pat sublett
Well-known Member
Mesquites fully leaved out, pecans budding, peaches big as a nickel and 28 degrees at noon today. North central TX
- Thread starter pat sublett
- Start date
Steve@Advance
Well-known Member
I'm right on the edge of the freeze.
Think it was 35* this morning!
I'll never be warm again!
Think it was 35* this morning!
I'll never be warm again!
Donald in MN
Member
9 above here in s.e.minnesota still snow on the ground 3-6" coming tomorrow
-Monday. Birds are hungry lambs are cold even in the barn
-Monday. Birds are hungry lambs are cold even in the barn
onefarmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- 6735 S Lowell Rd, St Johns, Mi 48879
You have global warming? Can you send me some?
Matt from Oz
Member
Hi All
Give you a different perspective. You guys are cold up there and we are abnormally hot and very dry down here. I live in central western New South Wales Australia we are supposed to be in autumn (fall) still getting peak daytime temps of over 30 degrees centigrade and as high as 35. Have not had decent rain since last spring. Summer was very hot. I think things are acting up we seem to be seeing more extremes of weather.
Regards
Matt
Give you a different perspective. You guys are cold up there and we are abnormally hot and very dry down here. I live in central western New South Wales Australia we are supposed to be in autumn (fall) still getting peak daytime temps of over 30 degrees centigrade and as high as 35. Have not had decent rain since last spring. Summer was very hot. I think things are acting up we seem to be seeing more extremes of weather.
Regards
Matt
RedGreenGuy
Member
16 WC IL this morning.
Kansasredneck
Member
Heard a guy say he threw out a cup of hot coffee up there. It froze so fast the ice was still warm.
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
38 here in south east Texas. I am still trying to figure out. How global warming means more cold spells.
Bob Bancroft
Well-known Member
- Location
- Aurora NY
Does that mean all those things are destroyed?
I wish someone would tell those nit-wits that we are all on a ball floating in space going around a sun .its a miracle we ether don't burn up or freeze to death , I was told once that all it would take is about a 1000 miles in orbit change to give us a real problem 🔥🔥🕸🕸
Part Time Pete
Well-known Member
- Location
- Leatherstocking Region NY
Fifteen degrees and 6" of fresh snow here this morning (central NY) - ugh
They had to change from calling it global warming to climate change because they predicted that the earth was going to freeze to death & since that didnt happen, now it's called climate change to fit there narrative so rich countries can help pay for poor countries to solved this made up problem. It's a slush fund for these rich countries to feast on.
Elton Fancher
Member
Most folks don't want to believe global warming if it looks progressive or especially if it might cost money. Average temperature rise is not mentioned. There are always hot and cold spells in different regions, but the average global temperature is important. I know I will be clobbered here, but would it not be sensible to err on the side of caution rather than to dismiss the data offhand as some sort of scientific hoax? Why would 90 plus per cent of Real weather scientists just make up a hoax? I cannot understand the disdain our country has for facts.
Elton Fancher
Member
The money trail leads us to the deniers, oil and gas and coal. But I just want to know why folks want to think that gas guzzling vehicles, smoke filled air, dirty water, could possibly be the best future for our children or grandchildren. China has been kicking our butts but if you will look into it the price they are paying in environmental damage to their country is frightening. But everyone seems to want to see the facts that please them, or at least that allow them to belong to a group that they feel comfortable with.
ptfarmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- San Antonio, Tx
Climate change, been happening a long time before the human race, and will still be happening after the human race is long gone.
Elton Fancher
Member
You are right about that. But are we accelerating something that could mean our early demise, and can we do anything to slow it?
Lumbersawyer
Member
- Location
- Grand Rapids, MN
We still have 3-4 feet of good ice on our lakes up here in northern Mn. By good ice, I mean you can still drive a vehicle on it. Spring has not happened yet. We had some warm days earlier, but there is no sign of spring here at all. It looks more like Feb. than April. Single digits at night and only in the twenty's during the day. It was just like this a few years ago. We had ice floating in big Winie opening day of fishing, it is usually first week of May. Looks like a cold opener for fishing again this year.
But are we accelerating something that could mean our early demise, and can we do anything to slow it? Really? You have hard data that you yourself collected to back this up with a comparison of the highest temps each area has ever achieve sense time began? You can show the data for how fast it warmed 3 million years ago? Not some guess by a geologist or weather guesser but actual recorded temps? Nope? Didn't think so. The EPA's "many scientist" that they claimed all agreed turns out to be less than 100 and 99.9% of their studies they have never released for pier review which is the gold standard for any science to be taken seriously.
Think about it. When the areas that were once tropic areas that are now cold weather areas are again tropical areas and the temps are still climbing then we have an issue.
So seeing that you swallowed the global warming/climate change thing hook line and sinker.......do you wanna buy a bridge?
Rick
Elton Fancher
Member
Actually I asked a question because I am curious about why and what we think. I personally am not a climate scientist and would have to assume that you are not. Why is this personal to you? And have you collected data to prove that professional climate scientists are incorrect? I don't think your credentials as a skeptic are any more valid than anyone that might believe that something could possibly be going on here. I was seeking civil conversation. Is that difficult for you?
kcm.MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- NW Minnesota
Elton, I don't think anybody means to deny you your beliefs. At this time, it seems like you're sorta on the fence. I've never had a problem with what others may believe, UNLESS and UNTIL it starts infringing on what I or someone else believes. I think most of the folks here on YT are that way.
Anyway, science has proven that dinosaurs roamed for millions of years in parts of the world that are now covered in ice. Scientists have also proven that these same areas have been covered in glaciers for thousands of years. So, let's look at those two things. "Millions of years" vs. "thousands of years". We're in a transition phase right now. The Earth is (according to scientific exploration) normally much warmer than it is now.
I'm not saying that mankind has zero effect on the Earth or her climate, as only a fool (in my opinion) would believe that. However, seems to me if volcanoes can erupt sending ash into the atmosphere that circles the globe, that just this one event produces SSOOOOO much change that mankind pales in comparison. And yet, the Earth doesn't really react much to even earthquakes. The effects of a volcano eruption so far in my lifetime seem to last a few weeks at most, and most areas don't seem to even realize any difference at all. So seems difficult for me to understand how mankind could be destroying the planet with such haste.
With all of the cameras and internet and reporting (both professional and amateur) going on, look at how "normal" storms are thrown out of proportion nowdays. Storm of the century? What's a century in the time of the Earth? Can't tell you how many 100-year floods I've seen! Weather guessers can't even accurately predict the weather more than about 3 days out. How can I trust these people to know that mankind is causing all this harm?
There's so much more to this climate-change stuff that it would easily fill several books. But in the short of things, I personally cannot see that there is a lot of climate damage caused by mankind. Some? YES!! But not nearly enough to justify so-called unusual fluctuations in the weather patterns. Everything goes along in cycles, and mankind hasn't been around for even 1/100th of a single cycle -- that's talking since the VERY DAWN of humanoid life!! ...And who's to say that every "cycle" is the same? I would expect the cycles to have wide variances as well.
All that said, I'm just a "guesser" like everyone else, and my words/thoughts hold no more value than anyone else's. I urge everyone to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, preferably without any agendas or other strings attached.
Anyway, science has proven that dinosaurs roamed for millions of years in parts of the world that are now covered in ice. Scientists have also proven that these same areas have been covered in glaciers for thousands of years. So, let's look at those two things. "Millions of years" vs. "thousands of years". We're in a transition phase right now. The Earth is (according to scientific exploration) normally much warmer than it is now.
I'm not saying that mankind has zero effect on the Earth or her climate, as only a fool (in my opinion) would believe that. However, seems to me if volcanoes can erupt sending ash into the atmosphere that circles the globe, that just this one event produces SSOOOOO much change that mankind pales in comparison. And yet, the Earth doesn't really react much to even earthquakes. The effects of a volcano eruption so far in my lifetime seem to last a few weeks at most, and most areas don't seem to even realize any difference at all. So seems difficult for me to understand how mankind could be destroying the planet with such haste.
With all of the cameras and internet and reporting (both professional and amateur) going on, look at how "normal" storms are thrown out of proportion nowdays. Storm of the century? What's a century in the time of the Earth? Can't tell you how many 100-year floods I've seen! Weather guessers can't even accurately predict the weather more than about 3 days out. How can I trust these people to know that mankind is causing all this harm?
There's so much more to this climate-change stuff that it would easily fill several books. But in the short of things, I personally cannot see that there is a lot of climate damage caused by mankind. Some? YES!! But not nearly enough to justify so-called unusual fluctuations in the weather patterns. Everything goes along in cycles, and mankind hasn't been around for even 1/100th of a single cycle -- that's talking since the VERY DAWN of humanoid life!! ...And who's to say that every "cycle" is the same? I would expect the cycles to have wide variances as well.
All that said, I'm just a "guesser" like everyone else, and my words/thoughts hold no more value than anyone else's. I urge everyone to do their own research and draw their own conclusions, preferably without any agendas or other strings attached.
Elton Fancher
Member
My belief is, that since the industrial age, man has been pouring contaminants into the air. Possibly a catalyst for what may have been coming anyhow. Can we do anything to change it? Maybe not. But reputable data seems to be overwhelming that change is afoot. Quite possibly the next large volcano could contribute more damage than man has in his short time on earth. My concern is, a seeming disbelief in most scientific theory, a disdain for experts in any field, by the neo-conservative faction of Americans today. I am heartened by the fact that many of you do have enough faith in science to believe the earth is more than 6000 years old, many of my friends and neighbors don't believe that. I am very fearful that an all out attack on science in the public school systems is beginning.
Elton Fancher
Member
Russia is now making every effort to bring shipping into the seas on its northern shores, and apparently expects the ice to clear enough to end its landlocked isolation.
huntingreen2day2
Member
It is about money that is why. Can you just say Al Gore. He really needs to practice what he preaches.
Thing of it is the tree huggers claim it's fact, not a theory. A few facts that are out there that should bring some stuff into context. They know that a large volcanic eruption can put pollutants in the air in a couple of days than man can in 100 years. Back 200 or more years ago mother nature put the pollutants in the air. When forest/wild fires started to burn man could only try to get out of the way. And world wide hundreds of thousands of square miles burned each year. Today most countries spend a good deal of money, time and effort fighting those fires. But the pollutants were in the air.
You really want to trust the EPA? Couple of years ago when they were pushing both the tier 3 and 4 diesel levels they flat out lied. They repeatedly made claims about "thousands" of children who died in the US in the 50's and early 60's due to diesel particulate matter in the air. Back in that time frame most farm tractors were gas, diesel didn't really start to get popular until the mid 60's and even then a lot of tractors were available in both gas and diesel. Most might and mid duty trucks at that time were gas too. There were no diesel pickups. And box vans, dump trucks and school buses were almost all gas right up till the mid 70's. Heck even some construction equipment was still gas right up to the mid 60's. Even some semi tractors were gas. Really common for day cabs to be gasses back then.......so the question that comes to mind is where did all this diesel particulate matter come from? Another question is where are these autopsy reports to back up these claims. Back in those days if someone had a history of breathing problems, even a kid, and they died of a repertory event that's what went on the death certificate and most often autopsies were not performed. Heck during the fall of 69 a neighbor kid my age, I'd known him most of my life, died of spinal meningitis. They didn't do an autopsy. They knew what killed him. So they failed to acknowledge that diesels were not that big a deal in that time frame and lied about these poor kids they claimed died. All to get their agenda through. Given their track record why should I believe a word they say?
Rick
Whether global warming is a fact or not is not the right discussion for the world, or us, to be having. The science is extremely complex and is not something we on this forum have any hope of developing a truly informed opinion about. However, what scientists have identified to be drivers of climate change are observationally bad in the short term for us and the environment. The extraction, refinement, and use of fossil fuels/chemicals has real downsides that can be observed in real time. While great effort has been made to ameliorate the problems with each level of fossil fuel/chemical use it is still not in our best interest to expand the use of these fuels and chemicals. Alternatives need to be found and developed.
Mercury in fish is just one example and has become a huge problem due to bioaccumulation up the chain to apex predators such as tuna. While there are various reasons for this, coal is demonstrably at the top of the list as a cause of this contamination. There is no safe level for mercury in humans and we do not have to ponder or argue that this might happen in the future. It is an observable fact today. We don't have to wonder what will happen, it already has.
Any discussion we have needs to be based on currently observable fact. And the fact is many diseases are not a random process. They have a cause and there are maps that show areas where there are spikes in disease rates that correspond to various fossil fuel/chemical activities in the local area. The reason this is such a vitally important discussion is because of the consequences if we do nothing. So, the discussion should be; What price should our kids or their kids pay while we argue about what ifs while there are changes that we can make today that are based on observable fact that will lessen the impact of our activities on future generations?
Mercury in fish is just one example and has become a huge problem due to bioaccumulation up the chain to apex predators such as tuna. While there are various reasons for this, coal is demonstrably at the top of the list as a cause of this contamination. There is no safe level for mercury in humans and we do not have to ponder or argue that this might happen in the future. It is an observable fact today. We don't have to wonder what will happen, it already has.
Any discussion we have needs to be based on currently observable fact. And the fact is many diseases are not a random process. They have a cause and there are maps that show areas where there are spikes in disease rates that correspond to various fossil fuel/chemical activities in the local area. The reason this is such a vitally important discussion is because of the consequences if we do nothing. So, the discussion should be; What price should our kids or their kids pay while we argue about what ifs while there are changes that we can make today that are based on observable fact that will lessen the impact of our activities on future generations?
Traditional Farmer
Well-known Member
- Location
- Virginia
Generally speaking its 'follow the money' a pile of people are making big bucks off the Global Warming thing these days whether its actually occurring or not.Almost always the people funding a
so called scientific study gets their desired results and it happens on all sides of issues.Monsanto funds studies that say GMO and Roundup are harmless to humans and the environment
whether its true or not, its not a truly independent look at those things.
so called scientific study gets their desired results and it happens on all sides of issues.Monsanto funds studies that say GMO and Roundup are harmless to humans and the environment
whether its true or not, its not a truly independent look at those things.
kcm.MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- NW Minnesota
And herein lies a root of the problem. We can work to understand the here and now, and even the not-so-distant past. However, it's simply not possible to obtain [i:21f3be6651][b:21f3be6651]all[/b:21f3be6651][/i:21f3be6651] of the answers of the past simply by looking at a few parts of the past -- say, like studying ice core samples.
It is also well-known that the tectonic plates are always on the move, albeit very slowly. Still, there will come a time when any hints to the past will go underneath another plate and be ground into non-existence. Much of the current sea floor used to be dry land. Most all of our mountain tops have signs of marine fossils. ....How are we supposed to look back beyond a certain point when we cannot be certain of the evidence we think we find?
I "ABSOLUTELY AGREE" that we are polluting the planet. I also believe wholeheartedly that no matter how hard we try, it will take much, MUCH more effort on our part to come close to equaling the damage of time and natural change.
One interesting tidbit I'd like to throw out concerning oil/gas pollution:
There was once a time when there was SO MUCH oil everywhere that people and livestock would often get caught in pools of the stinky stuff. Oftentimes these pools would start to burn, whether by lightning or wildfire or ???, but the point is oil and gases were literally everywhere, from the surface and going down into the earth. When the oil would burn naturally, I'm fairly certain it wasn't burning under such strict pollution standards as we have today. Likewise, it may very well be that Yellowstone has not erupted yet (as many scientists think it's LONG overdue) simply because one of the primary catalysts is lessened. That missing catalyst there and many other locations in the world would be the oil and gas that we've pumped out of the ground and released slowly rather than in lump-sum amounts.
I honestly have no idea if or how much difference that tidbit may make, but it has long been a curious thought in my pea-brain. I think it would likely be better for these raw fuels to be burnt in lump-sum manner rather than in a continuous fashion as is "normal" today, but I have a very difficult time even listening to the hype put out by shysters such as Al Gore. If he lived what he preached, I might at least have some respect for the man. But........ As for those of you who have participated in this thread, I offer a hearty "Thank You". It's always nice to hash over such thoughts and ideas, so long as it is conversation and not argument. Thanks for keeping it civil.
Crazy Horse
Well-known Member
Other than what we read about or see on TV, I suspect that there are no (or few) climatologists here on the YT site. All I know is this (and this is a fact), if I had a medical condition and 100 doctors checked me out with 95% of them agreeing that I needed surgery or some form of agreed-upon treatment, I would wake up quick and take their advice. Sure, others might disagree with doing it that way, just let it play out on its own or perhaps take some alternative treatment at a new-age clinic in Columbia or down the street using alternative cures, that's their choice. But for me, I'll go with those who are educated to give me what I need to survive.
The "97% consensus" is a myth. The climate changes, it's not static, and man can have an effect. That I agree with. The idea that 97% of all climate scientists agree completely that it's all caused by man? Hogwash.
One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:
Q1. When compared with pre?1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self?identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer?reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.
So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.
The "97% consensus" is a myth. The climate changes, it's not static, and man can have an effect. That I agree with. The idea that 97% of all climate scientists agree completely that it's all caused by man? Hogwash.
One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:
Q1. When compared with pre?1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self?identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer?reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.
So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.
The "97% consensus" is a myth. The climate changes, it's not static, and man can have an effect. That I agree with. The idea that 97% of all climate scientists agree completely that it's all caused by man? Hogwash.
One of the most commonly cited studies of the “97 percent” was conducted by a University of Illinois professor and a graduate student who asked the following questions to 10,257 Earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies:
1. When compared with pre?1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
They received responses from 3,146 people, of which only 5 percent self?identified as climate scientists. To get to the magic 97 percent in the affirmative to both questions — in the answers to questions even many skeptics would answer “yes” — the study’s authors had to whittle down the survey to a paltry 79 “climate scientists,” defined as those who also have “published more than 50 percent of their recent peer?reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” The National Academy of Sciences survey is similarly skewed.
So, bottom line: A handful of “qualified” scientists asserting “fact” is not what it seems. Yet the enviro-left still clings to this fraudulent “argument by authority” nonsense.
The "97% consensus" is a myth. The climate changes, it's not static, and man can have an effect. That I agree with. The idea that 97% of all climate scientists agree completely that it's all caused by man? Hogwash.
http://www.theclimategatebook.com/busting-the-97-myth/
OK make no mistake. I did not say that man hasn't causes a lot of bad pollution. I said that global warming is BS. Those statements don't cancel each other out.
Read what Bret wrote, several times I might add..... Yea the climate scientist, the many/majority of the ones often quoted by the EPA total less than 100. And if you bother to look a heck of a lot of their work that they claim proves global warming they have refused to release for the pier review process. A lot that has been pier reviewed has failed to pass muster and is considered by the scientific community to be junk science.
OK, I may not be a climatologist. But I'm not a economist either. Does that mean I can't form an opinion about the economy or the economic policies of the government? I can read. I can research too. And I can and will form an opinion. If I feel that I have been lied to, and I feel the EPA and tree huggers in general have been lying worse than a politician running for office, then I'm going to question what they are putting out. I'm going to write my representatives demanding fixes or cutting power/funding. So this "you can't form an opinion" nonsense is nothing more than people trying to stifle free speech. "Shut up and do as you are told"!
I think that we need to take a balanced approach to this. The tree huggers/EPA don't want balanced at all. It's there way or no way. I even had a guy, retired from the EPA, tell me a few years back "we may have to eliminate some human life to protect the environment"! Translated into legal terms he is advocating committing MURDER. And these are the people you want me to believe in?
The tree huggers and the EPA should read themselves a bedtime story each night until they learn the lesson it teaches. Something about a little boy and a wolf. Yea they were selling wolf tickets when they claimed that we were facing a man induced ice age back in the late 60's and into the 70's. Then it was the ozone layer and Freon in the 80's (make no mistake Freon is a bad pollutant and things needed to change) they were selling wolf tickets to. It was wolf tickets because it take Freon about 50 years to breakdown from it's heavier than air state and get up to the ozone layer. Freon didn't come into widespread use until the late 50's. Just how did it get way up there in a short 25 years or so? Then it was global warming wolf tickets. Ever wonder why they stopped calling it global warming? Because even their tampered with data didn't support global warming. Again wolf tickets. Now climate change? They have cried wolf for so long, and been selling wolf tickets to anyone who will still believe them they have indeed become that little boy.
Rick
For the most part the scientist that you have so much faith in are on the gov. payroll and will deliver whatever facts that their employer wants. In the big picture the data they have is only for a short period of time. They used a "educated" guess to come up with a starting point & then penciled in a number that would work in their favor. You can talk about it all day, but the point is redistribution of wealth and to equalize all the countries in the world. The real culprits are not going to pony up any money, so the U.S. (where the $ is) is going to pay the price for everyone else. This is going to level the playing field.....
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy