Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Guy McPherson

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 03 Feb 2019, 14:16:23

"We need a miracle"

Indeed, and since your getting all poetic on us, let me contribute some other lyrics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRf7_qa__F8

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xqiu0ekahw

Back to Guy--I do think that he tends to look at the ranges of possibilities presented at any time anywhere in the science and assumes that the absolute worse is sure to happen. Unfortunately, all too often as science improves, we learn things are indeed on the worse to worst side of the range--lots of 'fat tails,' too.

As I pointed out elsewhere I believe, new reassessments of the cooling force of aerosols points that indicator up from ~.5 C to closer to 1 C...not quite Guy's preferred estimate of 2 C, but moving in that direction.

That's bad, because it means that if aerosols are cooling that much, the heating it is masking is even greater. So we are just a major economic downturn away (or a more aggressive global push against dirty coal plants) from seeing a fairly sudden (like within weeks) jump in temps by a full degree. No one knows what the effects of such sudden and dramatic global increase would be, but it likely wouldn't be very pretty.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17930
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby Fredrik » Sun 03 Feb 2019, 14:41:37

At least in theory, aerosols could be used as a stop-gap measure via geoengineering to buy us some time (years, decades?) to radically decrease CO2 emissions (although even a radical decrease wouldn't completely stop warming either by now). There may well be negative side-effects, such as shifting rainfall patterns, but it would probably be better than doing nothing. The governments are probably going to need a hard climate shock with failed crops and famine before seriously implementing geoengineering, though.

The most urgent aspect of climate change is the threat to food production by warming and drought. Large parts of the northern forest regions must be taken into agricultural use. There are still areas with mostly deciduous forest in Russia that may support crops when cleared into fields, while the more acidic coniferous forest soils are by and large suitable for potatoes, although these northern areas are obviously not enough to replace all the temperate zone farmland currently in use - and the clearing of forests itself decreases CO2 sinks.
"Only scarcity and effort make life worth living."
"A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on [individual] desires." -Pentti Linkola
User avatar
Fredrik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 05 Nov 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Finland

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 03 Feb 2019, 15:29:47

Here is a link, to what Fredrik is referring to called "stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) ". In fact it is on track to be attempted this year.
I would add though that this is not addressing acidification of the oceans nor presumably accumulation of CO2 in the atmoshere. So, then we would have to perpetually employ this technology to keep the Earth from heating?
Finally, I am also wondering is this not reducing the total natural (Sun) energy budget that all life relies on directly and indirectly to survive?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/science/ ... ?li=AA59G2
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10139
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby Fredrik » Sun 03 Feb 2019, 17:39:37

There was a recent study claiming that particle dimming would reduce sunlight for plant growth, enough to offset any positive cooling effect for crops suffering from heat. However, there was a caveat that this study was based on mechanisms of dimming from volcanic eruptions, and that man-made aerosol injection could have different properties and might not cause such damaging reductions of sunlight.

Another study, cautiously optimistic:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... g_2101-105
"Only scarcity and effort make life worth living."
"A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on [individual] desires." -Pentti Linkola
User avatar
Fredrik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 05 Nov 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Finland

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 03 Feb 2019, 20:24:35

dohboi wrote:Back to Guy--I do think that he tends to look at the ranges of possibilities presented at any time anywhere in the science and assumes that the absolute worse is sure to happen.


Based on viewing Guy's various claims for the timing of civilization collapse, on none of his collapse claims that are already in the past did he couch them in terms of probabilities. Not a single word related to statistics, no cumulative ascending or descending, no central tendency of a distribution in time or dependency on the independent variable, no general language of probability, certainly no fractile or percentile estimates on those collapse time frames.

Do you have a reference, in particular for his claims of collapse that are already in the past, where he used any sort of statistic calculation in any way, shape or form?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4347
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 03 Feb 2019, 22:08:15

???

I just said what you just said, so why are you asking me this? He doesn't give statistical ranges of probability. He just picks the most extreme point that he can find anywhere in the literature and presents it as the value.

