Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mike_Young on January 07, 2007, 04:30:53 PM
-
As much as we like the Temperatures here in the south right now ti could really put us in a pickle if we have a cold spell. I remember about 12 years ago this happened and much bermuda grass was destroyed..... someone that knows more may speak up but I think it also causes insect problems etc......
Mike
-
I think there are problems world wide, but at least you in the US know there are no global warming issues because your President tells you so. Our PM is hardly going to disagree with him.
-
Mike,
Why would a cold spell cause a problem with the Bermuda now? Isn't it supposed to be cold?
-
Here in Marquette we typically get from 250 to 300 inches of snow each winter - right now we have zilch, though we did get about a foot spread out over the first week of December. I just walked my dog on the beach of Lake Superior and it's about 45 degrees - too bad no courses are open.
But people are playing a couple of them anyway, and that certainly can't be good for the turf, can it? Is there a time limit on the effectiveness of snow mold application? Does it rely on a fairly quick and thorough snow cover to work, or do two months of cold, dry conditions with one brief snow interval mean nothing?
-
Ed,
The situation Mike is referring to occurred a few years back (maybe 7 or 8?) when we had unseasonably warm, wet weather for a long period of time, followed by a sudden, deep cold snap. It happened actually a couple of times that winter, I think, and the result was a tremendous amount of winter kill in the bermuda. At some courses it was acres of dead bermuda, at others spots here and there.
I guess it is because the roots aren't fully dormant due to the warm temps, and the high amount of surface water freezes them when the cold hits???
-
I know here in Wisconsin (Madison area) we don't have any snow whatsoever, and I'm guessing some golf operators may be worried. A few years ago, we had a very similar mild winter, then a day-long rainstorm, followed instantly by sub-zero temperatures that basically covered everything with a layer of ice that really didn't melt for a good long time. The courses in the spring had huge amounts of winter kill, although I think most of the grasses around here aren't bermuda, but a combination of traditional bluegrasses (guessing here...)
-
AG,
Thanks for the feedback. I didn't realize it was wet back there. I thought it was just unseasonably warm. Your explanation makes sense to me.
-
Mike,
Why would a cold spell cause a problem with the Bermuda now? Isn't it supposed to be cold?
Ed,
Basically, the grass sees the warm and thinks winter is over thus beginning to burn up stored carbs....if it then gets cold and the grass was "fooled" it can die.....also many of the insect hatches survive the winter at much higher rates and you have bug issues.....from what I have seen.
-
I think there are problems world wide, but at least you in the US know there are no global warming issues because your President tells you so. Our PM is hardly going to disagree with him.
Well you are right that we down have global warming here in the US but it isnt because our president tells us so, it is because most scientists who don't have an agenda tell us so.
Anecdotal evidence of a warm winter does not global warming make. Unless that is a reality that you have an interest in, financial or otherwise. I have a lot of friends and people I know involved in "The business" through my aquaintainces while attending engineering school (that also had an extensive atmospheric sciences department). I find it interesting how most of the people that have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the GW myth seem to find the most compelling data to support their claims. Just a coincidence? I guess it could be.
-
Mike,
Here in north Texas our tifeagle greens still have a lot of green color to them even though they are really not activly growing. We are getting quite a bit of clippings in the baskets every other day or so. We still have big patches, especially on the south facing slopes of our tifsport fairways, that have not gone completly dormant yet.
From what I understand is that this El Nino pattern we're in temperatures are not supposed to get real cold anytime soon. Now when we get one of those Alberta Clipper cold fronts that brings down a lot of Artic air then we may have some problems.
In the past, the winter desication problems we've found in the spring were during the previous winter when we had some real warm days and then a cold blast sets in and the temps fall dramatically and stay cold. That's were the stored up carbs in the plant come in, but thats happened back in the 80's and sense the new ultra dwarfs have been introduced to this part of the country, we haven't had a winter like that yet.
Gary
-
Thanks for the feedback guys. I find this whole global warming thing interesting. Lately it sounds like some people are beginning to use the phrase "climate change".
I don't know which it is but it is interesting to hear how worked up some people get about it. I was listening to NPR the other night and one guy said he would give more credence to the global warming argument when all it's advocates stopped flying to conferences to talk about it. :)
-
The weather in the San Francisco bay area has been record cold for almost a month. With that said, we have little if any snow in the Sierras/Lake Tahoe region. Couple this with the massive snow in the Denver/Mid West area and the rain in Seattle/NW area and its confusing.
I know Al Gore is talking global warming but we sure don't see it here in the Bay Area. I hope it snaps before the AT&T or you're going to see alot of unhappy people playing at Pebble Beach.
-
I heard a fellow from NOAA state that this particular odd weather snap in the US is not global warming, but the classic effects of El Nino. I can buy that on a limitted basis.
But Daryl, I can't also go with the folks that brought us every other catastrophe we are seeing time after time for this past 6 years (coincidentally the same time as the Bush admin) who tell us that GW is all chicken little, and BTW keep buying our fine petroleum and coal burnin products. It's like old times when some folks in the Tobacco belt actually said smoking was good for you. ::)
We are all having a little fun with this playing golf on the frozen tundra every day for the past week, in January! But, perhaps the piper will have to be paid after this little dance.
The poa is actually growing here. The ground froze, and at the begining of last week, the balls hitting greens would bounce up in the air, and bound well beyond the greens. Then, the ground thawed, and they got quite soft. The grass is getting postively lush in FW low spots. All that is fine, if a mild and blanketing snow cover finally decends and puts the turf back to bed gently. But as Phil states, when it gets very wet and then rapidly very cold, turning to sheet ice, we are screwed with heavy winter kill. If it goes cold slowly, stays dried out, and then stays real cold and windy, we will get dessication. Turf damage and disease pathways, either way.
BTW dos Turboe... ;) How bout them Alps glaciers meltin and that huge ice shelf breakin off in the arctic, and those polar bears drownin cause it is too far to swim from ice flow to ice flow? We have species of southern critters never before seen here on the tundra, particularly insects like the fiddle back spider being found. ::) :-\
-
But Daryl, I can't also go with the folks that brought us every other catastrophe we are seeing time after time for this past 6 years (coincidentally the same time as the Bush admin) who tell us that GW is all chicken little, and BTW keep buying our fine petroleum and coal burnin products.
Come on now Dick.
Its quotes like this that make the arguement from that side of the aisle laughable. If we evil Republicans somehow wanted to change the climate on purpose, what could we have done that quickly "to make this coincide coincidentally with the Bush Admin". That is just laughable.
When you say "the folks that brought us every other catastrophe we are seeing time after time for this past 6 years". Dick, tell me you aren't part of the tin-foil hat crowd that thinks W and Cheney somhow enlisted Halliburton to build a Hurricane producing machine and singlehandedly unleashed Katrina on New Orleans.
Now, it is debatable whether or not we are experiencing an appreciable trend of global warming right now, the modeling is basically educated guessing. The programs can be set up to achieve pretty much whatever you want depending on how you model it. And even if there is such a phenomenon going on now, the cause of it is definitely not man made. Of that there can be no debate, there is just too much real scientific evidence to the contrary.
That is where I have a problem with the Global Warming/Climate Change industry, their interest is not pure, it is strictly anti-capitalism. I have had to many real life experiences with these holier-than-thou organizations to trust anything they say. They play very loose with the scientific principles to suit their end desires.
-
These days I constantly wonder what level of collapse we will have to have to convince the anti-environment/pro-economy people that there is a problem with our environment.
I agree, they do need to come up with a more accurate name for what's going on. Global Warming is a poor and very incomplete description of what is happening.
-
Daryl,
You do make some good points, such as how the current warm winter does not make for proof of global warming -- the trend of the last 25 years shows that the earth is getting warmer, but whether it is a normal fluctation or something else, or whether it is caused by people or not are still under much debate. But you blow all your credibility with stupid statements where you claim that "the cause of it is definitely not man made". There is a lot of dispute on that, and BOTH sides have vested interests and millions to billions of dollars bankrolling their research.
You do not have the scientific credentials and political neutrality to make such a blanket statement, you believe it merely because you've chosen to believe a certain side, rather than investigating and weighing the evidence objectively yourself, and more importantly looking at the potential biases of those who produce the research. If you look only at one side and see them rip apart of the neutrality of the researchers on the other side, but neglect to look at what the other side says about the neutrality of your researchers, you do yourself a disservice. It would be like a jury listening to the prosecution then plugging their ears and saying "la la la" when the defense attempts to refute their conclusion.
