[James Reader]

In some ways I am thankful for global warming. A few years back I was in Jackson, Wyoming and learned that 12,000 years ago (a minuscule amount of geologic time) the whole area sat under 3,000 feet of ice. Glaciers extended as far south as St. Louis and covered New York City. You can see striations in the rocks in Central Park to this day from the glaciers. A return to an ice age would be a true global catastrophe.


A distinguishing characteristic of the human race is our almost infinite adaptability. There are humans living in the Arctic and Antarctic. There are humans living on the equator. We live at sea level and in the Himalayas.


No doubt that the climate has been warming but we will adapt. Golf will adapt and we labor and play on. Enough with the gloom and doom. Nothing stays the same. Accept and move forward.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on this site.

...and still no one can discuss specific ramifications.  Please tell us why this is ridiculous.  Specifics, please.

Increased catastrophic weather events; sea level rises; large areas of the globe becoming uninhabitable, leading to mass human migration; massive loss of biodiversity; inability to produce enough food to support the human population.  Not specific enough?  If you are genuinely interested in more detail, you’ll find it here - ]https://www.ipcc.ch/

I'm not interested in the obvious doomsday stuff everyone has talked about for years that hasn't happened.  I'm interested in specifically golf's % contribution to temperatures rising, and specifically what YOU or anyone else specifically is going to do about it.  I think in general, most of us are more responsible than in years past.  I'm not interested in preaching and generalities until those preaching are willing to give up something.

Oh.  I thought you were interested in specific ramifications of climate change.  Now you’re interested in what I personally am going to do about something that you don’t seem to think is a problem. 

[astavrides]

I'm not interested in the obvious doomsday stuff everyone has talked about for years that hasn't happened.  I'm interested in specifically golf's % contribution to temperatures rising, and specifically what YOU or anyone else specifically is going to do about it.  I think in general, most of us are more responsible than in years past.  I'm not interested in preaching and generalities until those preaching are willing to give up something.

Not sure what you mean by 'hasn't happened'. One example that I think you are quite familiar with is that Lake Mead's historically low levels have triggered federally mandated water supply cuts to AZ and NV.
Lake Mead was nearly that low in the 1950s. That drought was caused by 6.1% lower precipitation levels. The Western drought since about 2000 has seen precipitation only 4.6% lower than normal. The big difference is that temperatures are ~1.3 deg F warmer now than then so that soil is drier and evaporation is greater now than it used to be.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016WR019638
[I edited the numbers above ~an hour after my post once I realized I misremembered some of the numbers, and I added the reference]

I personally am travelling a lot less for golf in the past 15 years than I used to, since I learned the carbon footprint of travel.

[JLahrman]

  JLahrman,

In the 70's folks were barely figuring out what the Keeling Curve implied and understanding diurnal and seasonal CO2 balances. In grad school meteorology class, I can't remember a peep or discussion or tech seminar on subject of global warming issues. Prognostic atmospheric computer modeling was focused on weather forecasting and photochemical smog reactions producing ozone hours or days in the future, not years or decades or longer periods now being forecast for climate change..

Just saying, did you have some experience on it in the 70's?

A couple of the first few hits when you google, 'Did they know about climate change in the 70s?'...

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Steve, of course I didn't. And when I said they were "forecasting global warming" I didn't mean with the type of models and data that climatologists have available today. There wasn't nearly as much work being done on climatology compared to meteorology so I'm not surprised you didn't hear a peep about global warming. It wasn't being studied nearly as broadly as it is today. It would be more accurate to say that the majority of scientists who were doing any climatology work were "expecting" global warming, not "forecasting" it in the sense of the type of modeling that they are doing today.

[Mike Wagner]

In some ways I am thankful for global warming. A few years back I was in Jackson, Wyoming and learned that 12,000 years ago (a minuscule amount of geologic time) the whole area sat under 3,000 feet of ice. Glaciers extended as far south as St. Louis and covered New York City. You can see striations in the rocks in Central Park to this day from the glaciers. A return to an ice age would be a true global catastrophe.


A distinguishing characteristic of the human race is our almost infinite adaptability. There are humans living in the Arctic and Antarctic. There are humans living on the equator. We live at sea level and in the Himalayas.


No doubt that the climate has been warming but we will adapt. Golf will adapt and we labor and play on. Enough with the gloom and doom. Nothing stays the same. Accept and move forward.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on this site.

...and still no one can discuss specific ramifications.  Please tell us why this is ridiculous.  Specifics, please.

Increased catastrophic weather events; sea level rises; large areas of the globe becoming uninhabitable, leading to mass human migration; massive loss of biodiversity; inability to produce enough food to support the human population.  Not specific enough?  If you are genuinely interested in more detail, you’ll find it here - ]https://www.ipcc.ch/

I'm not interested in the obvious doomsday stuff everyone has talked about for years that hasn't happened.  I'm interested in specifically golf's % contribution to temperatures rising, and specifically what YOU or anyone else specifically is going to do about it.  I think in general, most of us are more responsible than in years past.  I'm not interested in preaching and generalities until those preaching are willing to give up something.

Oh.  I thought you were interested in specific ramifications of climate change.  Now you’re interested in what I personally am going to do about something that you don’t seem to think is a problem. 

Of course I'm interested in what you're personally doing.  I'm also interested in how much you think golf contributes to global warming.  I personally think "alarmists" are full of it.  I'm not denying temperatures are changing.  This thread is about golf, so when I hear people saying doomsday type things, I always wonder what specific things they are doing personally to combat it and how much they think golf contributes to the problem.

[Sean_A]

In some ways I am thankful for global warming. A few years back I was in Jackson, Wyoming and learned that 12,000 years ago (a minuscule amount of geologic time) the whole area sat under 3,000 feet of ice. Glaciers extended as far south as St. Louis and covered New York City. You can see striations in the rocks in Central Park to this day from the glaciers. A return to an ice age would be a true global catastrophe.


A distinguishing characteristic of the human race is our almost infinite adaptability. There are humans living in the Arctic and Antarctic. There are humans living on the equator. We live at sea level and in the Himalayas.


No doubt that the climate has been warming but we will adapt. Golf will adapt and we labor and play on. Enough with the gloom and doom. Nothing stays the same. Accept and move forward.

This may be the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever read on this site.

...and still no one can discuss specific ramifications.  Please tell us why this is ridiculous.  Specifics, please.

Increased catastrophic weather events; sea level rises; large areas of the globe becoming uninhabitable, leading to mass human migration; massive loss of biodiversity; inability to produce enough food to support the human population.  Not specific enough?  If you are genuinely interested in more detail, you’ll find it here - ]https://www.ipcc.ch/

I'm not interested in the obvious doomsday stuff everyone has talked about for years that hasn't happened.  I'm interested in specifically golf's % contribution to temperatures rising, and specifically what YOU or anyone else specifically is going to do about it.  I think in general, most of us are more responsible than in years past.  I'm not interested in preaching and generalities until those preaching are willing to give up something.

Oh.  I thought you were interested in specific ramifications of climate change.  Now you’re interested in what I personally am going to do about something that you don’t seem to think is a problem. 

Of course I'm interested in what you're personally doing.  I'm also interested in how much you think golf contributes to global warming.  I personally think "alarmists" are full of it.  I'm not denying temperatures are changing.  This thread is about golf, so when I hear people saying doomsday type things, I always wonder what specific things they are doing personally to combat it and how much they think golf contributes to the problem.

If we accept golf contributes to the problem the question isn't how much, but how. Once golfers understand how travelling to courses and the maintenance of courses contributes to global warming it becomes easier to look for ways to reduce the impact.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

To paraphrase John Cleese in Fawlty Towers, “don’t mention rollback, I did once but I think I got away with it!”.