I don't really care much about what he says or what he has predicted. Coming up with specific years for when you know something is going to happen for sure when it come to something as complex as climate is just stupid.

So we're in agreement on that, right?
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 17930
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby jupiters_release » Mon 04 Feb 2019, 13:27:09

Rod_Cloutier wrote:
Parental Advisory for explicit content


Content over the top. The lucky bugger got a threesome, and yet he's travelling all around the place telling people to commit suicide.

His reputation has just gone down a few notches.


He mentioned that was a completely fabricated smear campaign. Writing, grammar, spelling definitely not in line with Guy's "let's see the dictionary definition" concretized mindset.
Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish opinions.
jupiters_release
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 04 Feb 2019, 22:34:31

dohboi wrote:???

I just said what you just said, so why are you asking me this? He doesn't give statistical ranges of probability. He just picks the most extreme point that he can find anywhere in the literature and presents it as the value.

I don't really care much about what he says or what he has predicted. Coming up with specific years for when you know something is going to happen for sure when it come to something as complex as climate is just stupid.

So we're in agreement on that, right?


Upon rereading the original paragraph I had focused on in the original post I commented on, I believe we are.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4347
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Cool blob and the AWW, Arctic Warm Wedge

Unread postby Whitefang » Tue 05 Feb 2019, 08:44:45

jupiters_release wrote:
Rod_Cloutier wrote:
Parental Advisory for explicit content


Content over the top. The lucky bugger got a threesome, and yet he's travelling all around the place telling people to commit suicide.

His reputation has just gone down a few notches.


He mentioned that was a completely fabricated smear campaign. Writing, grammar, spelling definitely not in line with Guy's "let's see the dictionary definition" concretized mindset.


The smear campaign works fine, many of his presentations get cancelled as people are walking away from him, even if he proves he never met this Selina person he will be tainted as a dirty ol'basterd chasing young girls up the stairs with sexual favours and fantasies in mind....not that there is anything wrong with that :-D as long as nobody is forced unless you want to, everybody is happy, satisfied weather sexual or monetary.

But let us stick with the facts on abrupt CC.

He does not know himself where exactly we are on the exponential curve, he expects we are a few years or even months before the speed up, interesting article on his blog, cool blob on the North Atlantic, minus 3 degrees cooling for decades as a result of Heinrich event speed up, The GIS in a terminal condition.

First the latest, on the hotspot near Svalbard and African cold:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/

Surface air temperatures near Svalbard were as high as 5.2°C or 41.4°F near Svalbard on February 3, 2019. At the same time, it was as cold as -3.5°C or 25.6°F in Africa.
The contrast was even more profound on February 4, 2018, when at those same spots it was as cold as -10°C or 13.9°F in Africa, while at the same time it was as warm as 5.8 or 42.4°F near Svalbard.
How is this possible?

As the Arctic warms up faster than the rest of the world, the temperature difference between the North Pole and the Equator narrows, making the jet stream wavier, thus enabling cold air from the Arctic to descend further south, as illustrated by the image on the right, showing instantaneous wind power density at 250 hPa (jet stream) on February 4, 2018.
Furthermore, as oceans get warmer, the temperature difference between land and oceans increases in Winter. This larger temperature difference results in stronger winds that can carry more warm, moist air inland, e.g. into the U.S., as illustrated by the cartoon on the right.
As the jet stream becomes wavier, this also enables more heat to enter the Arctic.
On December 8, 2018, the sea surface temperature near Svalbard was 18.2°C or 32.7°F warmer than 1981-2011. On January 23, 2019, sea surface temperatures at that spot were as high as 18.3°C or 64.9°F, as illustrated by the image on the right, from an earlier post.

A warmer sea surface can cause winds to grow dramatically stronger, and they can push warm, moist air into the Arctic, while they can also speed up sea currents that carry warm, salty water into the Arctic Ocean.
As warmer water keeps flowing into the Arctic Ocean and as air temperatures in the Arctic are now starting to rise on the back of a strengthening El Niño, fears for a Blue Ocean Event are rising.
Rivers can also carry huge amounts of warm water from North America and Siberia into the Arctic Ocean, as these areas are getting hit by ever stronger heatwaves that are hitting the Arctic earlier in the year.
With Arctic sea ice at a low, it won't be able to act as a buffer to absorb heat for long, with the danger that an influx of warm, salty water will reach the seafloor and trigger methane eruptions.
Ominously, the image below shows peak methane levels as high as 2764 ppb on February 2, 2019.

As the Earth continues to heat, paleoclimate evidence suggests transient reversals will result in accentuating the temperature polarities, leading to increase in the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events.

Pleistocene paleoclimate records indicate interglacial temperature peaks are consistently succeeded by transient stadial freeze events, such as the Younger Dryas and the 8.5 kyr-old Laurentide ice melt, attributed to cold ice melt water flow from the polar ice sheets into the North Atlantic Ocean. The paleoclimate evidence raises questions regarding the mostly linear to curved future climate model trajectories proposed for the 21ᵗʰ century and beyond, not marked by tipping points. However, early stages of a stadial event are manifest by a weakening of the North Atlantic overturning circulation and the build-up of a large pool of cold water south and east of Greenland and along the fringes of Western Antarctica. Comparisons with climates of the early Holocene Warm Period and the Eemian interglacial when global temperatures were about +1°C higher than late Holocene levels. The probability of a future stadial event bears major implications for modern and future climate change trends, including transient cooling of continental regions fringing the Atlantic Ocean, an increase in temperature polarities between polar and tropical zones across the globe, and thereby an increase in storminess, which need to be taken into account in planning global warming adaptation efforts.



User avatar
Whitefang
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri 12 May 2006, 02:00:00

Arctic heat wave

Unread postby Whitefang » Tue 05 Feb 2019, 15:07:36

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/w ... 834,77.461

Minus 8 degrees Celcius at the shore of the northernmost peninsula of Asia
User avatar
Whitefang
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri 12 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 14 Feb 2019, 13:16:50

Tanada wrote:
How having a PhD in Biology, Conservation Biology, Climate Science, or anything else really doesn't necessarily qualify you to speak on energy issues. Having actual expertise on energy issues is more important as without the prerequisite 10,000 hours of study you just won't know what you don't know.

On a Facebook page called the Arctic News I got into an argument with some Guy McPherson (a conservation biologist) fan club boys about global dimming. The thrust of their position was that because of global dimming caused by aerosols put into the atmosphere by dirty power plants (all kinds including mobile ones) it would not do us any good to try doing anything about global warming.

The thrust of their argument is that based upon a 2001 study of planet warming caused by the suspension of air traffic in the United States following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001 means that if we were to eliminate air pollution from dirty global warming sources the planet would warm up an additional 1 degree Celsius to 1.5 degrees in the matter of a few weeks. The couple week lag is for the time it takes for particulate matter to fall out of the air basically.

https://youtu.be/SUev0yAUGNc

None of this proven in any prima fascia way mind you, it is just extrapolated from data gathered from one incident of involving one event in the United States lasting a few days in the year 2001.

While studying this event is useful and it is something we need to do it doesn’t mean we should make the conjectural leap to the idea that society at large should not bother even trying to combat climate change by installing renewable energy, switching to electric drive vehicles, or improving energy storage and efficiency. It is my position this idea is just wrong regardless of if the foundational premise is true.

Later I ran across a James Lovelock (another biologist) You Tube Video where he was talking about how human numbers need to be reduced to less than one billion people for our civilization to have any chance to being sustainable. This is a position I have held for quite a while based upon the historical evidence we have. Mysteriously Lovelock says it is a waste of time for humanity to try to reduce their carbon emissions by switching to renewable resources also. Somehow magically if there were less than one billion humans all would be fine (presumably even if we all were still using fossil fuels?) but reducing carbon emissions now while we are in population overshoot would be a waste of time.

https://youtu.be/dBUvZDSY2D0

What gives here, am I missing something or am I witnessing a Podsnap flourish? I think what Lovelock is really saying is that given the context of population overshoot (by a factor of 10X) that renewables, and carbon emission reduction schemes won’t save us. That has been my position also, but that doesn’t mean these things are worthless efforts, or that we should not do them. It is all about the context, and in this instance the context is unstated.

