Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:42:30 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold  (Read 1691 times)
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2017, 08:14:14 PM »
« edited: January 04, 2017, 08:28:06 PM by PresidentSamTilden »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

On the whole, I can agree with this statement. If you're a guy who respects science, there is every reason to seek out dissent. I am also a layman, but my father is a chemist, and I'm sure he would agree. It's not fun getting yelled at by people who put in less work to understand it. Obviously, the climate has changed many times in earths history, as evidenced by ice ages and extinctions.

However, there are some issues that drive the theory home for me. One is the warming trend.



Now, if the data has been manipulated or comprimised, than I'm SoL and wrong. However, that is 4 independent agencies coming to the same conclusion - the earth has experienced significant warming, and a clear trend in warming, over several decades. We can also see this in the ice cover from the arctic.



At the same time, we have seen a massive, significant rise in Co2 emissions as a result of industrialization.



Now, could there be other factors involved, or that these are not related? Absolutely. But you have to admit: the fact that this rapid warming trend began around the same time that humanity rapidly expanded in its numbers, territory, and consumption, with a third factor causing it, would be an awfully big coincidence. When you consider the amount of scientists on board with this theory, there is a legitimate cause for concern - especially considering that our emissions continue to increase at a very rapid pace.

Finally, let me briefly mention what is at stake, because this is not a purely academic discussion anymore - it affects all of humanity.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
(http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-effects/)

So we could easily be looking at famines and massive human displacement as a result of this crisis. Therefore, there is need to take action if it is necessary to do so. I won't even go into the Siberian Methane deposits, and the potential for runaway warming, which is very scary.

I hope you don't take this argument as condescending, because I don't mean it be. You've clearly read a lot and I'm sure you've seen all this before. But I like this argument is because it is simple and logical. There are no absolutely certainties in science, but we need to act with limited information in all aspects of life.

Therefore, I do support large scale government action to curb this potential crisis.

EDIT: One more point that I wanted to add. You pointed out that the climate consensus could be artificially inflated by virtue of it's support. Whether that is true or not, it should be pointed out that denying organizations are inflated by money from groups with republican leaning political agendas. (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/)

Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2017, 06:06:22 AM »

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans [...]
This is perhaps the most galling tactic of climate changing deniers.  It's akin to arguing that because not all lung cancer is caused by tobacco use, nothing should be done about cigarettes.

To be fair, sometimes those who accept the fact that anthropogenic warming is real and significant don't always take into account the economics of what should be done in response, but at this point to argue that we should do nothing to curb anthropogenic warming because the science is inconclusive is ridiculous and short-sighted.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2017, 06:13:16 AM »

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans [...]
This is perhaps the most galling tactic of climate changing deniers.  It's akin to arguing that because not all lung cancer is caused by tobacco use, nothing should be done about cigarettes.

To be fair, sometimes those who accept the fact that anthropogenic warming is real and significant don't always take into account the economics of what should be done in response, but at this point to argue that we should do nothing to curb anthropogenic warming because the science is inconclusive is ridiculous and short-sighted.

Well, over 100% of the warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. It's only because of other factors, most notably aerosols, that it's not warming that much.

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2017, 08:15:43 AM »

A seasonally-open Arctic Ocean implies huge changes in weather patterns -- and hence climate -- well beyond Arctic  regions. Winters will become less severe in inland mid-latitude regions, with the blizzards that supply and protect groundwater from winter evaporation practically disappearing in the Midwest.  Crop yields will plummet in the Midwest as prime farmland with dense populations is inundated.   
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,095
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2017, 09:04:01 AM »

So you're saying my winters will be less cold and snowy?
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,662
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 05, 2017, 06:15:09 PM »
« Edited: January 06, 2017, 11:10:48 PM by Meclazine »

So my issue with all of this data is that it doesn't present a unifying reason why the consensus is false. Any cause is acceptable as long as it disagrees with the hypothesis that human emitted Co2 is causing climate change. Let's take a look at a few of the headlines from the section:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, what is causing the warming? Is it other planets? Is it Geomagnetic? Cloud Cover? Richard Nixon?

As a counter, here is a paper that analyzed 11,944 papers on the topic, and concluded that 90+ percent confirm the idea of anthropogenic Global Warming. (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002).

Now, let's take out Occam's razor. What's more likely to be correct: A smaller coalition of denying papers, with many different explanations that contradict each other, or a much larger group that all centers on one conclusion?

The dipole magnetic intensity change is not an issue that is well understood yet when it comes to global warming.

The media wants 'definitive' and this just isn't in that basket.

If the magnetic field flips upside down and the rotation of the eddy currents in the outer core changes, then we are in trouble as the cosmic rays will fry us for the duration of the event.

So it could be catastrophic.

Solar activity has a big influence on our weather cycles as does El Nino.

Do humans influence the global weather cycles? Yes.

Can we say definitively by how much? Not yet.

I would hazard a best-educated guess that humans are simply accelerating a cycle that is already underway.

The accurate data being collected now simply did not exist 100-400,000 years ago.

Drilling ice in Antarctica for atmospheric CO2 may not be an effective tool to measure these things.

The longer the data measurement cycle is, the better the analysis can be.



Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2017, 08:47:54 PM »

The media wants 'definitive' and this just isn't in that basket.

This has nothing to do with the "media", though. NASA has a page on this, the US EPA as well. And again, in the post you quoted, I posted a Meta-Analysis with over 10,000 papers in agreement on the source of the warming.

According to most scientists, the reason for the warming is definitive - it's caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human beings, chiefly Co2.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps! The key word is "could be", however. The greenhouse effect WILL be unless we change our behavior.

At the very least, doesn't it make sense to control this until we can be sure? The best you skepitcal guys can come up with is to say that "we don't know for sure". So, I say control these emissions as much as possible, to make sure we're okay.

I'm calling for a TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN of Greenhouse gasses until we can figure out what the hell is going on! =D
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2017, 09:22:38 PM »

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I'm skeptical of the idea that we can really stop climate change. If I was in charge of everything, I would instead try to focus our resources on trying to adapt to the changing climate.
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2017, 09:29:50 PM »

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I'm skeptical of the idea that we can really stop climate change. If I was in charge of everything, I would instead try to focus our resources on trying to adapt to the changing climate.

If we are driving it though, as most scientists believe - doesn't it make sense to at least TRY? Like, if you have a problem in your life, do you just say, "well...I might not be able to do anything, guess I'll focus on just dealing with it".

But also, if GHG are driving it, as most scientists believe, you can adapt all you want - the problem will only get worse, and worse, until no one can survive, unless we curb emissions. I don't think we will get to that point, but is it possible? Absolutely. At some point, we have to solve the root of the issue.

If it really is all magnetic poles or solar variations from 1600 years ago or whatever, then sure, we're screwed, lol. But at least we tried to do something, based on the best evidence that we had...

Or we can just bend over for big oil, coal, and nat gas...at least someone is making money off our destruction, right? sigh...
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2017, 09:48:54 PM »

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I'm skeptical of the idea that we can really stop climate change. If I was in charge of everything, I would instead try to focus our resources on trying to adapt to the changing climate.

If we are driving it though, as most scientists believe - doesn't it make sense to at least TRY? Like, if you have a problem in your life, do you just say, "well...I might not be able to do anything, guess I'll focus on just dealing with it".

But also, if GHG are driving it, as most scientists believe, you can adapt all you want - the problem will only get worse, and worse, until no one can survive, unless we curb emissions. I don't think we will get to that point, but is it possible? Absolutely. At some point, we have to solve the root of the issue.

If it really is all magnetic poles or solar variations from 1600 years ago or whatever, then sure, we're screwed, lol. But at least we tried to do something, based on the best evidence that we had...

Or we can just bend over for big oil, coal, and nat gas...at least someone is making money off our destruction, right? sigh...

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for investing in alternate energy and things like that. I just don't think that it will "save" us from climate change. I mean, even if hypothetically radical environmentalists somehow get their way in the U.S. (completely destroying our economy and ruining the lives of in the process), what about China and India? I don't know, I'm just not sure that it's even possible to get global Co2 levels down to an amount that will prevent the climate from changing significantly, which I why I think we need to just assume that the climate is going to change and try to adapt. Of course, I have no idea how to go about that either...
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2017, 10:03:07 PM »

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for investing in alternate energy and things like that. I just don't think that it will "save" us from climate change. I mean, even if hypothetically radical environmentalists somehow get their way in the U.S. (completely destroying our economy and ruining the lives of in the process), what about China and India? I don't know, I'm just not sure that it's even possible to get global Co2 levels down to an amount that will prevent the climate from changing significantly, which I why I think we need to just assume that the climate is going to change and try to adapt. Of course, I have no idea how to go about that either...

Well first of all, as a resident of state that is going to take large land losses as a result of this...I agree with you that adaptation is important and should be looked into. But there's a big difference between that and "it's a Chinese conspiracy".

To quote Elon Musk, "There is going to be some level of damage". But it doesn't have to be total, and environmental policies don't have to totally destroy the economy either. Our lifestyle probably will have to change, though, but do we really need to use as much carbon as we currently do? Idk, I can't just write the species off to extinction, lol. We can beat this thing, or at least, give it our best shot.

A 4% investment of Global GDP over a 20 year period would probably solve the crisis. A carbon tax, which was supported by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (and dem socialist Bernie) would probably help quite a bit towards that goal. It might sound crazy, but hey, when the banks needed that kind of money in 2008, they got it. It is possible...the will just isn't there yet.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,064
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2017, 10:08:53 PM »

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for investing in alternate energy and things like that. I just don't think that it will "save" us from climate change. I mean, even if hypothetically radical environmentalists somehow get their way in the U.S. (completely destroying our economy and ruining the lives of in the process), what about China and India? I don't know, I'm just not sure that it's even possible to get global Co2 levels down to an amount that will prevent the climate from changing significantly, which I why I think we need to just assume that the climate is going to change and try to adapt. Of course, I have no idea how to go about that either...

Well first of all, as a resident of state that is going to take large land losses as a result of this...I agree with you that adaptation is important and should be looked into. But there's a big difference between that and "it's a Chinese conspiracy".

To quote Elon Musk, "There is going to be some level of damage". But it doesn't have to be total, and environmental policies don't have to totally destroy the economy either. Our lifestyle probably will have to change, though, but do we really need to use as much carbon as we currently do? Idk, I can't just write the species off to extinction, lol. We can beat this thing, or at least, give it our best shot.

A 4% investment of Global GDP over a 20 year period would probably solve the crisis. A carbon tax, which was supported by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (and dem socialist Bernie) would probably help quite a bit towards that goal. It might sound crazy, but hey, when the banks needed that kind of money in 2008, they got it. It is possible...the will just isn't there yet.

Well, I hope you're right. FTR, I do also support a carbon tax, and I don't recall ever saying "it's a Chinese conspiracy". If that's how my post came across, I need to get better at talking. Tongue
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2017, 10:13:11 PM »

Well, I hope you're right. FTR, I do also support a carbon tax, and I don't recall ever saying "it's a Chinese conspiracy". If that's how my post came across, I need to get better at talking. Tongue

Not at all! That was a random shot at Trump and the probable future direction of our national climate policy. We liberals do that from time to time, haha

Trump is on the record as saying this, in case you didn't know.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2017, 10:34:30 PM »

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans [...]
This is perhaps the most galling tactic of climate changing deniers.  It's akin to arguing that because not all lung cancer is caused by tobacco use, nothing should be done about cigarettes.

To be fair, sometimes those who accept the fact that anthropogenic warming is real and significant don't always take into account the economics of what should be done in response, but at this point to argue that we should do nothing to curb anthropogenic warming because the science is inconclusive is ridiculous and short-sighted.
What seems to be the biggest feature of climate change science and the toxic "debate" surrounding it is people filling other peoples' mouths with words.

Where, pray tell, did I say nothing should be done to curb anthropogenic warming?

Put in place a carbon tax!  My carbon footprint is very small for an American.  The true believers that berate me for my "denialism" but brag about how many times they fly each year and where they go will pay for it... not me.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2017, 10:54:10 PM »

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I'm skeptical of the idea that we can really stop climate change. If I was in charge of everything, I would instead try to focus our resources on trying to adapt to the changing climate.

It's not a binary "We do or we don't" problem. Obviously climate change has already started and will continue regardless of what we do. But we can still control how bad it gets through things like emission reductions.

That said, I agree that we need to work on adaptation as well, because we're obviously going to have to adapt somewhat because previous generations have already screwed us to some extent.
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2017, 10:55:59 PM »


Put in place a carbon tax!  My carbon footprint is very small for an American.  The true believers that berate me for my "denialism" but brag about how many times they fly each year and where they go will pay for it... not me.

It's wild that with all this disagreement in this thread, most of us agree on this basic policy idea that would make a world of difference in dealing with the problem. If the US initiated this policy, it would be a huge event, and others would likely follow.

I wish we could put this to a national referendum like they do in Switzerland. I'd bet it would pass. But, instead, our government is firmly against pursuing this policy. We ultimately chose between two major candidates who were not in favor of it, and totally uninterested in discussing it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2017, 11:10:44 PM »

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans [...]
This is perhaps the most galling tactic of climate changing deniers.  It's akin to arguing that because not all lung cancer is caused by tobacco use, nothing should be done about cigarettes.

To be fair, sometimes those who accept the fact that anthropogenic warming is real and significant don't always take into account the economics of what should be done in response, but at this point to argue that we should do nothing to curb anthropogenic warming because the science is inconclusive is ridiculous and short-sighted.
What seems to be the biggest feature of climate change science and the toxic "debate" surrounding it is people filling other peoples' mouths with words.

Where, pray tell, did I say nothing should be done to curb anthropogenic warming?

Put in place a carbon tax!  My carbon footprint is very small for an American.  The true believers that berate me for my "denialism" but brag about how many times they fly each year and where they go will pay for it... not me.

Where pray tell, did I say you specifically had said nothing should be done?  That said, if you're going to use the arguments of those who do explicitly say nothing should be done, you'd best make clear that you aren't in that camp on a regular basis.

Incidentally, I will be flying this year for the first time over thirty years, so I'm hardly a frequent flier.
Logged
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,662
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2017, 11:20:45 PM »

The media wants 'definitive' and this just isn't in that basket.

This has nothing to do with the "media", though. NASA has a page on this, the US EPA as well. And again, in the post you quoted, I posted a Meta-Analysis with over 10,000 papers in agreement on the source of the warming.

According to most scientists, the reason for the warming is definitive - it's caused by greenhouse gases emitted by human beings, chiefly Co2.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps! The key word is "could be", however. The greenhouse effect WILL be unless we change our behavior.

At the very least, doesn't it make sense to control this until we can be sure? The best you skepitcal guys can come up with is to say that "we don't know for sure". So, I say control these emissions as much as possible, to make sure we're okay.

I'm calling for a TOTAL AND COMPLETE SHUTDOWN of Greenhouse gasses until we can figure out what the hell is going on! =D

That is a fair point, but in terms of international business conditions, unlikely.

Coal fired power stations are still a large component of energy production.

I would not say I am skeptical. Simply not an alarmist yet. Very happy with wind and solar energy production in my state in Australia. Some towns have 40% of their energy coming from wind, and could easily bump that up to 100% with more turbines.



I just want to see more data over a complete cycle of the effect of increased CO2. Drilling ice in Antarctica is one data source. The argument that you cannot decide to change your CO2 output when it is too late is also a valid one.

We are at peak oil now, and there is around 400-500 years left of coal resources in the ground, so I cannot see large companies stopping production of these when they are cheap sources of energy.

And yes, the Earth's magnetic field does, flip, animals get fried, and then once the magnetic field is setup again thousands of years later, it starts catching solar ionised particles again.

I would say that would have blown ourselves into the 31st century with nuclear weapons by then.

Logged
Ljube
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,999
Political Matrix
E: 2.71, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2017, 10:14:58 AM »

No. I certainly don't agree with any sort of carbon tax.

Taxing is simply not a solution. Taxing either makes it worse for the people who are poor, or if they are subsidized, does not achieve anything.

We need advances in technology to make alternatives to carbon viable. These technological breakthroughs will not only reduce carbon emissions, but will spur economic growth for many years, because everybody will want to have the new, efficient technology.
Logged
PresidentSamTilden
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 507


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2017, 04:59:23 PM »

No. I certainly don't agree with any sort of carbon tax.

Taxing is simply not a solution. Taxing either makes it worse for the people who are poor, or if they are subsidized, does not achieve anything.

We need advances in technology to make alternatives to carbon viable. These technological breakthroughs will not only reduce carbon emissions, but will spur economic growth for many years, because everybody will want to have the new, efficient technology.


I don't think that's an appropriate response to what looks like a looming disaster. It's the equivalent of FDR saying after Pearl Harbor, "well, we can't disrupt the free market by mobilizing our nation for war. Guess we'll just have to hope for a group of vigilantes to form and deal with the Japanese".

We need something much better than that. If anything, a Carbon tax isn't going far enough...but it's a good place to start.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: January 07, 2017, 05:32:11 PM »

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report, published on Monday at the global climate summit in Morocco, found the global temperature in 2016 is running 1.2C above pre-industrial levels. This is perilously close to to the 1.5C target included as an aim of the Paris climate agreement last December.


I personally do not believe we can wait.

Island nations will be submerged

Massive fall in agricultural production

Fight & a potential World War over Limited resources

Pollution is causing respiratory diseases & deaths

The Tropic Zone will become unbearable to live due to high heat

There will be more heat waves, floods & hurricanes

One-fourth of Earth’s species will be headed for extinction by 2050

Coastal communities are severely affected
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: January 07, 2017, 05:38:18 PM »

Thanks to media hype and the general inability for most people to properly understand complicated science they are not particularly interested in, there is a commonly held misconception that ALL warming since the industrial revolution was caused by humans [...]
This is perhaps the most galling tactic of climate changing deniers.  It's akin to arguing that because not all lung cancer is caused by tobacco use, nothing should be done about cigarettes.

To be fair, sometimes those who accept the fact that anthropogenic warming is real and significant don't always take into account the economics of what should be done in response, but at this point to argue that we should do nothing to curb anthropogenic warming because the science is inconclusive is ridiculous and short-sighted.
What seems to be the biggest feature of climate change science and the toxic "debate" surrounding it is people filling other peoples' mouths with words.

Where, pray tell, did I say nothing should be done to curb anthropogenic warming?

Put in place a carbon tax!  My carbon footprint is very small for an American.  The true believers that berate me for my "denialism" but brag about how many times they fly each year and where they go will pay for it... not me.

A Carbon Tax is actually the best way to fight crony capitalism & have a free market.

For one, can anyone argue that coal based pollution causes respiratory diseases, increases healthcare costs (w/o even going into Climate Change)?

This is called negative externality so you're not paying the Negative Social cost caused. In macro-economics the simple point is that coal & polluting fuels are not subsidized by the general tax payers of this social cost. You are already suffering the effects, paying taxes, suffering agricultural productivity, natural disasters, etc.

If you let coal & oil bear some costs there will be a little increase in prices but then Solar & Wind can compete on an even playing field vs Fossil fuels. Also the money obtained can be used to help those communities suffering from climate change or use to fuel Clean energy R & D which will bring costs of Solar, Wind down!
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,843
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2017, 03:05:46 AM »

So you're saying my winters will be less cold and snowy?

Yes -- but you will get more rain and less snow.

The snow that you will miss will be more useful to crops than rain that flows away quickly, A snow cover protects topsoil moisture that plants need in the spring for germination. Open soil in winter is easily dried and eroded.

Your crops need the snow, and that is the difference between the rich farmlands of eastern Nebraska and the dry short-grass prairies  of western Nebraska. Yes, there is less overall precipitation in western Nebraska, but even that is the difference between winter snows in the east and their near absence in the west.

I live in Michigan... and the one really-mild winter that we had (2012) was followed by poor crop yields in the summer. By July, stream levels were low and the grass was about as yellow as I would expect in the Central Valley of California.

If you live in the Midwest, the quality of your life depends to no small extent upon crop yields... unpleasant as the blizzards are, they prove necessary for the economic health of your community.
Logged
Shadows
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,956
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: January 13, 2017, 01:49:32 AM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0o2E4d8Ts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ0o2E4d8Ts
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 12 queries.