Atb

[Steve Lang]

  JLahrman,

In the 70's folks were barely figuring out what the Keeling Curve implied and understanding diurnal and seasonal CO2 balances. In grad school meteorology class, I can't remember a peep or discussion or tech seminar on subject of global warming issues. Prognostic atmospheric computer modeling was focused on weather forecasting and photochemical smog reactions producing ozone hours or days in the future, not years or decades or longer periods now being forecast for climate change..

Just saying, did you have some experience on it in the 70's?

A couple of the first few hits when you google, 'Did they know about climate change in the 70s?'...

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

Steve, of course I didn't. And when I said they were "forecasting global warming" I didn't mean with the type of models and data that climatologists have available today. There wasn't nearly as much work being done on climatology compared to meteorology so I'm not surprised you didn't hear a peep about global warming. It wasn't being studied nearly as broadly as it is today. It would be more accurate to say that the majority of scientists who were doing any climatology work were "expecting" global warming, not "forecasting" it in the sense of the type of modeling that they are doing today.

JLahrman,


Never really researched the history before, and found this link last night... its long and pretty much matches my experience and your clarifications, worth the read at   https://history.aip.org/climate/climogy.htm




As Sean observes, "Once golfers understand how travelling to courses and the maintenance of courses contributes to global warming it becomes easier to look for ways to reduce the impact."

Now I'm wondering whether folks are going to worry about getting to Bandon, The Loop or Cabot?

[JLahrman]

Not sure where you found that link Steve, but that article was really interesting, not to mention sobering, and is worth a second read. We see people wanting to discount the opinions of "alarmists", but what is clear is that scientists are the ones raising the alarms and we are not listening enough to them. Getting to Bandon is the least of our problems.

[Lou_Duran]

Its hard to be optimistic that humanity is going to come together to implement real solutions that will matter in light of current conditions.

Communities at every level... local, regional, national, etc. are fractured and polarized on nearly every issue whether it be political, economic, scientific, religious, etc. in nature...and can't even agree on basic facts. Combined with current levels of global disparity that already exist at unprecedented levels between the haves and have nots, things will almost certainly continue in business-as-usual fashion.

Seriously??  Would you not concede tremendous progress on every level in the US (individual to corporate) over the last 20-30 years?  If you don't think so, try putting a beer can in someone's garbage at a dinner party in Seattle.  They'll shame you out the door ..lol

Mike, Jim L, Steve Lang and all affiliated "quacks",


"Global warming" and its all-inclusive/impossible to refute "climate change" successor have been litigated here exhaustively through the many years I've been following this site.  Mind you that many of us agnostics bordering on atheists on this secular religion can probably demonstrate much stronger credentials in science- I would enjoy seeing a comparison of Mr. Lang's CV and those of Messrs. Reader, Emerson, Kirk, et. al.- but does it really matter?  Minds are closed and we're mostly pissing into the wind.


Perhaps psychology might provide some insights to Kalen's despair.  Those who are prone to focus on the resources of other people will seldom be happy with their own fortunes (the often repeated caution not to compare yourself to others as you will always find people who are better off and some who are worse, so why bother!).


All living things have a strong sense of survival and, through evolution, the ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances is in the DNA.  For those Malthusians living among us but still a bit weak in the faith, maybe the following book might save you from total nihilism.   


https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467


No doubt that the environmentalist Left has excommunicated Bjorn Lomborg and declared him a heretic quack.  But maybe his evolved, current POV on climate change offers a better path forward for those who have a very low opinion of the common man and the need for our betters in government, the statists, to direct our ways.


Me, with five granddaughters under the age of 10, I fear the coercive response of government to the perceived calamity of man-made climate change much more than any real change in the environment as a result of continuing trends in the use of energy, population growth, food production, golf development, and most uses of natural resources for them and their future children. 

[Mike Wagner]

Its hard to be optimistic that humanity is going to come together to implement real solutions that will matter in light of current conditions.

Communities at every level... local, regional, national, etc. are fractured and polarized on nearly every issue whether it be political, economic, scientific, religious, etc. in nature...and can't even agree on basic facts. Combined with current levels of global disparity that already exist at unprecedented levels between the haves and have nots, things will almost certainly continue in business-as-usual fashion.

Seriously??  Would you not concede tremendous progress on every level in the US (individual to corporate) over the last 20-30 years?  If you don't think so, try putting a beer can in someone's garbage at a dinner party in Seattle.  They'll shame you out the door ..lol

Mike, Jim L, Steve Lang and all affiliated "quacks",


"Global warming" and its all-inclusive/impossible to refute "climate change" successor have been litigated here exhaustively through the many years I've been following this site.  Mind you that many of us agnostics bordering on atheists on this secular religion can probably demonstrate much stronger credentials in science- I would enjoy seeing a comparison of Mr. Lang's CV and those of Messrs. Reader, Emerson, Kirk, et. al.- but does it really matter?  Minds are closed and we're mostly pissing into the wind.


Perhaps psychology might provide some insights to Kalen's despair.  Those who are prone to focus on the resources of other people will seldom be happy with their own fortunes (the often repeated caution not to compare yourself to others as you will always find people who are better off and some who are worse, so why bother!).


All living things have a strong sense of survival and, through evolution, the ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances is in the DNA.  For those Malthusians living among us but still a bit weak in the faith, maybe the following book might save you from total nihilism.   


https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467


No doubt that the environmentalist Left has excommunicated Bjorn Lomborg and declared him a heretic quack.  But maybe his evolved, current POV on climate change offers a better path forward for those who have a very low opinion of the common man and the need for our betters in government, the statists, to direct our ways.


Me, with five granddaughters under the age of 10, I fear the coercive response of government to the perceived calamity of man-made climate change much more than any real change in the environment as a result of continuing trends in the use of energy, population growth, food production, golf development, and most uses of natural resources for them and their future children.

Amen, Lou.


Reading his book now in fact.

[Mark_Fine]

I recall playing golf two hours outside Shanghai and not being able to ever see my golf ball land beyond 75- 100 yards.  I said to my caddie, is it always like this?  The answer was, if you are really lucky you might get a clear day once or twice a month    Your eyes burn and it wasn’t fun (but as someone said, I guess you learn to adapt and get used to it)!   


Anyone who doesn’t think this is negatively impacting our planet and the local environment is obstinate and/or simply doesn’t care.  Let someone else worry about it 

[Mike Wagner]

I recall playing golf two hours outside Shanghai and not being able to ever see my golf ball land beyond 75- 100 yards.  I said to my caddie, is it always like this?  The answer was, if you are really lucky you might get a clear day once or twice a month    Your eyes burn and it wasn’t fun (but as someone said, I guess you learn to adapt and get used to it)!   


Anyone who doesn’t think this is negatively impacting our planet and the local environment is obstinate and/or simply doesn’t care.  Let someone else worry about it 

Mark - no one is saying that .. Not even the author, Lomborg, who Lou referenced. There's a problem, no doubt.  However, some are very critical of media, certain data, and how we look at how to help turn the problem.  No problem saying there's a problem ... however, media panic sells, extreme solutions sound great, but are not economical (nor are a good trade to "solve" the problem). End of the day, some of us who question certain things seem to get vilified from what I would call alarmists, so I usually start philosophically with "what are you willing to give up?"

[John Kirk]

I'm sitting this one out.  Lou, I'm going to send you an unrelated message off the board.

Please be careful to not let this devolve into a political shouting match.  It's easy to speculate and disagree about the future regarding this subject.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Fair comment back.  One thing we should give up (as it relates to golf since this is a GCA discussion group) is winter overseeding.   If I am not mistake the cost to overseed, fertilize and water an acre of turf is about $4K.  Do the math on what that costs the average golf course and the negative impact to the environment.  I am also in favor in general of giving up wall to wall irrigated green turf, I am more willing then I used to be to tolerate more trees (the correct species and in proper locations), I also don’t need pristine conditions (less fertilizer and pesticides etc) to enjoy a round of golf.  The less water used on a golf course the better as long as it is used smartly.  Some golf courses are setting good examples but we need many more of the higher end ones that everyone knows and sees to take the lead. 

[Steve Lang]

   Hey Mark,


When were you in Shanghai, was it by chance in 2013?  What you describe are classic smog effects.


I see from https://earth.org/data_visualization/air-pollution-in-shanghai/


Shanghai’s worst air pollution episode may have been during the 2013 Eastern China smog, when dangerously high levels of fine particulate matter blanketed the city. Readings crossed the 300 𝛍g / m3 mark on December 2nd; for comparison, the recommended WHO guideline is 10 𝛍g / m3.

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,
Fair comment back.  One thing we should give up (as it relates to golf since this is a GCA discussion group) is winter overseeding.   If I am not mistake the cost to overseed, fertilize and water an acre of turf is about $4K.  Do the math on what that costs the average golf course and the negative impact to the environment.  I am also in favor in general of giving up wall to wall irrigated green turf, I am more willing then I used to be to tolerate more trees (the correct species and in proper locations), I also don’t need pristine conditions (less fertilizer and pesticides etc) to enjoy a round of golf.  The less water used on a golf course the better as long as it is used smartly.  Some golf courses are setting good examples but we need many more of the higher end ones that everyone knows and sees to take the lead.

That's a great give .. I'd give it up aside from the topic .. it's just a better way to play.  Being in AZ, I wish we didn't oversee as much as we do. 

[Kalen Braley]

My only surprise is that it took 3 pages for a hack like Bjorn Lomborg to get mentioned.

He's yesterdays news as he's spent the last 2 decades spewing his cherry-picked rhetoric that's been debunked by nearly every reputable scientific body on the planet.  On the credibility scale he sits maybe a hair higher than Alex Jones.

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
Actually it might have been.  I am not home to check the date on my scorecard  but I have been to Shanghai several times and the smog has always been bad even that far outside the city (as you know the city keeps going and going even two hours drive away from downtown on the river). 

Mike,
I remember playing Desert Forest many years ago (highly doubt it is like this now).  I called the pro about playing as it was in October and asked him about the status of overseeding.  He said, “Mr. Fine, we don’t overseed at Desert Forest as we believe brown grass plays just as well as green grass.”  I knew I was going to love the place which I certainly did.  Sadly I have not been back but feel I will very much miss the original design. 

[James Reader]

Its hard to be optimistic that humanity is going to come together to implement real solutions that will matter in light of current conditions.

Communities at every level... local, regional, national, etc. are fractured and polarized on nearly every issue whether it be political, economic, scientific, religious, etc. in nature...and can't even agree on basic facts. Combined with current levels of global disparity that already exist at unprecedented levels between the haves and have nots, things will almost certainly continue in business-as-usual fashion.

Seriously??  Would you not concede tremendous progress on every level in the US (individual to corporate) over the last 20-30 years?  If you don't think so, try putting a beer can in someone's garbage at a dinner party in Seattle.  They'll shame you out the door ..lol

Mike, Jim L, Steve Lang and all affiliated "quacks",


"Global warming" and its all-inclusive/impossible to refute "climate change" successor have been litigated here exhaustively through the many years I've been following this site.  Mind you that many of us agnostics bordering on atheists on this secular religion can probably demonstrate much stronger credentials in science- I would enjoy seeing a comparison of Mr. Lang's CV and those of Messrs. Reader, Emerson, Kirk, et. al.- but does it really matter?  Minds are closed and we're mostly pissing into the wind.


Perhaps psychology might provide some insights to Kalen's despair.  Those who are prone to focus on the resources of other people will seldom be happy with their own fortunes (the often repeated caution not to compare yourself to others as you will always find people who are better off and some who are worse, so why bother!).


All living things have a strong sense of survival and, through evolution, the ability to adapt to ever-changing circumstances is in the DNA.  For those Malthusians living among us but still a bit weak in the faith, maybe the following book might save you from total nihilism.   


https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions/dp/1541647467


No doubt that the environmentalist Left has excommunicated Bjorn Lomborg and declared him a heretic quack.  But maybe his evolved, current POV on climate change offers a better path forward for those who have a very low opinion of the common man and the need for our betters in government, the statists, to direct our ways.


Me, with five granddaughters under the age of 10, I fear the coercive response of government to the perceived calamity of man-made climate change much more than any real change in the environment as a result of continuing trends in the use of energy, population growth, food production, golf development, and most uses of natural resources for them and their future children.

Amen, Lou.


Reading his book now in fact.

You may also want to listen to and read this critique of the book (there are many others) [size=78%]https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/[/size]


To be clear, I have absolutely no scientific credentials in terms of this issue (although as an insurance executive, I do have a reasonable understanding of some of the risks associated with climate change), I simply choose to listen to the over-whelming majority of the world’s scientists who do.

[Mike Wagner]

Steve,
Actually it might have been.  I am not home to check the date on my scorecard  but I have been to Shanghai several times and the smog has always been bad even that far outside the city (as you know the city keeps going and going even two hours drive away from downtown on the river). 

Mike,
I remember playing Desert Forest many years ago (highly doubt it is like this now).  I called the pro about playing as it was in October and asked him about the status of overseeding.  He said, “Mr. Fine, we don’t overseed at Desert Forest as we believe brown grass plays just as well as green grass.”  I knew I was going to love the place which I certainly did.  Sadly I have not been back but feel I will very much miss the original design.

Desert Forest is indeed a special place.


Talking Stick would be a great case study for not overseeding .. they could do one course and not do the other.  It's always amazing the couple weeks before oversees out there and I always wonder why they do it.  It plays so much better fast & firm.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Maybe someone at Talking Stick (I love both courses) will read this thread and take the lead here and hold off on overseeding next year.  Honestly you wouldn’t believe the emails and texts I sometimes get from people I don’t even know about something they read here.  We can make a difference 

[Mike Wagner]

My only surprise is that it took 3 pages for a hack like Bjorn Lomborg to get mentioned.

He's yesterdays news as he's spent the last 2 decades spewing his cherry-picked rhetoric that's been debunked by nearly every reputable scientific body on the planet.  On the credibility scale he sits maybe a hair higher than Alex Jones.

I'll give you this, he's not a great writer. Does anyone know names of ALL these greatest scientists in the world they always mention as a group?  I find it interesting that a guy like Bjorn, who makes very rational points in his arguments, gets dismissed as a hack. I guess since you're in the conversation, what are you willing to give up to stop climate change?  How much do you think golf contributes exactly?  What exactly do you think we should do as a country and as an entire globe to combat it?  Do you think we should rely solely on all these scientific experts no one can name and just take their word for everything?  Or should we question things and walk through them together methodically?

[Mike Wagner]

Mike,
Maybe someone at Talking Stick (I love both courses) will read this thread and take the lead here and hold off on overseeding next year.  Honestly you wouldn’t believe the emails and texts I sometimes get from people I don’t even know about something they read here.  We can make a difference 

I know some people there .. it's the perfect spot IMO to do one and not the other.  They have a ton of repeat customers through their "card" biz, so it would give a ton of folks the experience of playing both and actually comparing which one they like better.  I have no doubt if they had comparisons at a place like TS where both courses play similar, that minds would be changed.

[David_Tepper]

Mike Wagner -

You can start here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

DT,


p.s. Remember, there are still so-called authorities who deny the Holocaust happened or that smoking is bad for your health.

[Mike_Young]

When this much idealism gets going Kenny Powers sums it up best...Reality is golf is miniscule when it comes to it's affect on global warming and vice versa...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De7rbB2bteE

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()