This kind of advice is not only bad advice; it is poorly articulated to be charitable about it. Guy McPherson stayed at our house once in preparation for giving one of his talks for the ASLC in town here. While he was here I showed him a LED light bulb and explained to him that it was literally thousands of time more efficient at producing light then a kerosene lantern. He seemed unimpressed in a Rumsfeldian kind of way.

https://youtu.be/HC8-b29xGz0

In other words he didn’t know what he didn’t know. Neither Guy McPherson nor James Lovelock are experts in the field of energy matters. Having a PHD in another field and general scientific knowledge may lead them to think they are expert enough to speak on matters they don’t have expertise in really. If I were to trust a climate change scientist (not a conservation biologist or a biologist) in energy matters I would be more inclined to trust Kevin Anderson of the Tyndale Center in England who really seems to know his stuff about current energy issues

https://youtu.be/ZF1zNpzf8RM

Who am I to judge this you may well ask? I have been interested in energy issues since the early 1980’s. I was the Vice President of an energy efficiency company called Negawatts Inc. for 10 years. I also worked at power plant for over 24 years at NMSU operating boilers, chillers, and a jet turbine that generated 4.2 megawatts of power for the campus. This a long with my abiding interest in energy issues qualifies me more than a PHD who just thinks they know about a field they really have never studied or experienced in any depth.

I heard this kind of talk from “Doomers or Collapsitarians (parroting the Guy McPherson line) all the time. While the word “Hubris” doesn’t normally apply to this kind of speech it helps to think of it that way.

So called experts making broad stroke assertions about Near Term Human Extinction and the uselessness of any steps to even try to address climate change are just way out over their skis in the mental ski jumps they are making.

In the first place the climate system has proven to be astonishingly complex and over the last thirty years has thrown lots of curve balls at the climate scientist studying the issue. While we do know it is being caused by human activities we do not know in any great detail about how it will play out over the next fifty years, if we have that long? Anyone who claims they do know is either oblivious to their ignorance on the matter, suffering from their own form of hubris, or both. Giving advice to society at large not to act is foolish in the same way it is foolish to tell a young person not to bother with automobile insurance because they likely will not get into an accident.

Since renewable energy sources like solar and wind are now cheaper than fossil fuels such advice runs counter to what society is now likely to do anyway for least cost decisions. Electric drive for example uses one third less energy per mile, so why would you advise people to throw away money on petro cars when they have a better option. It is the same all down the line as the advice runs completely counter to the best economic decisions people make if they were acting on the best enlightened self-interest.

There is one last caveat, so what if we are all going to die soon, that doesn’t make a prima fascia case for wasting money or resources. I will be 69 years old this year and I can guarantee you I am not going to be throwing away money needlessly. Even without NTHE (Near Term Human Extinction) I will probably die of natural causes in twenty years. Even so, I am advising my children to buy efficiencies and electric drive for their next car purchase. I don’t know enough to tell them it is a waste of time and they shouldn’t bother trying. We have grandchildren and if these efforts buy them years, or even just a day the effort is justifiable in my mind.

What is on display here with our PHD friends and fan boy followers, is not their knowledge or insight, it is the poverty of their ignorance about energy matters generally, and their inability to imagine a world not being run on fossil fuels. They just don’t know what they don’t know, or seem appreciate the fact that there are unknown unknowns. A little humility in the face of their and our collective ignore-rance is what is called for here. Such arrogance about ignorance is the very root cause and meaning of the word “Hubris”.


