Pond Boss Forums INTRO Questions & Observations Heat Happens

For those of you with the winter blues......and for the rest of you, its kind of a long read, don't bother if you don’t have the time.......

Theo, your comment about Bob's Q&A on global warming spurred my memory. Needless to say, I have not seen the new PB yet :rolleyes: but wanted to share a fairly recent article I came across, that echoes my sentiments on global warming. This is meant solely as information for my pond boss brethren and shall not be used to start a political argument or I will delete the post. Please digest the contents if you wish to compare and contrast with the information most of us see on a daily basis emanating from our TV's, radio, and newspapers.

I believe the information is relevant to how we might have to adapt and gradually change our pond management practices particularly in more northern ponds over the coming decades. If the premise of the article is really the basis for warming, then I am sorry to report to those who still believe in pirates.....they will become extinct

Global Warming: An Unstoppable 1,500-Year Cycle
New Book Debunks Greenhouse Fears and Points to Natural 1,500-Year Warming Cycles
NEW YORK, Nov. 9 /PRNewswire/ -- A new book that is bound to be
controversial in public policy and environmental circles says that the
Earth has a moderate, natural warming roughly every 1,500 years caused by a solar- linked cycle. The current Modern Warming may be mostly due to that natural cycle and not human activity, say the book's authors, well-known climate physicist Fred Singer and Hudson Institute economist Dennis Avery. "Unstoppable Global Warming-Every 1500 Years" (Rowman & Littlefield, 276 pages, $24.95) assembles physical and historical evidence of the natural climate cycle that ranges from ancient records in Rome, Egypt, and China; to 12,000 antique paintings in museums; to Vikings' tooth enamel in Greenland cemeteries; and to high-tech analyses of ice cores, seabed sediments, tree rings, fossil pollen and cave stalagmites.

"The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first
century," says Avery, "and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages.
Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age. It isn't yet warm enough for wine grapes in today's Britain. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today's warming is not unprecedented."

"We have lots of physical evidence for the 1,500-year cycle," says
Singer. "Yet we don't have physical evidence that human-emitted CO2 is
adding significantly to the natural cycle. The current warming started in 1850, too early to be blamed on industries and autos." Singer notes that humanity learned of the 1,500-year cycle only recently, from the first Greenland ice cores brought up in 1983. The cycle was too long and moderate to be observed by earlier peoples without thermometers and written records. The Greenland ice cores showed the 1,500-year cycle going back 250,000 years. It raises temperatures at the latitude of New York and Paris by 1-2 degrees C for centuries at a time, more at the North and South Poles, with a global average of 0.5 degrees C.

In 1987, the first Antarctic ice core showed the cycle extending back
through the last 400,000 years and four Ice Ages-and demonstrated the cycle was indeed global. There is also evidence of the 1,500-year cycle in seabed sediments from six oceans, in ancient tree rings from around the Northern Hemisphere, in glacier advances and retreats from Greenland to New Zealand, and in cave stalagmites from every continent including South Africa.

The North American Pollen Database shows nine complete reorganizations of the continent's trees and plants in the past 14,000 years, or one every 1,650 years. "The deepest seabed sediment cores show the cycle has been going on for at least a million years," says Avery.

Sunspot observations over the past 400 years, along with modern
analysis of carbon and beryllium isotopes, link the 1,500-year cycle to
variations recently detected by satellites in the sun's irradiance.

Antarctic ice studies show global temperatures tracking closely with atmospheric CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. However, Singer and
Avery note the studies also show that temperature changes preceded the CO2 changes by about 800 years. Thus, more warming has produced more
atmospheric CO2, rather than more CO2 producing global warming. This makes sense, say the authors, because the oceans hold vastly more CO2 than the air, and warming forces water to release some its gases.

Singer and Avery say that the science of the natural cycle runs counter
to what many believe and fear will happen as a result of man-made global warming:
* Wild species won't become extinct in our warming because they've been
through at least 600 previous warmings, including the Holocene Warming
just 5,000 years ago that was much warmer than today.
* The seas won't rise to drown New York before the next cooling, because 90 percent of the world's remaining ice is in the melt-resistant Antarctic. Even a 5 degree C warming would decrease its ice mass by only 1.5 percent, over centuries.
* Warming won't bring famine, because it brings what crops like – longer growing seasons, more sunlight, and few untimely frosts. More CO2 also stimulates plants' growth, and enhances their water use efficiency.

"We hope our book will help calm the rampant hysteria about global
warming and the flawed Greenhouse models," emphasizes Avery. "We should be using our resources and technology to find the best ways to adapt to the inevitable but moderate warming to come, not to study one climate model after another, scare people to death, and pass crippling 'environmental' legislation that would deny the world the economic growth it needs to overcome poverty, the greatest problem of all."

About Hudson Institute
Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization
dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global
security, prosperity, and freedom. For more information about Hudson
Institute, visit our website at http://www.hudson.org.
Available Topic Expert(s): For information on the listed expert(s), click appropriate link.

Dennis Avery
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=52881
Dr. S. Fred Singer
http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=52883
SOURCE Hudson Institute
Related links:
http://www.hudson.org

Interesting read, thanks Dave.

I have a little model that fits my little narrow mind.

This model states that the following statements are inarguable.

1. The world has undergone a multitude of significant cyclical climatic changes over history.

2. Man has a minor influence on his environment.

3. It is impossible to know precisely what part of the warming/cooling cycle we would be experiencing without our presence.

Therefore, if the preceding statements are true, man is just as likely to be exerting a beneficial environmental influence as a detrimental one, and there is no way to tell which one is more accurate.

It's kind of like saying that I have a five acre pond and I harvest six four-pound largemouth that the fishing will be worse over time. It may be intuitively true, but you never know the millions of trillions of variations that may come about by taking those fish out. Who's to say that the harvest of those fish didn't decrease competition against another fish that was a potential twelve pounder. Or who's to say that one of those bass wasn't going to eat the baby redear that was going to be the state record. Or that the additional biomass of those six fish wasn't going to be enough to start a BOD cascade that results in the obliteration of the entire fish community. Maybe these sound ludicrous, but our environment is so complex I don't know how we can make a simple equation of "Increased CO2 emission = human disaster".

Why couldn't you say that man's warming influence is what will keep the world from falling into a pre-scheduled ice age 500 years from now that would have devastated our world?

Geez...It's all way too complicated to me. I'll go back to watching the BCS championship game.

Of course, maybe the fact that I've been typing this post has resulted in the last Ohio State fumble.......

Now I know - it's Bruce's fault OSU played horrible in the first half.

D.I.E.D., I present you with a quote from the old Fridays TV show:
"Why hmmm that's hmmm blasphemy hmmm!"

Here's what our CO2 has brought the world!

Nebraska is currently a national disaster area. We came out of a horrific ice storm with thousands of homes losing power. I drove eighty miles and didn't see a single unbroken tree.

Bruce, sorry to hear that. You guys out west are really having some bad weather problems. Is your Governor going to blame President
Bush, and when will Barbara S., Alex B. the Revs Al & Jessie be there? How about those $150k FEMA trailors? You guys are the backbone of this country. I wait proudly to be moderated........

Dave & Bruce,
I know not everyone believes the hysteria in the media, but it's still comforting to find out people you like & respect share your thoughts on current affairs.
Thanks for sharing(pun intended)

Here is a link to more pictures from the recent ice storm in central NE.

http://www.extremeinstability.com/06-12-31.htm

This same site also has pictures of a supercell thunderstorm that went over our pond in June of 04, the small tornados pictured touched down less than 2 miles from the pond. To be honest with you I have never seen a cloud rotate like this one, here is the link.

http://www.extremeinstability.com/04-6-13.htm

I share Bruce's moderate view. Some believe man is too puny to have any effect on climate, others believe man is the major cause of climatic changes. The fact is, a single camp fire can have a very, very slight effect on the climate. Thousands of chimneys belching black smoke may even have a measurable effect on climate, over time. However, volcanoes and massive ocean algae blooms have a much more profound and immediate change in climate, and can make man's efforts (good or bad) seem trivial. But why worry about something over which we have no control? It does no good to waste our time blaming and fighting about climate change. We just have to learn to adapt to the anicent, inevitible, endless cycles.

The global warming insanity is very amusing but also really scary. No doubt the earth is warming, but I think it's pretty rediculous to think there would ever be periods when it wasn't warming or cooling. Wouldn't make sense for something like the earth to ever be in a steady state condition, too many variables in inputs. People seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Vikings settled Iceland from 800-1200 AD and then virtually died out because the climate cooled and they could no longer grow enough to feed themselves. We are just now coming out of that cooling period I believe.

The scary part is that it's all about regulating and controlling energy. That's why the greenhouse gas nuts are getting so frantic to have their regulations put into law and practice because they know their science is phony and unsupported, and the earth will soon move into another cooling trend. If that happens they'll be exposed as frauds. If their policies are put in place before the earth starts to cool again, they will then claim credit for saving the earth. Anyway, the last congressional election tells me that the nuts are going to prevail and we will all have to suffer the consequences of their legislation. That's why we need to come up with a way to store carbon in ponds, then we can get subsidies to construct and manage our carbon sinks, to do our part to save the earth. We'll be international heroes and probably get a spot in a Spotted Al Gore movie where he can explain how he first invented carbon sinks, then saved the earth from global warming.

Good points about the grapes in England. That's something I hadn't heard before, but just more proof that the media and politicians have taken a natural event and turned it into a money making, hysteria driven crissis that doesn't even exist.

One degree increase in the average global tempature over the last one hundred years is hardly a world disaster. Even Kioto and the UN have lowered it's worse case scenerio's by half, yet the people making big money on this, are flying around the world in private jets, motorcades and own multiple mansions. They tell us how bad it is, but do nothing themselves to show they actualy believe what they are predicting is true.

I'm not naming names to keep this from going political, but it is frustrating how hypocritical the entire non-event really is.

Has anybody noticed that last year during the huricanes and all the doom and gloom we were getting in the news, that it was worse in the 1930's and 40's? It seems that's when most of our extreme records were set too. Every night we watch the news and the weatherman tells us of the high and low temps, along with when the record tempatures were set. Most were set in the early to middle of the last century!!!

When we start setting record tempatures on at least a few times a year, than I might take this more seriously.

Eddie

That sounds and looks real similar to the ice storm we had 2 years ago. Broken limbs and tree tops are still falling down here when there is high wind.

Bobad, don't forget about the cycles of the sun having an influence on heating and cooling cycles of the planet. The oceans cold water currents are also another primary influnce. Basically there are a number of different variables that interact which make it very hard to definativly determine what infleunce man has had on the climate with increasing CO2 and methane levels in the atmosphere. Who knows, if a major volcanic eruption happened tomarrow we would probably be looking at ways to to try and warm up the planet.

Those are absolutely beautiful yet horrifying pics shorty....very cool stuff. glad i'm not a flatlander

Bruce, i like yer theory.

another way to look at it......there's a big scientific word that's used to describe the cause and effects of actions in a "system", IIRC its called "perturbations" the outcomes of which can be subtle or dramatic depending on the circumstances. humans have been cognizant of the world around them for only a miniscule portion of geologic time. where are we in the system? are we seeing/causing a perturbation, or the outcome of one? (i.e. a routine perturbation of the sun).

the article also hints at my theory for the completion of the cycle in which global warming, while causing droughts in some areas, glacial melting, and ice cap reduction, also brings rains and heavier snows to other areas at lower latitudes thus increasing the (heat) reflective properties of the earth and thus precipitating a new cooling cycle (i.e. an ice age following extreme cycles........otherwise gradual global cooling). back and forth we go like a yo yo.

Imagine managing a pond under the following conditions. Unrelenting 24/7 sensationalistic coverage of "bad" news. Every day and every event receiving the same emphasis until a new story comes along to boost ratings. Dam burst, 1/2" water level drop; 30 minute heron visit, week-long water turkey colony infestation; complete fish kill, one dead baby BG; duckweed covering the entire pond, single leaf fallen in the water - all equally qualified to receive attention as the crisis de jour.

Masses of poorly informed, frightened fish stirred up by agitators willing to do anything to further their own personal agenda (probably Redears!). Constant calls to do something, anything right now for (fill in the blank). Tax breaks for bass, feed incentives for turtles, open arms for nutria, government sponsered breeding programs for triploid grass carp, all based on piscean opinion formed by bad information and Redear activists.

That's no way to manage a pond. Or a country, or a planet.

Game - set - match. Theo is the man!!!

Theo, if it ever gets that bad, I'll drain my pond, flood it for 40 days and 40 nights, and start over.

Great post Dave! I give it five of five stars.

Bruce, I like your model. So simple even a bean counter can understand it.

Theo, unfortunately I believe there is more truth to your post that I want to hear. When did news become so sensationalized? I well remember the days of tuning into the evening news to hear factual accounts of events. Now the news is filled with opinions and conjecture.

Webster's Dictonary defines the word conjecture as "an inferring, theorizing, or predicting from incomplete evidence; guesswork." I think this definition covers much of what is presented as fact these days.

Jeez, how did I get this serious????

You said it rmedgar, "Theo is the man!"

Wait until the tilapia form a PAC and march on Washington, hire Gloria Allred and protest pond cooling and unfair treatment just because they are illegals doing jobs no one else will accept. CNN and ABC will do in depth reports, they will appear on Meet the Nation, 60 Minutes, Oprah and Barbara Walters. All you pond owners will be forced to install pond warmers, feed higher protein food, provide adequate housing and of course start paying minimum wage and a cash settlement for past injustices, even if you never stocked or intended to stock any tilapia.

remember the 70's ad campaign against drugs?...."the mind, its a terrible thing to waste".......i think theo was listening...

funny Rad