There's a constrast here I find interesting. If we were talking about something like mandatory registration of sex offenders so that people can know if a sex offender lives in their neighborhood, preventing them from living near schools, etc. that even though its never been proven that this helps do anything to prevent children from being abused, most people (especially law and order conservatives) will say that it is worth it even if one child can be saved from abuse. But when presented with a similar argument about global warming, where we are pretty sure the climate is getting warmer but can't prove we're responsible for it or that making changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would mitigate it, those same people will say we shouldn't act rashly. Its a symptom similar to the "tragedy of the commons", it is easier to worry about a threat you understand that can directly affect your family and friends in the short term, rather than a threat you don't understand that probably wouldn't personally impact your family or friends in your lifetime.
I love hypocrisy, on side either of the political fence. And similar to global warming, I can't prove that the amount of political hypocrisy is increasing, but it sure looks like it to me, and if I graphed it I'm sure it would look like a hockey stick! ;)
-
You do not have the scientific credentials and political neutrality to make such a blanket statement, you believe it merely because you've chosen to believe a certain side, rather than investigating and weighing the evidence objectively yourself,
You are wrong, I have worked through college and in two different industries where I did do the research. And it is from there as well as other scientific findings that cannot be disputed that I draw my conclusions. The findings I refer to are hard and fast numbers. Not the "We think, this might be happening" or "Scientists surmise that this might be happening" that you will find most all arguements on the other side of the arguement using.
You cannot deny, even if you take the Greenhouse Gases arguement for face value (which I dont, but for the sake of the arguement here lets just assume). If "Greenhouse Gasses" are the culprits causing "Global Warming" the predominant source of CO2 and Methane are natural coming from the respiration (or other bodily functions) of all living organisms, and from decaying vegitation. Volcanoes, and even pristine Forests also emit them it cant be helped.
Volcanoes in fact are the worst offenders, the quantities of toxic material, aerosols, and particulates spewed into the air from Karakatoa in Indonesia, Mount Katmai in Alaska, and Mount Hekla in Iceland in one eruption each is more than the cumulative polution produced by all of mankind since the beginning of the industrial revolution. ALL OF IT!!!!
But since Volcanoes are a little hard to predict, lets just get to natural items that can be quantified on an annual basis. The single largest producer year in and year out are termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about 50 BILLION tons of CO2 and methane annually (That is a measurable, firm, definite number that is a fact), an amount that by itself is about 10 times more than the present world production of manmade CO2. And that is just the termites. Cow flatulence itself produces about 50 Million tons, every rotting tree, plant, more and more it is mind boggling. Now obviously you cant stop cows from being gassy or eliminate termites, but it goes to show you that what we produce is such a small blip compared to what mother nature produces and deals with on its own every day. And has been ever since she has been around (long before factories and SUVs).
It would be like if your neighborhood was strategically located between a giant pig farm, a paper mill, and a fish processing plant, and when you didn't like the smell in the neighborhood you tried to get all your friends to sign a petition saying that your neighbor had to stop eating Mexican food because you think his gas was causing the neighborhood to smell.
And that is all I am getting at when I argue against it, and why I bristle up so much when orginizations (whom I know personally from past personal experience) have a particular agenda are playing loosy goosy with scientific rules to get their agenda advanced I say foul. As an engineer it angers me that the people who call themselves "Environmentalists" frame the argument such that you cannot disagree with them without appearing to be "Against clean air and water", and that is just ridiculous we all know that no sane person can be against clean air and water. What I am against is when anyone stifles what can be proven scientifically in favor of things that cannot be proven scientifically because in their words "it is too important not to believe." If you are a scientist (as I have been formally trained to be) you know that there is no consensus in science. There are only facts. Things either are or aren't based on fact.
We obviously are probably never going to change each others mind, I just feel obligated to take the less popular position because the facts I have seen and know tell me that is the side of more truth than I have personally seen from the other side. I do so because most people (especially non technical people) are going to naturally side with the path of least resistance, and that is the way the environmentalists have framed the argument. So be it.
Anyway this has gotten way off GCA topic and I am done. Again I just feel passionately because the argument is always slanted in one direction.
And to get back to the original thoughts, yes it has been a warm December, and I hope it holds on for three more weeks for my Myrtle Beach trip. Guess I better drive the Durango not my Accord for the next couple weeks to insure it.
-
Let's get David Moriarty on here ! Maybe he can extend this discussion beyond the number of posts on the Merion thread.
I'm with you, Turboe !
Willie
-
Why do the USA not just sign up to Kotyo?
-
Turboe,
A link for you to consider.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html
I think that if you review his statements over the past year and a half, even Bush no longer disputes climate change. He DOES dispute the reasons, of course, as well as what to do about it.
-
Look AK when in 1985 the "American Coasts: Progress and Promise (Coastal States Organization 1985)" said that by the year 2000, 80 percent of Americans will live within an hour's drive to the coast. By the year 2010, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration says, population density along ocean coasts will be almost four hundred people per square mile, as against less than one hundred per square mile for the rest of the nation." Per Rhode Island Sea Grant, NOAA's Ocean Control Program, Science for Solutions (Washington, D.C.)
You realize where the money tree really exists !
-
BTW, Mars is also experiencing GW at approx. the same rate as earth... http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html (http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html) Hmmmmmmmm... ??? ::) ??? ::)
-
The "global warming" argument is being completely misconstrued here. The scientists who have proposed that human activity is leading to some increase in average atmospheric temperature have argued three things: (1) that human polluting activity is responsible for very slight increases in average atmospheric temperatures; (2) that this slight change in atmospheric temperature can cause changes in weather patterns (i.e., three blizzards in Denver in a week at the same time that Boston is 70 degrees); and (3) that ultimately a very slight increase in atmospheric temperature can cause rising sea levels.
The first argument recognizes that nature is responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that insulate the earth and regulate its temperature. Scientists are not contending that all greenhouse gases are bad -- if there were no greenhouse gases on Earth, Earth would likely be too cold to support life.
The second argument contemplates that marginal increases in atmospheric CO2 levels create "blips" in atmospheric temperatures.
The third argument relatedly recognizes that these small blips can cause small environmental effects -- for example, a five foot rise in sea levels -- that can cause devestating consequences for human beings (who have settled and populated on the expectation of no significant climate change), as well as plant and animal life (this is simply a survival of the fittest phenomenon).
I don't get why this argument is at all controversial. Is there any doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are responsible for insulating Earth? Isn't it simple logic that an increase in such gases will increase the insulation in a linear fashion?
It's like saying that square grooves are leading to an increase in spin rates on wedge shots from the rough. Obviously v-shaped grooves will impart some spin on the ball from the rough. It is simply the case that square grooves will impart more.
It is probably a coincidence that are major population centers on the east coast are experiencing unseasonably warm weather just months after An Inconvenient Truth played in theaters. I don't doubt that Boston and New York will get hit with frigid temperatures soon. But it's not a bad thing that this coincidence is occurring. Humans are like the frogs on the frying pan -- we don't take notice of small incrimental changes until it is too late.
-
How quickly some threads spin out of control when there's a hint of politics involved! The weather here in Chicago has been unusually mild for a couple months after a pretty wet fall. We have really only had one significant snowfall, but plenty of rain, even in January (1.5 inches last Thursday). I'm no agronomist, but I would venture to say that this will generally bode well for the turf in the spring...
Now, about this global warming debate...
-
My barber told me last week that everything in The Inconvenient Truth was true, so I haven't left the house since...
-
Its rained here in the south west of England pretty much every day for two months, most inland courses are waterlogged. Yesterday (sunday) we had 27 people play. Normal is 120.
-
Since there's been a lot of anecdotal evidence for global warming mentioned, here's some anecdotal evidence against it. The three feet of snow in my yard in the Denver suburbs. More snow anticipated later this week. Most unusual.
-
Daryl, you are very persuasive and authoritative. I appreciate that. I of course am no scientist. I am however one of the rest of us all who like that guy Joe, in that song says; "I don't know where I'm a gonna go when the vulcano blows". ;) ;D ::)
I hope all you folks who claim to know the actual scientific causes, and are advocating based on political bias or POV from industry or special economic sectors with a dog in the fight, get this figured out soon for the next generations sake.
And BTW Daryl, it is fun to watch all the Republican Bush apologists get all bent out of shape and upset when we tin foil hat folks take shots at blaming the ongoing messes exclusively on the admin you folks installed. While I am certain the origins of our real problems transverse party lines, this last six+ years has been a real boner fest of incompetent governance. So it is really easy to take shots, because they have provided all the ammunition. ::)
-
Kirk, all your snow is a good thing for those folks down range. They say we will need multiple years of the mountain areas getting heavier than normal snow fall to melt down and replenish and recharge the aquafer and reservoirs like Lake MacConeghy in NE.
-
I think that if you review his statements over the past year and a half, even Bush no longer disputes climate change. He DOES dispute the reasons, of course, as well as what to do about it.
A.G._C --
With due respect to both sides of this debate:
I really don't think President Bush (or many other politicians) is qualified to be authoritative on either side of the argument.
Though perhaps I'm wrong! See http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38718 (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38718).
-
Daryl, you make your case well. But I do not feel the evidence is as you present it nor do I feel the science of global warming is one sided or agenda driven. We all know climate change is a very complex topic, but in my mind there is no question the industrial development of the last one hundred years is a major contributor to it. We have a very significant subsidence problem here on the gulf coast. The land is sinking at a rate of 1/4 inch a year or more in some places now. The contributions of the oil and gas industry and the Corp of Engineers which oversee and approve all canals, dredging and development are generally left out of the discussion. Much like global warming, when a study indicates they did contribute to the problem the same elements which scof at global warming mock them and make jokes of their work till they go away. The Oil and Gas Industry is the largest contributor and the Corp approves their contribution on a case by case basis as well as providing much of the data. It is too bad so much of our research comes from industry or government studies funded by those same economic interests/industries. The bush administration will go down in history for their misdeeds in this as well as so many other areas. Mark is on the money in a funny yet sad way.
-
RJ,
Is that where the water in the Ogallala aquifer comes from? Does Wild Horse irrigate out of the river or do they use wells to the aquifer?
Gary
-
Gary, the water for Wild Horse is from the aquafer, and is obtained with a well and gas-turbine pumps that are typically used for pivots. Same system up at Sand Hills. I assume same with Dismal River Club. But, I think I heard that Bally is on a 3-phase power pump.
The lake is a reservoir for a series of irrigation canals that run all through mid and south NE for ag and Sutherland Powerplant purposes. There is a moritorium for several years on any new high capacity wells out there because the mid-plains aquifer is so low. The power plant that used the lake reservoir water had to sink 250 high cap wells in the surrounding area to meet its cooling needs because the lake is down some 100+ feet. So, they can't allow more high cap wells to draw the aquafer down even more critically low.
-
Mike Young,
You probably know more about this stuff than 99.9% of the people here. What supts and plant "experts" have told me regarding this topic is that the length of the warming period, the amount of moisture, and the severity of the subsequent cold spell are intertwined. Several days of warm, dry weather followed by frigid temperatures and wind can cause great damage. Re: insects, without a few really hard freezes, they come back in the spring like gangbusters.
Dick and Tiger,
You guys are relentless. After participating in the six- year long "Bush is the Worst President Ever" campaign every chance you get, aren't you guys just getting a bit tired of it?
BTW, why didn't your boys Clinton and Gore at least try to get Kyoto ratified? For the same reason why Clinton waited unitl the last days of his administration to sign an executive order making the "safe" level of mercury in water drastically more stringent? If these policies were so beneficial, wouldn't getting them in the books in 1998 not been better than in 2000 or at a later time? Do you think perhaps that it was done to create havoc and embarrass the new administration?
Most of us agree that climate change is taking place and that it raises some serious concerns (though the upsides such as in plant and food production are seldom discussed) . Many of us believe that climate change has been taking place since the beginning of time for a variety of reasons. Some of us think that man has a relatively small impact on the problem, with solar activity and several other aforementioned natural factors beyond our control largely responsible for what we are experiencing.
I know our socialist friends do not like or perhaps understand cost/benefit analysis or any attempt to measure and quantify results apart from intentions. We've pretty much destroyed industries and people's lives in some regions in the name of environmentalism (talk to some of the townspeople in Bandon and the Pacific NW who are now making a living toting golf bags and in other low-paying service jobs).
As to scientific evidence, it really comes down to what we see with expert testimony in court proceedings or congressional hearings. It is readily bought, prone to manipulation and interpretation to suit political needs, and not black and white enough or easy to understand for the average person to grasp.
Mike V points to the warming in Mars. Perhaps there is an underground capitalist economy operating there. Closer to home, I am told that centuries ago, the Vikings found Greenland to be quite green and agricultural (dummy me, and I thought that someone with a sardonic sense of humor came up with that name). The horror: it is turning green again. Maybe it was due to excessive animal flatulence drifting from elsewhere or perhaps the Martians dumped a major load of their excess CO2 on Earth a few decades prior to the Vilkings' arrival.
Or could it be that today as then, we are going through a natural secular cycle and there is little that we can do to forestall these forces? Is so, what would Algore and so many others have to live for? What other scabs might they find in a classical liberal society organized around a market based economy that they could pick in their pursuit of cosmic justice and personal fullfilment?
By the way, based on what I was taught by these learned folks in college back in the 1970s, the world should have come to an end by now due to overpopulation, famine, and disease. We're living on borrowed time. I better schedule a week at the Lodge at Pebble Beach and get a few good rounds in before it's too late. Do they take Mastercharge? Can anyone here get me on at Cypress Point? I suppose that since I don't have to worry about the future, I can just hop the fence.
-
Why do the USA not just sign up to Kotyo?
The US Senate (which ratifies treaties) voted 95-0 to NOT approve Kyoto (or any similar treaty), in considerable part because Kyoto had no limitations whatsoever for China, India, etc.
That's the abridged version, anyway.
-
the Global Warming/Climate Change industry [] is strictly anti-capitalism.
Beg to differ. I believe the Kyoto Protocol carbon trading mechanisms are as capitalistic as possible. It's not particularly different than the market for pork bellies, though the carbon trading markets will and do have significant startup inappropriateness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_trading
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/sternreview_index.cfm
Can we get back to how great or not great the weather is for golf now please?
-
Tempature recording has been a very very recent trend in science when compared with the age of the planet. These records only go back 150 years at best, and the earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old. I know they use techinques in the artic to drill ice to get approx tempature ranges, but even then it only goes back tens of thousands of years which is still a mere pittance.
The reality is we have no clue what the latest trends in the weather mean. Sure its warmer now than it was 25 years ago but once again how can we even pretend to start saying whats causing the tempature increase without being able to look at the other 4.5 billion years of evidence. Did the dinasours have massive amounts of faltuance to bring us out of the last ice age?
Is the earth really warming? I don't think any honest person can even pretend to have an answer to this, its all speculation at best. What caused the ice age to happen, and then its decline? Last time I checked that happened far sooner than the Industrial Revolution. I think quacks like Al Gore is just using pseudo-science to line his own pockets.
-
I have one question for the "Global Warming" backers: why are the snowcaps on Mars melting? Is it due to our Hummers here in the USA??
El Nino is the cause for this mild winter here in North America (talked with a senior scientist for the EPA this weekend)....ask Pakistan and others about their mild winter?? They have set records for cold in the last week.
-
Why do the USA not just sign up to Kotyo?
Matthew,
Currently neither the US nor Australia have ratified the treaty. Also, while China and India have signed the treaty they are exempt from the carbon emission goals and I know this is an issue for both the US and Australia.
Even Al Gore in 1998 opposed ratification as long as developing nations, China and India were exempt from carbon emission reduction goals! BTW, while the US is the biggest carbon polluter in the world today, by 2030 China will far and away be the biggest polluter in the world.
There is plenty of detailed reading available on the Kyoto Protocol that a google search should help you find in no time.
-
I played golf on December 29th, December 30th and January 4th here in Chicago. I would vote against any immigation reforms due to El Nino and his positive effect on my rounds per year.