LINK



I think this is pretty accurate, many academics think because they are experts in one field they are experts in every field they are interested in.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4385
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Spring is in the air......blue flowers everywhere

Unread postby Whitefang » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 11:06:03

Global Dimming is no fantasy, but the topic is far from settled.
If the loss of the dirty shield would only jump the global temerature half a degree, we would suddenly be at 2 degrees Celcius above preindustrial, enough to trigger almost all the 60 plus feedbacks in high gear, if they aren't already.
We only need a tiny extra effort to push the arctic over the brink, the rest will follow soon after, years and decades for the large ice sheets and glaciers.
We should celebrate the spring with every inch of joy we can muster :-D
Holland just broke new daily temperature records, a full month early for the flowers to come up and bloom 8)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.[19] According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."[20] The magnitude of this masking effect is one of the central problems in current climate change with significant implications for future climate changes and policy responses to global warming.[19]
Interactions between the two theories for climate modification have also been studied, as global warming and global dimming are neither mutually exclusive nor contradictory. In a paper published on March 8, 2005 in the American Geophysical Union's Geophysical Research Letters, a research team led by Anastasia Romanou of Columbia University's Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, New York, also showed that the apparently opposing forces of global warming and global dimming can occur at the same time.[21] Global dimming interacts with global warming by blocking sunlight that would otherwise cause evaporation and the particulates bind to water droplets. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas. On the other hand, global dimming is affected by evaporation and rain. Rain has the effect of clearing out polluted skies.
Brown clouds have been found to amplify global warming according to Veerabhadran Ramanathan, an atmospheric chemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, CA. "The conventional thinking is that brown clouds have masked as much as 50 percent of global warming by greenhouse gases through so-called global dimming... While this is true globally, this study reveals that over southern and eastern Asia, the soot particles in the brown clouds are in fact amplifying the atmospheric warming trend caused by greenhouse gases by as much as 50 percent."[22]


photograph showing aircraft contrails and natural clouds. The temporary disappearance of contrails over North America due to plane groundings after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the resulting increase in diurnal temperature range gave empirical evidence of the effect of thin ice clouds at the Earth's surface.[


https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/w ... 932,65.212

Look at the Taiga, largest forest worldwide, all winter the eurasian side, west of the Urals, has been way above normal, now even the normaly coldest place on the NH, northeast Siberia has reached minus 8 degrees Celcius, a heat wave in winter. Problem is if this persists, it will lead to early snowmelt on the trees and ground, early ice break up, warm high pressure and heat to the arctic ocean, the ideal conditions for a new record low sea ice extent or even the first BOE.

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2 ... R2_nic.png


Sea ice is breaking up, lots of yellow and even green, if you know what I mean 8O
User avatar
Whitefang
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri 12 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 12:02:11

Over time, organic carbon settles into the deep ocean—a process referred to as the "biological pump." The upper ocean has lower concentrations of total carbon than the deep ocean as a result of this pump. But if the ocean were completely mixed from top to bottom, as could happen if its "thermohaline" (heat and salt) circulation system was disrupted, much of this carbon could be churned up toward the surface. The ocean could become a source, rather than a sink, of carbon dioxide—a phenomenon that would have a catastrophic impact on global temperatures.


https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/featu ... s_chem.php
Last edited by onlooker on Fri 15 Feb 2019, 12:04:53, edited 1 time in total.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10139
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 12:03:21

I know most will dismiss it as 'anecdotal evidence' but when I was a kid the local river had enough ice in winter you could safely walk/skate on it and lake Erie almost always had enough winter ice for people to drag ice shanties out miles off shore with snow mobiles or even pickup trucks in really cold winters. Now we rarely get winter ice on the river and the lake has not frozen that hard in about 15 years. Sure in sheltered locations the lake still gets some iced over spots, but the ice used to extend half way to the international border with Canada, now it is close inshore.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15225
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby Revi » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 14:28:59

He's a bit melodramatic, but maybe we need someone like Guy in order to get people listening. His predictions may be dire, but maybe we can even get most of the decision makers to at least consider the possibility that this is a big problem and we should do something.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7020
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby jedrider » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 15:19:04

Revi wrote:He's a bit melodramatic, but maybe we need someone like Guy in order to get people listening. His predictions may be dire, but maybe we can even get most of the decision makers to at least consider the possibility that this is a big problem and we should do something.


I think Guy will be wrong, but only by half. 6-8 years out versus 12-16 years out is really a big deal, though.

It is interesting how the world refuses to entertain a paradigm shift. The wealthy get more wealthy and all is well with them.

The rest of us will get shoved through the grinder, but without a technological civilization, very few of us can survive (certainly not the wealthy), and the remaining few will be at the mercy of what's left of our technological civilization (the well to do, perhaps, and their puppets).

I'm all for preserving what's left of nature and if we don't head that, I am so satisfied with the fate that we will meet. I think Guy would concur with that.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1227
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby pstarr » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 18:35:03

Tanada wrote:I know most will dismiss it as 'anecdotal evidence' but when I was a kid the local river had enough ice in winter you could safely walk/skate on it and lake Erie almost always had enough winter ice for people to drag ice shanties out miles off shore with snow mobiles or even pickup trucks in really cold winters. Now we rarely get winter ice on the river and the lake has not frozen that hard in about 15 years. Sure in sheltered locations the lake still gets some iced over spots, but the ice used to extend half way to the international border with Canada, now it is close inshore.

One could say the same re Dutch winters, once upon a time.
Image
The Little Ice Age came and went. As do the seasons.

    "Sit by my side, come as close as the air
    Share in a memory of gray
    Wander in my words, dream about the pictures
    That I play of changes

    Green leaves of summer turn red in the fall
    To brown and to yellow they fade
    And then they have to die, trapped within
    The circle time parade of changes

    Scenes of my young years were warm in my mind
    Visions of shadows that shine
    Till one day I returned and found they were the
    Victims of the vines of changes

    The world's spinning madly, it drifts in the dark
    Swings through a hollow of haze
    A race around the stars, a journey through
    The universe ablaze with changes

    Moments of magic will glow in the night
    All fears of the forest are gone
    But when the morning breaks they're swept away by
    Golden drops of dawn, of changes

    Passions will part to a strange melody
    As fires will sometimes burn cold
    Like petals in the wind, we're puppets to the silver
    Strings of souls, of changes

    Your tears will be trembling, now we're somewhere else
    One last cup of wine we will pour
    And I'll kiss you one more time, and leave you on
    The rolling river shores of changes

    Sit by my side, come as close as the air
    Share in a memory of gray
    Wander in my words, dream about the pictures
    That I play of changes"
--Phil Ochs.
Image
SA has peaked. OPEC has peaked. So goes the world.
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27869
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 15 Feb 2019, 21:41:16

He's baaaack.

Image

And with it, the forum discussion will descend back into the gutter.
"this is peak now. Wanna bet? The Real Pain starts . . . now." (11/21/18)" --pstarr
"$0/barrel soon as per etp." (12/30/18)" --pstarr
ATTN: SHORT LOST A BET AND WON'T EVEN ADMIT HE MADE ONE. HE SHOULD NOT BE WELCOME HERE!
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Feb 2019, 08:06:26

asg70 wrote:He's baaaack.

Image

And with it, the forum discussion will descend back into the gutter.

Give him a break ASG, he is being poetic :)
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10139
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Guy McPherson

Unread postby asg70 » Sat 16 Feb 2019, 12:33:07

He's being AGW-denialist (i.e. evoking the little ice age) in poetic form.

Same old PStarr, always furthering his wrong opinions.
"this is peak now. Wanna bet? The Real Pain starts . . . now." (11/21/18)" --pstarr
"$0/barrel soon as per etp." (12/30/18)" --pstarr
ATTN: SHORT LOST A BET AND WON'T EVEN ADMIT HE MADE ONE. HE SHOULD NOT BE WELCOME HERE!
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2205
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests