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Still a lot of geese around here.

Wherein Iowa? I'm SE, and we are seeing a small fraction of what we used to.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Still a lot of geese around here.

Wherein Iowa? I'm SE, and we are seeing a small fraction of what we used to.

Ames area. Every late afternoon there are flocks flying too or from their feeding areas. I believe there is some bird flu in some of them that inhabit an area known as Ada Hayden lake and park.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

It's your opinion versus science. Let me think which one I agree with.

Nothing to do with science.

It is MONEY!

Earth has been going through climate change cycles which no two legged nitwits are going to change!

Well, I can tell you where they are. They are here in South Carolina! We are covered up with them. Most small ponds are full, and they crap all over the golf courses.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Still a lot of geese around here.

Wherein Iowa? I'm SE, and we are seeing a small fraction of what we used to.

Ames area. Every late afternoon there are flocks flying too or from their feeding areas. I believe there is some bird flu in some of them that inhabit an area known as Ada Hayden lake and park.

Here you go Saeed, some light reading for you.

https://royalsociety.org/news-...ddGodb0aAiHxEALw_wcB

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

It's your opinion versus science. Let me think which one I agree with.

Nothing to do with science.

It is MONEY!

Earth has been going through climate change cycles which no two legged nitwits are going to change!

So 9 billion humans and billions of critters all respiring add nothing?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Anyone who think they can affect the climate are just plain IDIOTS!

It's your opinion versus science. Let me think which one I agree with.

Nothing to do with science.

It is MONEY!

Earth has been going through climate change cycles which no two legged nitwits are going to change!

So 9 billion humans and billions of critters all respiring add nothing?

They add fertilizer(CO2) for plants to make oxygen and fix carbon is what they do. What's your dystopian solution? Kill all of the critters and reduce the human population to 300,000? The earth's temperature is controlled by the fusion activity of the star that we orbit. It is also influenced by the tilt of Earth's axis toward the sun. The Sun's activity goes through cycles as does our axis position. This results in cold and hot periods. Hucksters take advantage of the ignorant by blaming variations on someone/something and begging for money to solve a non-existent problem. Researchers/scientists have to support high maintenance wives and send kids to college too. They can be bought off easier than Joe Biden.

These natural cycles the non believers keep yapping about take thousands of years, not the couple hundred we are seeing. They know that, but they prefer to believe how they WISH it were, instead of how it is. They have zero long term vision. If my large boat has what is to be considered a small leak, I would rather attend to it than let the problem fester. It won't heal itself. Either way, believe or not, opinions of the naysayers do not matter, as they don't do shit to make any sort of difference. Those who do believe & are trying, may be of value in extending our time here. Even a little is better than sitting on your hands like the village idiots you are.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:
. Even a little is better than sitting on your hands like the village idiots you are.

Look up two things, close enough, then have a think

1 roman optimum
2 little ice age

Climate change is real.. the climate is in a pretty constant state of change... there are often "weather" events, floods, fires, volcanos, blizzards for almost the entire existence of the earth. You do know that the Sahara has been green many times before?

Usually old men learn that everything changes.

And when England gave French wine makers run for their money until France put tariffs on English wine

These two statements are both true, I believe:

Climate change can be caused by natural events, like large volcanos or asteroids.

Climate change can be caused by human activities.

I live about in the same area as Washburn county.

We have had great ice this year.

Last year very little ice.

The year before good ice.

Back and forth for my whole sixty plus years.

The climate changes every year. Winter, spring, summer and fall.

Crickets....well that's "close enough" to an answer

It's no use. Cognitive dissonance rules the weak minded. I bet their ancestors used to burn witches. These people hate humans. They want all of them eliminated except those they require to service their needs. They believe in things they "feel" strongly about, regardless that there is absolutely no proof of their beliefs. Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Crickets....well that's "close enough" to an answer

quote:

Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

Ok, how does one do an experiment on climate and produce reproducible results by independent observers?

That is the sine qua non of science.

Some elements of climatology are observable (temperatures) although at the very low change level predicted, inter observer variability makes an issue there.

Things like CO2 light absorption is testable.

The source of the CO2… not directly tested.

Given that climatology tends to use one source of indirect measurement data that has been “adjusting” results over the years, there is an argument there. Modeling is not an experiment that collects data.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

Bingo. Rolo, it is you who who have demonstrated your ignorance of truth.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, how does one do an experiment on climate and produce reproducible results by independent observers?

That is the sine qua non of science.

Some elements of climatology are observable (temperatures) although at the very low change level predicted, inter observer variability makes an issue there.

Things like CO2 light absorption is testable.

The source of the CO2… not directly tested.

Given that climatology tends to use one source of indirect measurement data that has been “adjusting” results over the years, there is an argument there. Modeling is not an experiment that collects data.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, how does one do an experiment on climate and produce reproducible results by independent observers?

That is the sine qua non of science.

Some elements of climatology are observable (temperatures) although at the very low change level predicted, inter observer variability makes an issue there.

Things like CO2 light absorption is testable.

The source of the CO2… not directly tested.

Given that climatology tends to use one source of indirect measurement data that has been “adjusting” results over the years, there is an argument there. Modeling is not an experiment that collects data.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

It may not be an exact science, but it's science supported by repeatable observations. Temperatures higher. Longer growing seasons. (During my forty years of gardening in Alaska, I observed about a week added on to each end of our previous growing season.)

Higher level storms. CO2 measurements.

Doesn't science allow for reasonable inferences and theories that have objective support? Isn't that what you do when you make a medical diagnosis?

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

oh, but *I* do, honey -- but you have me on ignore ... well, one might consider discretion the better part of valor --- but why does it look so much like running away?

say which one of us is a STEM person, and which one brags about learning to read sonnets? (not sneering at scholarship .. but laughing at someone that couldn't pick of a complete works of old bill, before they could legally drive and reading it themselves?)

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Ok, how does one do an experiment on climate and produce reproducible results by independent observers?

That is the sine qua non of science.

Some elements of climatology are observable (temperatures) although at the very low change level predicted, inter observer variability makes an issue there.

Things like CO2 light absorption is testable.

The source of the CO2… not directly tested.

Given that climatology tends to use one source of indirect measurement data that has been “adjusting” results over the years, there is an argument there. Modeling is not an experiment that collects data.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Human caused climate change is a theory that lacks concrete proof. Therefore it is not a science.

You don't know much about how science works, do you?

It may not be an exact science, but it's science supported by repeatable observations. Temperatures higher. Longer growing seasons. (During my forty years of gardening in Alaska, I observed about a week added on to each end of our previous growing season.)

Higher level storms. CO2 measurements.

Doesn't science allow for reasonable inferences and theories that have objective support? Isn't that what you do when you make a medical diagnosis?

math isn't your strong point ..
40 years
a week added
that's 40 weeks added to what? remember, there's only 52 weeks a year --

no one argues that the climate is changing, elitist? in fact, who would argue that the population and likely cars, have increased in numbers, about double, in that same 40 year time frame...

but your idiosyncratic guess show a smooth transition -- regardless of population, cars, and ships --

almost like humans have an imperceptible impact ... by your own data --

go look up the helix solar system on youtube, watch it and be amazed -- then recall that the sun, earth, and everything else, are in imperfect rotations, that are only canceled out by opposing perturbations

the earth moves, wobbles in it's own orbit with the moon (two bodies rotate around their combined center of mass, this isn't a fixed point due to density variations) and then wobbles a bit around the sun ...

no, wait, you think that distance from the sun to the earth is a fixed difference, don't you? that the stated 93M miles is FIXED? oh, honey, that's the average

you aren't consciously aware that the earth moves in an elliptical orbit, with and apogee and a perigee -- (furthest and closest points), with the variance being about 3 million miles

you are also, appallingly, unaware that the sun has a variable output, and goes through cycles, not just sunspot/solorstorms/CME activities ...

you honestly don't have the science, knowledge, or temperament to carry on with this conversation

but please, carry on, remove ALL DOUBT

On the complexity of climate change.. or, how can we tax THIS?

The magnetic north pole is moving, which shifts the magnetosphere, which will shift weather patterns

https://dailygalaxy.com/2025/0...pdated-its-position/

Oh wait, it's usually in some level of motion, but the observations since 1990 have it moving at more than triple the speed... from about 9 miles per year to about 34 miles per year....


Oh oh oh, let's blame it on fracking

Think of all the 2cycle exhaust not being released.

quote:

It may not be an exact science, but it's science supported by repeatable observations

Bull crap it is pseudo-science supported by what they think might happen in the future

quote:

Originally posted by M.Shy:
And when England gave French wine makers run for their money until France put tariffs on English wine

The French are actually buying up suitable south facing areas in southern England, and lots of non French are planting vineyards here.

It’s because statistically we are warming each year and areas of the south of the UK are becoming ideal for growing vines. When I was a kid it was too cold, we got snow reliably each winter … doesn’t happen now, the climate has changed quite noticeably in 50 years.

We now have higher levels of atmospheric CO2 than at any time in the last 800,000 years, and we have managed to achieve that in a few decades, not the thousands of years previous changes have taken due to natural causes.