-
Holy Toledo! Several skeptical replies to the PC dogma: man is evil; capitalism, greed, and consumption will be the end of us all; only a socialist government of our betters can save us from ourselves. This site is going to shit. Ran, why so many Newbies? I thought the site was being more discerning and exclusive. Next someone is going to suggest that the Dollar and not the Euro is the currency of consequence in the world. This drivel must stop. We must all unite to stop BS and CO2.
-
I agree about El Nino being responsible for what we're seeing this year. When I heard that it was going to be an El Nino year I was very pleased, because from experience, I knew that meant a very mild winter in the Northeast (although the west coast tends to get inundated with rain).
Saturday morning I walked outside and it was about 65 degrees an hour north of Philadelphia. With outstretched arms I proclaimed to the world, "I Love Global Warming!" ;D
Still, it really is Bush's fault because if he did have the chance to hose our planetary climate, I'm sure he would have managed to bungle that, as well. So, don't get too ecstatic yet, Lou. ;)
-
Better yet, El Nino keeps those hurricanes away from my Lowcountry home and my employer!!! ;D
-
With Cirba piping in, the world (and this site) is restored to its natural order. Now all we need is for Dr. Childs to leave us with some concluding comments.
BTW, it is fully in keeping with contemporary critical thinking that Bush should get blamed for things he couldn't have caused based simply on the inarguable stipulation that had he had the opportunity to make an impact, he would have screwed it up. This accepted and no doubt peer reviewed "given" first occured to me some three years ago while listening to a "professional" Democrat operative go on and on about how Bush screwed up the shrimp harvest off the coast of Louisiana. The best I could tell, it was nothing in particular that Bush did, but more to do with some things that've been going on in the state for years that members in the Bush administration refused to get involved in to change. Of course, this fine gentleman did not find it curious or relevant that the state has been heavily controlled by the Dems since the beginning of time.
When the many wealthy prophets of doom fly around the world in private jets, are driven by limos from their multiple large residences, and otherwsie lead a superbly rich, upscale, consumptive lifestyle, does it not occur to them that their indiividual contribution to "the problem" is exponential relative to that by the rest of us? Do they believe that their s--t does not stink? Or maybe they know that the emperor is really butt-naked but think that the rest of us are too damn dumb to know otherwise. After all, we've been taught by such giants of the Left as Che that the means are totally justified by the ends. What's wrong with a little of hyperbole or outright falsehood if the aims are so noble (the sake of the children, the poor, the crippled, and the otherwise disenfranchised; equality of outcome; social justice; world peace; etc.).
-
Or maybe they know that the emperor is really butt-naked ...
I thought he was buck-naked -- but only the Empress (and maybe Al Gore) could tell us for sure! :o
-
Well said, Lou !
My efforts to reclaim land taken from our little nine hole course by the 1938 hurricane is a good example of the great shoreline that still exists, and the tide just comes in and goes out as it did as I grew up on the bay.
There is little change to the actual shore line except there are no homes there, and no activity that would cause that change.
Unless we get a better understanding of what really goes on in our oceans, and have a explanation of the sliding or subducting under the North American plate, which is moving southeast, while the Pacific plate moves northwest, our efforts to explain this to environmentalists is limited.
-
Dan,
You're the wordsmith and master of the language and its use. Of course I defer to you. Buck-naked it is. Thanks.
Sean,
I am not acquainted with your reference to the "Double Dutch". You are correct about my continuing support of President Bush, and though I too did not support the war (but probably for reasons totally different than yours), I don't believe for a second that he lied about the reasons for going in. I have no desire to defend the president here as
most minds were largely made up six years ago and earlier.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with the issue of global warming and the effective options at our disposal to minimize the negative consequences. I know that Kyoto is a political farce and the Chicken Little mentality shouldn't be appeased on the back of our workers and consumers.
It is now time to see "my" Buckeyes beat on Florida. Sean, I am assuming that you will be true to your Big Ten roots.
-
Isn't it true that back in the 70's it was common "wisdom" that the same greenhouse gasses now attributed for causing GW were rapidly bringing on the next Ice Age?
-
Isn't it true that back in the 70's it was common "wisdom" that the same greenhouse gasses now attributed for causing GW were rapidly bringing on the next Ice Age?
Cf. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/)
-
Dan- That article makes me dizzy from all the spinning. If ever there was a self-serving article, that was it. Maybe there's some factual reality there, but I can't help but believe that it was written as a CYA rather than to add anything new to the discussion. I haven't made up my mind on the bigger GW issue, but it's really hard to do so when there are so many apparently well-qualified yet vested interests pushing their point under the guise of scientific fact.
-
I think there are problems world wide, but at least you in the US know there are no global warming issues because your President tells you so. Our PM is hardly going to disagree with him.
Why don't you ask the residents of Denver what they think about global warming and how it's affected them this winter.
Long Island was once covered by glaciers millions of years ago, long before industrialization.
What caused them to melt ?
The Bush administration ?
-
Lou,
Why should you be surprised that liberal extremists try to blame everything they can on Bush? The conservative extremists blamed lots of ridiculous things on Bill Clinton, though that grew harder to do as Bush's presidency combined with control of the Congress and the Supreme Court left little room for blaming anything on the democrats as the years went on.
Perhaps Rove's much anticipated "October surprise" that never seemed to happen was actually to let the democrats win back the Congress, so the republican candidates in 2008 would have something to run against other than Bush's legacy?
Sorry, I tend to be pretty neutral and dislike both parties equally, but I've got it out for republicans tonight after having an O'Reilly wanna-be bending my ear for an hour at dinner about how democrats are already to blame for weak holiday spending before they even took office, not to mention how he's also apparently decided that if we achieve anything less than total victory (whatever that is) in Iraq it will be the democrats fault for encouraging the insurgents by failing to provide unquestioning support for Bush and Rumsfeld.
-
Doug
Am I to believe that you really listened to O'Reilly for an hour ?
Most liberals I know, and love: (Webster) def. 1) generous - 2) ample; abundant - 3) not literal or strict - 4) favoring reform or progress - n. one who favors reform or progress ----- will not listen to another point of view, much less read Investor's Business Daily "Issues and Insights".
Great !!
Willie
-
Why do the USA not just sign up to Kotyo?
Matthew,
Currently neither the US nor Australia have ratified the treaty. Also, while China and India have signed the treaty they are exempt from the carbon emission goals and I know this is an issue for both the US and Australia.
Even Al Gore in 1998 opposed ratification as long as developing nations, China and India were exempt from carbon emission reduction goals! BTW, while the US is the biggest carbon polluter in the world today, by 2030 China will far and away be the biggest polluter in the world.
There is plenty of detailed reading available on the Kyoto Protocol that a google search should help you find in no time.
Chris,
Is it a coincidence that the only country in the world with a larger carbon footprint per head of population than the US is the only other western nation not to ratify Kyoto?
-
The really depressing thing about this thread is that, whilst if global warming or climate change is a reality then it is an issue which, unless addressed rapidly, could cause enormous harm to the planet and create serious difficulties for our children and grandchildren in the US it is reduced to a party political bun fight. How very sad that the leaders of the western world can't rise above the whole democrat/republican nonsense once in a while on an important issue.
The other sad reflection is that at least one side of this argument expresses views that only show an interest in the effect on the US economy. As leaders of the western world and as the only remaining superpower it behoves you to shoulder some responsibility for the rest of the world.
My view is that climate change is a reality and I've spoken to a couple of leading scientists on this, one of whom was conducting research sponsored by an oil company. But whether that's right or wrong I'd hope that the level of debate could rise above party bickering.
-
Guys
I think I can handle this global warming by wearing the new microfibers....but we need to be thinking about what it is doing to greens and fairways.....that's going to be the big problem.....let's just hope the next president plays golf......maybe he will not allow El nino.....
-
Sean,
So you think I am full of it, do you? Well, same to you, buddy!
And no, I am not being testy after last night's pathetic performance by Ohio State. Those slow, beefy white boys on our offensive line must have had a very nice 50+day holiday (only to be underperformed by the worst pass defense I've seen against a team led by a marginal quarterback and without a real good running game). Nah, I am not down and pouty at all. ;)
Mark,
I just love it when you guys talk dirty: "Is it a coincidence that the only country in the world with a larger carbon footprint per head of population than the US is the only other western nation not to ratify Kyoto?"
Plausible answer: Because Kyoto is just a pile of "Double Dutch". Get the Chinese and Indians to sign off first then let's look at it carefully. Of course, they are much too smart to do so, and in the case of China at least, not prone to base policies on popular opinion.
BTW, in the absence of conclusive data, what would you have us do? If man's contribution to "the problem" is very small as numerous scientists have concluded, do you think that our contribution to the solution can be substantial? If it is increased solar activity that's making things hotter along with water, volcanoes, plant and animal life which largely account for the production of CO2 and the possible effects on global warming, why do we keep making man, particularly if he is American, the heavy in this whole thing?
On the margin, things have to make sense or we're just pissing into the wind. We don't need to shut Detroit down (they seem to be doing a pretty good job of it themselves without our help) with new crammed down CAFE standards. Nor do we need to take petroleum based products out of our lives.
Modifying your wonderful "carbon footprint per head" to per capita oil consumption and relating it to productivity might actually serve a useful purpose for discussion. Through advances in technology, we continue to squeeze more output from each barrel of oil. I don't have the figures of per capita oil consumption in the U.S. over time, but I understand that the improvements are considerable and this is the area where I would support government policy to encourage and help accelarate.
Doug,
I am not surprised at all. I have a very good understanding of the socialist mind.
But, again, what's wrong with blaming Clinton for everything? And, who's doing it? Nearly everyone I know who truly dislike Clinton personally and hate what he did to the office give him high marks for being smart and a great communicator. Some of them even have a grudging admiration for his ability to accept the economic realities forced on him by the Republican congress against his every instinct and coopting the credit for their success.
In contrast, even before the 2000 election was made official, Bush was a lazy, dumb-ass draft-dodger, totally devoid of "gravitas", a daddy's boy, and already "The Worst President Ever". Not even the courtesy and credit that Clinton got for the economy is given to Bush who took over a country already in a recession, with the stock market bubble deflating rapidly, and the worst major attack on U.S. soil (in the planning for several years) taking place nine months after he took office.
I am sorry, but equating the "extremes" of both parties is not accurate. On the Left, they have been mainstreamed; on the Right, they are a fringe group (look at the fate of Reps. Foley- disgraced and out of office, Jefferson- sworn-in and the recipient of standing ovations by his congressional colleagues). And by the way, I have absolutely no problem with the 2006 elections.
As to your dinner friend's opinion on Iraq, I tend to agree to some degree with what you describe as his position. My biggest objection to going into Iraq was that I didn't think it was possible for a Republican president, even one of Ronald Reagan's stature, to get the media and the opposing party behind or at least neutral toward such a war. Bush is no Reagan, and just what I feared has taken place.
We didn't lose 20,000 troops in the first weeks as many on the press and the Left said we would, but the goal posts keep getting moved and Bush can't overcome a deck which was stacked against him from day 1. The primary lessons of Viet Nam were that you can't win a war when politics trump military strategy and when the American people are not substantially behind it. I think we are re-learning those lessons today, and Bush did not have the foresight and/or advice that might have led to other means of containing terrorism without a direct attack on Iraq to force regime change.
This will be my last largely political in nature post of the year.
Mike Young,
Weather issues as they relate to golf are very local. I was under the impression that fall preparation, scheduled maintenance including aeration of greens, fairways, and tees, and most importantly, not allowing the soil to get too dry during the winter are important in getting through difficult weather events. Covering dormant bermuda greens when the temperatures reach into the 30s seems to be a good practice.
Question:
Are bermuda greens that have not been overseeded more susceptible to cold snaps following an unusually warm spell? I know that overseeded greens have a hard time transitioning in the spring when the weather remains cool and wet. I've seen them in Texas in June when the rye and bents burn-up and the bermuda is still struggling and it is not a good situation.
-
Why do the USA not just sign up to Kotyo?
Matthew,
Currently neither the US nor Australia have ratified the treaty. Also, while China and India have signed the treaty they are exempt from the carbon emission goals and I know this is an issue for both the US and Australia.
Even Al Gore in 1998 opposed ratification as long as developing nations, China and India were exempt from carbon emission reduction goals! BTW, while the US is the biggest carbon polluter in the world today, by 2030 China will far and away be the biggest polluter in the world.
There is plenty of detailed reading available on the Kyoto Protocol that a google search should help you find in no time.
Chris,
Is it a coincidence that the only country in the world with a larger carbon footprint per head of population than the US is the only other western nation not to ratify Kyoto?
Probably not. ;)
-
Mike,
If you are having trouble sleeping, here's a good link regarding bermudagrass and what impact the current Atlanta weather may be having on the local courses. Synopsis--I think we are OK.
http://plantanswers.tamu.edu/turf/publications/bermuda.html
-
Nasa has a new theory on what's changing the climate.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html
-
Adam, that's interesting, I hadn't seen that yet. Anyone older than early to mid 30s who grew up in a climate that saw snow in winter remembers the crappy polluting cars we used to have that made the snow on the sides of even fairly light travelled streets black within a few days, and how that snow would melt more quickly than the rest even though there was more of it (since the snowplows piled it up there) Now cars just don't pollute nearly as much so only very major roads do you see that happening, and the lightly travelled roads keep the snow on either side until the snow everywhere else has melted.
Of course, the naysayers will just say that volcanos spit out a lot of stuff as well. The question is about the composition of the material. When you have it in the air it blocks out the sun to some extent, on the snow it causes less reflection of the sun off the surface of the snow. Its quite possible that volcanoic ash has different reflectivity in the air and on the snow than man made pollutants do. That's what needs to be investigated to see if this particular theory has any validity.
If it turned out this was a major contributor to the melting of the icecaps it would be easier to fix on a worldwide basis than CO2 -- we've already got greatly reduced our particulate emissions in the US and Europe, its not terribly expensive and has clear health benefits due to air quality.
-
Doug, When I first heard of this, the Nasa rep intimated that the black ice was building up on areas that were associated with Asia.
Some of the time lapse images of glaciers receeding on Kilamanjaro and Everest (I think) are the most alarming.
-
Lou,
While I'm not nearly as far right as you, and sometimes can't believe the spin you put on things, I'm personally happy that we live in a country where we can openly criticize our leader, whether from the left or the right.
I'm always amazed at how readily people are willing to give up their freedom of thought and action, particularly when either "security" or some perceived level of economic benefit is promised. (see below)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070110/wl_csm/oclamp
-
Mike Cirba,
I am not far right at all. I am a true liberal in the classical sense. This means I am rabidly anti-socialist and against most things which subordinate individual rights. My "spin" may seem whacky to you because of the company you keep. As a GCAer recently counseled me, we all have a greater need to develop and exercise skepticism in evaluating information.
For example of the insular thinking I am talking about, a GCAer you know well recites in another thread the whole litany against Bush which has been going around since the beggining of the administration. He crowns it all with the subject of religion and how Bush seeks to impose his beliefs on those who don't share them.
As things would have it, analysis of presidential speeches show that Clinton far surpassed Bush's interjection of religion into the public discourse. Perversely, in my way of thinking at least, Bush is characterized as a religious zealot while the Bible-toting, philandering ex-president is considered by the Left as "Probably the Greatest President Ever".
And who can ever forget Algore going into the African-American churches and delivering those wonderful sermons in full cadence, style, and accent that put the best black Sourthern Baptist preachers to shame? And you can't believe my spin! Please!
BTW, Chavez is a great example of the socialist mind and what happens when some of these people are able to attain police power. You probably saw his presentation to the UN recently. I am sure that many on the Left in this country sympathized and probably cheered him on, maybe even envied him a bit, privately.
It is interesting that Chavez and many of these folks can't carry on a debate on the strength of their positions and without calling the other side idiots and devils (according to the media and many Democrats, who was the last Republican president with an IQ above 90? Do you remember Reagan as the "amiable dunce", or references to Ford as having been hit too many times in the head during his football career at Michigan while not wearing a helmet?).
It is so much easier when one has the police power. Just line up the opposition against the wall and kill them. Castro did it before him following the great socialists examples of Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler and Stalin. Just remember, the means are totally justified by the nobility of the ends.
Incidentally, which countries historically have the worst air and water? I am told that China, the old Soviet Union, and India have deplorable conditions. I've seen in my own travels a high correlation between socialist governance and poverty and pollution. It may be a leap, but if you believe that man's contributition to global warming is significant and we can arrest "the problem" by minimizing the use of hydro-carbons, our best hopes are in free enterprise and markets instead of governments.
Okay, this will be my last post of this nature. Here's hoping for weather which maximizies course conditions while minimizing the use of irrigation, oil products, and other maintenance costs.
-
Lou, my goodness! Your last post was full of so much sophistry, BS, detraction of people's motives and tarring anyone left of your world's view, that it almost borders on calumny. (but thankfully you did not cross the line and actually name a specific "socialist" personally who shares the character of those villians) To place anyone who doesn't share your world and economic view, and is left of you, in the same league as Pol Pot, Chavez, Hitler, etc., because their world view doesn't line up with yours, doesn't mean they must line up with those tyrants mentioned. Did you notice who is actually seizing all the police power and shredding our constitutional rights of privacy lately? >:( Wake up!
Did you know that some of our greatest patriots and heros were of left or liberal leaning persuasions? ::)
But, the good news is that you are now living in California and there seems to be a fresh wind blowing out there. Perhaps you can find a new wind to ride. Man, I was totally impressed with your Republican Governor's State of the State speech. I hope the partisan pols take up his challenge. I'd vote for him tomorrow over that fool that occupies the White House now! He must have a much more eclectic and diverse brain trust to advise him. Too bad he is foreign born... :-\
BTW, not that I care, because I enjoy the chance to see an interesting perspective like yours, but you did say a few days ago that it would be your last politically motivated post... ;) ;D
-
Dick,
Thank you. Coming from you, it means a lot.
I can see how you would like Arnold's speech. More transfer of wealth, a larger, more bloated public sector bureaucracy, and a "social contract" that places few responsibilities on most while reducing liberty for all. Maybe Wisconsin will benefit as employers continue to leave the state. BTW, the proposal is not being well received in Orange County by what I see in the local paper, and the likehood of becoming law is not given real high chances.
You pose the question: "Did you know that some of our greatest patriots and heroes were of left or liberal leaning persuasions?" No, I did not. Of course, I doubt that we agree on what a patriot is not to say anything about who would be included in that list.
As to my posting here, you are right. I don't even know why I bother. How can I expect to get through to someone who can't even bring himself to acknowledge at least a few of the attributes of a fine Fazio course? Maybe it is time to do as TMac and ride into the sunset. If I only had the discipline. So, my comment was more of a wish than a commitment. Replies such as yours, full of flowery words and no substance, motivate me to follow through more dillingently. For that I thank you again.
-
Why don't you ask the residents of Denver what they think about global warming and how it's affected them this winter.
I believe I mentioned this, back in post #26. I had to note this, as apparently Mr. Mucci and I agree on something, and I felt this should be noted.
That said, I think about the various kinds of winter conditions, and how they affect golf courses, like the two nearest my house, Pradera and CGC. Is it better for the course to be blanketed by deep snow, and thus receive a good dose of moisture and be protected from the kind of cold that is about to hit us (we're expected to be at about 18 degrees on Friday) ? Or does a course benefit more from the kind of winter conditions found in much of the country this winter, where it is warmer than usual? What are the differing pressures applied by each condition to the golf superintendent? Is it a lot more expensive for there to be little snow, or are the costs offset by the fact that people can actually play the course?
-
I have not read everything above, but I can tell you this:
We had very warm temps up until the middle of December until we had 2 mornings of 27 degrees, which made everything go dormant. Since then everything has greens back up and continues to grown. Were mowing rough every 3 weeks, fairways twice a week. IF we get another couple HARD frosts, where the course looks like a skating rink, it will only delay our spring greens up a week or 2. We will not see any winter kill. We usually dormant by Xmas and all green by the first of March. We're not worried here. It's actually been nice cause we've gotten some extra fertilizing in on our weak fairway areas!
Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC
-
Why don't you ask the residents of Denver what they think about global warming and how it's affected them this winter.
As I understand it (not very well, admittedly), global warming is also supposed to cause general weather instability, meaning that it will cause certain regions to sometimes experience unseasonably cold periods. Denver's weather this year would be consistent with that.
I'm not sure about its impact on golf courses, but I can tell you that two blizzards and more snow on the way has had a very negative impact on winter golf in Denver--it's not happening. We've had so much snow even several consecutive 50+ degree days didn't put much of a dent in the snow and ice. Maybe in February . . .
-
Why don't you ask the residents of Denver what they think about global warming and how it's affected them this winter.
As I understand it (not very well, admittedly), global warming is also supposed to cause general weather instability, meaning that it will cause certain regions to sometimes experience unseasonably cold periods. Denver's weather this year would be consistent with that.
I'm not sure about its impact on golf courses, but I can tell you that two blizzards and more snow on the way has had a very negative impact on winter golf in Denver--it's not happening. We've had so much snow even several consecutive 50+ degree days didn't put much of a dent in the snow and ice. Maybe in February . . .
Tim,
Maybe in February...? I'd be very surprised.
Having grown up in the northeast and lived in Chicago during the Jane Byrne blizzard/deep freeze, I thought I'd escaped the 4-6 months of perma-snow phenomenon by moving to Denver. Guess not. :'( Next stop Phoenix, Palm Springs or Mexico, which hopefully will be OK till the next Ice Age descends.
PS I'm no expert but I think a nice blanket of snow might be better for the courses around here than no snow and freeze/thaw cycles. Good for courses, rotten for golfers.
-
Bandon was closed today because of snow. That is a first.
-
I get real tired of the government taking from some to give to others as we further our thankless entitlement state.
When the US installed the income tax we got the mess we deserved.
-
I get real tired of the government taking from some to give to others as we further our thankless entitlement state.
When the US installed the income tax we got the mess we deserved.
Huh?
-
Do you remember Reagan as the "amiable dunce",...
Lou,
That was Clark Clifford's take on Reagan, which I thought a bit harsh. I much preferred Julian Bond's assessment of The Gipper as "a genial incompetent".
-
A warm winter at Bethpage State Park: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/travel/escapes/12winter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/travel/escapes/12winter.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
-
First time Pacific Dunes has closed due to weather. Don't know how to post photos or find the thread with instructions so here's a link.
Pacific Dunes with snow (http://picasaweb.google.com/nykpike/PacificDunes)
-
Nyke - good lord - while those pictures are pretty neat, well... a few of us are heading up there at the end of Feb and that is NOT what we want to see!
Gulp....
-
It's good to have Lou Duran back.
-
This thread made me laugh. I bet most people here don't have enough knowledge on the subject of global climate change, yet they preach like they know the facts.
To the guy who mentioned ice ages. Ice ages aren't anthropogenic; they occur naturally, roughly every 100 000 years, and are caused by Milankovich cycles.
-
I will make the same post I made in the other GW thread, just to reinforce my views. I cannot overstate how ridiculous the idea of global warming is. Just read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" for a good argument against GW.
Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact. It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am. Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change." Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.
So what effect will warming have on golf courses? Probably nothing. I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.
The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming. If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam. Politics as usual.
-
I will make the same post I made in the other GW thread, just to reinforce my views. I cannot overstate how ridiculous the idea of global warming is. Just read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" for a good argument against GW.
Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact. It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am. Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change." Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.
So what effect will warming have on golf courses? Probably nothing. I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.
The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming. If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam. Politics as usual.
Actually, Bush mentioned it last night; just referred to it as "global climate change". It's been sometime since he has denied it. He simply says now that it is impossible to determine man's role in it, and that we won't wreck the economy to take steps to reverse it (Kyoto). That those two statements are at least somewhat contradictory is his problem, not mine.
Also, no one with any sense contends that the weather right now is the global climate. NASA and the Pentagon, among others such as the National Academy of Sciences with no "liberal agenda" have spoken to global warming; google it for yourself.
Finally, Crichton's book is a work of fiction. That he makes an interesting page turner out of taking a position against anything for the purpose of selling books doesn't make it science in any way shape or form. He wrote a book about nano creatures taking over the world, and dinosaurs brought back to life from amber. Does that make them true? Can't wait to see a real T-rex! ::)
-
I know Crichton's book is fiction, but the graphs and references certainly are real!!! All I know is the US certainly isn't seeing its effects right now, or even warming itself.
-
I will make the same post I made in the other GW thread, just to reinforce my views. I cannot overstate how ridiculous the idea of global warming is. Just read Michael Crichton's book, "State of Fear" for a good argument against GW.
Global Warming as a scientific fact is pure speculation, therefore it is NOT viable as a fact. It's been very cold throughout the Western part of the US as of late, and temperatures are around normal in the Northeast where I am. Of course, liberals will point to this as proof of global warming because it's really "global climate change." Shows you how credible the global warming is when you claim cold weather proves a trend of warming.
So what effect will warming have on golf courses? Probably nothing. I will say, I was thrilled to play golf on both Christmas Day and New Year's Day, but I am certainly not playing any golf now.
The only reason this has become a political issue is because of the President's stance against the "fact" of global warming. If the President said there was global warming, most liberals would dismiss it as a flawed theory, a scam. Politics as usual.
Dumbest post ever.
But then again, what do I know? I only study climate change. Thanks for telling me that climate change is a hoax. To think I might have wasted the rest of my life studying something so meaningless. Thank you for your stunning insight which is based on a work of fiction and on your personal beliefs, which are based on everything except science. Trully inspiring.
-
Matt Kardash:
Sorry, I hadn't gotten around to reading your heartwarming post yet. Thanks for the vote of confidence, not to mention the insult to my intelligence. I just have to remember that if you disagree with a rabid environmentalist, you are an ignorant moron who wants to kill babies. You really made my day.
-
BTW read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," by Bjorn Lomborg for a nonfiction argument against global warming (although Crichton does have many references you might by interested in as someone who studies climate change. But then, what do I know, I'm just an ignorant moron.
-
I know Crichton's book is fiction, but the graphs and references certainly are real!!! All I know is the US certainly isn't seeing its effects right now, or even warming itself.
JNC_Lyon,
I'm pretty sure any scientist will confirm that global warming has had a significiant effect on costal Alaska. (Last I heard, Sec of State Seward had successfully purchased Alaska from Russia)
-
A.G.
Nice memory on Julian Bond. Just curious though, would you rather be a "genial incompetent" or a busted coke sniffing adulterer? :D
Julian Bond?? That's like the pot calling.....er, never, mind...I guess JB never worried about throwing rocks from his glass house!!!
-
In those six years, a virtual consensus has gelled in the scientific community.
I resubmit for the socalled "dumbest post ever" as someone noted above above.
In one sentence you have shown your in depth knowledge of science. It is impossible to have CONSENSUS in SCIENCE since they are inherently opposites. And I am not coming down on you specifically because I hear that asinine phrase mentioned nearly nightly by uninformed media types. But lets run through this quickly for any non-technical types out there.
I cannot be the only person on here with a scientific background, so jump in anyone and refute or confirm this. Now lets take all the politics out of this, because they have no place in science. Strictly speaking science is the study, measurement, and recording of FACTS (ie numerical truths). So lets look at why you cannot have real science and consensus at the same time.
Consensus by its definition means that because some percentage of people believe something then it should be accepted as truth. Consensus is handy when it comes to things of belief. Such as if 98 people out of 100 think that murdering someone in cold blood is wrong, then it would be fair to say that "The consensus is that murder is wrong".
However I don't care if 99 people out of 100 tell you that the computer that you are sitting at right now weighs 400 lbs (or Kg for our international buddies), if you put it on a scale and it only weighs 50 lbs, then it actually weighs 50 lbs, not 400. And the consensus of the 99 people who think otherwise doesn't mean squat, even if those 99 people include computer experts or the guy at the carnival that guesses your weight. Even if Steven Jobs and Bill Gates tell you the computer weighs 400 lb. it doesnt change the scientific fact that it actually weighs 50 lbs. The scientific fact is what it is regardless of what anyone thinks.
Any real scientist would know that "Consensus" inherently cannot have any place in science. I have seen all sides of this. I have been around research projects where a specific end result was desired to meet someone's financial goals. When someone tries to bring consensus into scientific study you no longer have science, what you have is agenda-driven technical based malfeasance. And that is not something that I personally want to be involved with, so I left that project. Unfortunately that is what I see from most of the GW "Science" that is going on.
Most of you are correct though in saying that we have lost the argument I am afraid. But, that doenst make it any more true or based in science than it was yesterday, last year, or ten years ago. If you want to belive in GW because of scientific facts that is fine (I chose not to believe in it for those same reasons), but please dont tell me that GW exists because of Consensus.
The fact that 43 is starting to talk about it doesn't change the science, it only tells me that their opinion polls tell them that it is expedient to talk about it. And besides don't all you guys say that 43 is the "Dumbest guy in the world" and most everything he ever says you think is inherently false. Funny how now on this one issue you think the guy is an authority. Well I wont be getting my climatological information from either 43 or Al Gore for that matter thank you very much. So you can have your consensus if you want, but please, please don't drag science into the same sentence.
-
bravo turbo, bravo......all the politics need to be taken out of this......
-
I realize I am in error with regards to the president's current views of global warming. That still doesn't make the idea any more valid.
-
Turboe,
I take your point on "consensus" in science as something of a contradiction of terms. That doesn't mean, though, that there are not generally accepted scientific principles or realities, does it?
Disclaimer: I am NOT a scientist in any way, shape, or form. I like to read, and from what I read, it seems that there is not a lot of remaining disagreement in the scientific community about climate change. There is more disagreement about the role of man in that change, and still more disagreement about the extent to which the changes will pose a problem in the years to come. Even so, the amount of disagreement within the scientific community seems relatively small on all counts, and with the Pentagon and NASA included in the majority view, it is hard to go in the other direction and feel supported by the data.
As to leaving politics out of it, as Michael Christiansen advocates, that simply isn't possible. There are economic considerations of great concern, and environmental change cannot be accomplished unilaterally, on either a personal or even a national level. For instance, I could never again recycle glass, plastic, or paper products, or I could be the ONLY person in America to do so, and the landfill issues that we face would not change appreciably. Whatever we do, or do NOT do, will have a political component to it, and with very serious economic implications.
As to Dubya, I don't think ANYBODY is quoting him as an authority. It would seem significant that a conservative oilman doesn't dispute climate change anymore, though, and hasn't for some time. Admittedly, that may be a poll-driven change of heart, but we'll never know.
I don't confuse weather with climate; it is 18 degrees right now in Atlanta, GA. Neither that temperature, nor the 70 degrees here on New Year's Day are climate, just a weather pattern at a given moment. That said, I'm 54 years old and have lived my entire life in the South, and I KNOW that the climate I live in now is NOT the climate that I grew up in. Something is different, and I am willing to be convinced by EITHER side as to what that might be and what ought (or ought not) be done about it. It just seems that the vast, vast majority of the scientific community with no specific political agenda is saying the same thing about it. Where am I wrong?
-
I realize I am in error with regards to the president's current views of global warming. That still doesn't make the idea any more valid.
Or less valid...
-
As a non scientist with an admittedley libertarian outlook on most things, it would seem that we could all agree that we should be good stewards of the environment irrespective of whether or not the climate is warming (or cooling) or staying the same.
I understand there can be enormous economic implications when governments mandate anything and I understand the resentment when the mandates come and many feel that they are hastily made or made on the basis of conflicting or incomplete data.
In the meantime, as individuals, I think that just because we don't have to do something doesn't mean that we shouldn't try. It may or may not make a bit of difference but being as responsible as we can to our environment, even if we don't have to, just seems like the thing to do.
In the meantime, the personal attacks are stupid. I responded to A.G.'s snide remark about former President Reagan (A.G. used former politician/activist Julian Bond's words) when maybe I shouldn't have; but, my poorly illustrated point was that there aren't many of us who should feel too comfortable about calling other people names.
-
In the meantime, the personal attacks are stupid. I responded to A.G.'s snide remark about former President Reagan (A.G. used former politician/activist Julian Bond's words) when maybe I shouldn't have; but, my poorly illustrated point was that there aren't many of us who should feel too comfortable about calling other people names.
Chris,
I didn't mean to be snide; I was just stating a preference for one Reagan insult over another! :)
In any event, I took no offense, and I would value Clark Clifford's judgement more than Julian Bond's in most, if not all, other cases.
I didn't respond to your post ONLY because I didn't know which "busted coke sniffing adulterer" we might be discussing. In general, though, I'd opt for the busted, etc., over the incompetent IF we are talking about the Presidency. If we're choosing my pastor or golf partner or best friend, I would probably reverse that.
-
Daryl
I am a scientist and I’ve published about 100 (or more) peer reviewed scientific articles and received peer reviewed research grants for the last 30 years (though not in the field of climate control). You are correct in your facts regarding consensus vs. the scientific method but you are incorrect in your interpretation with regard to the issue at hand.
SCIENTIFIC FACT- We can measure the CO2 levels over the time span that man has been part of this planet.
SCIENTIFIC FACT- Since the industrial revolution began and we obtained technology to burn fossil fuels (a tiny fraction of the total time we have inhabited the planet) the CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased what looks to be exponentially.
SCIENTIFIC FACT- CO2 in the atmosphere acts as an insulator to keep thermal energy (heat) from escaping into space.
OBSERVED FACTS- already stated record temperatures in many locations on the planet – polar ice melting at record rates
How do we interpret these FACTS? There is where the consensus comes in because current computer simulations of weather patterns are far from accurate or powerful enough to predict with certainty when the insulating properties of the increased CO2 levels will reach critical levels and exactly what the long term consequences might be.
Forget about politics and look at common sense reasons to act now-
-renewable energy is clean and can help to rid us of foreign oil which itself has terrible political and economic consequences.
- new industries from renewable energy could be the next Microsoft, Intel or General Electric’s and generate jobs and imports.
-pollution associated with burning oil has immense health risks that are both economic and humanitarian issues.
The facts are there to interpret and the consensus interpretation of the facts with the best simulations available say that global warming from the burning of oil and coal is a reality. We can’t say when it will become irreversible. Should we stay the course or should we alter our behavior as best we can?
-
Turboe,
I take your point on "consensus" in science as something of a contradiction of terms. That doesn't mean, though, that there are not generally accepted scientific principles or realities, does it?
No, quite the contrary. For instance water (H20) has a boiling point of 100C. But water doesn't have a boiling point of 100C because any group of scientists say it does. It has a boiling point of 100C because when observed and measured that is the point that it boils.
More specifically water does not boil at 100C just because Kenneth Gailey who wrote my college chemistry book says it does, it does so because that is the point at which enough energy has been introduced to cause the substance H20 to change from a liquid to a gas. And if Mr. Gailey or anyone else said otherwise it would not change the facts. That is how science works.
I don't know what you are trained to do, maybe accounting, maybe law, etc. Now I am not an accountant and so I don't stick my neck out on two many issues regarding those theories, but as an unknowledgeable outsider it also would seem to be a discipline that also deals in absolutes, at least on a rudimentary level. So I would guess that if my checking account had $11,000 in it, but several "Accountants" went on TV and said that they thought I had $1million in it, that would not change the fact that it actually had only $11,000. I might think I have $1million in the bank, in fact my wife thinks sometimes that I act like I do, but when I go to write a check for $12,000 tomorrow, I bet someone will let me know that my belief wont cash that check. I thought about testing that Theory last year when I went to buy a car, but the scientist in me wouldn't let me turn my back on the absolute value of what the numbers showed me.
Now Law on the other hand might seem to be a discipline where consensus or precedent is an important thing. I don't know, I am not a lawyer. As an outsider I would submit that in Law (or journalism for that matter) absolutes are not as common or important. Am I right? If I am wrong I apologize and that is why I would not stick my neck out making assertions about something that I am no better informed than some random guy off the street corner.
However when it comes to science I do know what I am talking about. Science is based in fact. Yes there are scientific principles and they are also based in fact. When you have an notion or thought about something in science we call that a THEORY until it is proven scientifically it is not a fact or principle. That is what frosts my behind is when the media plays loosy goosy with GW Theories and presents them as fact. In science there is a big difference between THEORY and FACT. They are very careful when you read their stories to say "Which may cause Global Warming." or the ever popular "which some scientists believe is causing...". That's worth about as much as the statement "Daryl Boe, which some people believe has over a million dollars in the bank". If you don't believe that just ask me.
I don't think you are going to change my mind on the scientific facts, and I am probably not going to change your mind on the politics or consensus, so we will just have to disagree. And I am fine with that. That is why I hadn't looked into or posted on this thread in a while, it is just too time consuming to go back through the science of this again and again. When the people on the other side have framed the argument so that they are innocent until proven guilty all they have to insinuate is "Well we care about the environment and you obviously don't" It is amazing that they are the ones trying to prove a theory, but by using emotion and fear they have changed the argument such that the other side needs to prove that their theory is false.
By the way its 17F here this morning in SC (and that is cold), and I have a theory that the current cooling trend we are experiencing is due to the fact that Trans-fats are being eliminated from peoples diets. This whole Trans-fat elimination thing has really hit stride last fall, and that is just when the weather turned cold down here. So until you can prove that it isn't the case I believe that "Transfatual Transformation" is taking place in our climate. And I think we should reintroduce them to our diet, because I know it might be detrimental to our cardiovascular health, but this is just too important not to act immediately. And don't try to tell me that it has something to do with the suns effect on the earth because the GW people have been telling me for years that Sun has no bearing on the earths climate, and it has to be effected by man. And to further my theory, my "research" shows that if we don't act soon we may all die. In fact I believe it is almost a certainly that we will all die. In addition my "computer modeling" shows that what will be even worse than this current cooling trend we are in now, is the subsequent warming trend that I foresee coming possibly as soon as just a few months. If we dont reintroduce Transfats back to their previous levels I believe we will be subjected to these extremes of temperature for many years to come. Bring back the Transfats before it is too late.
That's all the time I have to devote to non-revenue producing work at this time this morning.
ps. Have a nice day.
-
Daryl
Congratulations on your Trans-fat theories and best of luck in getting grant support to fund your research studies to prove your theory.
-
Daryl, from a citizen layman's point of view, and very non-scientifically minded person, I still have to make certain decisions in life that involve "belief" in various political and semi-scientific theories. Even I know there are some absolute facts, and some of those absolute facts are used to form more advanced "theories" that are not absolute. Yet, we are asked to evaluate the theories all the time to make decisions.
A few examples are that certain facts, like body counts, go into the theory that if we place even more troops in Iraq, those numbers will eventually go down, and a favorable outcome will follow. I am asked to "vote" for various people that hold that theory, or others who do not. They can look at the facts, of pure number crunching, and come to different conclusions, then act in a socio-political way, depending on "CREDIBILITY"!!!
Now, in this GW debate, there are opposing theories. Some use factual inputs, like what temperature the water melts the ice (not what temp the water boils) and determine the polar ice caps are melting. They show us space photos of the size area of various ice fields and the polar caps and tell us this is supporting evidence. The fact is that the water is melting somewhere north of 32*. But, the theory tells us this is significant and we better craft some policies and decisions on this. Your lot tells us that water boils at 100* is a fact, that so what, that doesn't mean GW is a fact, and that you have a different theory on what decisions we make or what importance in terms of policy and laws we should assign your "scientific findings" based on facts.
There are people that claim they are scientists that say creationisim and intelligent design is fact. But, as a non-scientist citizen layman, non-scientifically minded fellow, I have to make certain decisions based on CREDIBILITY!!! So, it will come as no surprise to you that I would vote for those on a school board that embraced the theory of evolution, because I sense it is better use of science and interpretation of facts than the ADam and Eve'ers.
Most of us are not so stupid to fall for the idea that you have 400 computer "experts" to say the PC under my desk weights 400lbs. I don't care if you claim Bill Gates is among them. Firstly, because you couldn't get any real experts to say something that perposterous, and most people have the inherent ability to deduce a fool from a factual person, most of the time.
So, that consensus that seems to be forming, is evidence to most people that want a chance at a sustainable future, to make decisions based on the more credible theories that use some facts to formulate their estimates of what will happen.
The crowd that pooh-poohs and ridicules the theoretical science on GW are loosing via consensus of a collective mind of citizens that are not scientists. Yet, I have hope that the un-scientific minds will prevail...
UNtil the asteroid hits.... then all bets are off! ;) ;D 8)
-
All I can say is this weather isn't very good for building golf courses in South Texas.
Rain 15 out of the last 17 days with high temps in the 40s and 50s.
I thought I moved to sunny South Texas, but I think I ended up somewhere near Seattle.
-
Don,
The first time I saw Port Lavaca, I immediately thought "Seattle".
;D
Wal Mart Super Center.....the business hub of Port Lavaca.
15 out of 17 huh...yuck.
Joe