Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

Status
Not open for further replies.

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
The major control on pine beetle is very cold weather. They produce natural anti-freeze and need prolonged periods of cold(minus 30 celcius or more to start killing significant numbers). The last winter that had the necessary conditions was more than two decades ago in 1986, I remember it well because I was working outside in the forest industry, it didn't get over -30 for a month and it stayed under -40 for a week.

The beetle is moving south, Ponderosa are being hit hard in southern BC now.
This is nonsense. The major control on pine beetle is food supply. When their food is abundant and available they multiply accordingly. The existance of pine trees is the abundant part, but that isn't enough in itself, there also has to be a considerable amount of weak trees in order to get populations up to critical mass in order to get the kind of infestation we're currently experiencing. The older the trees, the more vulnerable. That's the available part. 100 years ago we only had 1/4 the number of mature pine trees as now. We've been fighting them off for 40 years with declining success as outbreaks became more and more frequent as the years progressed and the trees became weaker. When the current outbreak started in Tweedsmuir Park, the (environmentalist supported) NDP governemnt refused to let any action be taken against them, no matter how much the forest companies, loggers, BC Forest Service pleaded and begged and warned of what could (and did) happen if left unchecked.

If cold was the main control on beetles, then they would have long ago destroyed the pine stands in the southern parts of the province where it never gets that cold. Pine beetles are found wherever pine trees are found, whether in the south or north, and scientists tell us that this has been the case for 60 million years.

I also recall the cold conditions of the winter of 1985-86. The killing cold snap occured in October when temperatures dropped to -36 before the beetles had time to form their anti-freeze and before enough snow had accumulated to insulate them (they retreat to the base of the tree to overwinter). That cold snap killed off the spruce bark beetles that were infesting the forests east of Prince George but the pine beetles emerged relatively unscathed. We were still fighting them off the next year.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I spoke to one ex-forester who said he quit the service because some foresters would carry live pine beetles in film canesters in their pockets and release them in areas contested by environmentalists so they could use the excuse that the area was bug infested and had to be cut. The practice seems to have got away on them.

They would also haul infested logs through the longest route through the bush to spread them even farther. This resulted in the largest clear cut on the planet (at least in the 90s it was) north of Bowron Lake Park in eastern BC.
More nonsense! Where do you guys get this stuff? The amount of beetles in a film canister wouldn't be enough to kill one tree, and besides which, they only live outside the bark for a very short period of time when they're flying to find new trees to lay their eggs in. Release them at any other time and they'd just die. In fact, take them out of a tree before their time and they'd die.

Haul logs on the longest route to infect other trees? :lol: Who invents that nonsense? As for the Bowron infestation, that was started in an area of spruce blowdown (a large area of trees knocked over by a strong wind storm) in Bowron Lakes Park, far, far away from any logging road. The trees, lying down with some of their roots still in the ground, just barely alive, were very weak and vulnerable to beetle attack. The beetles reached critical mass and spread out. The Bowron clearcut (nowhere near the largest clearcut on the planet, let alone BC) was the result of logging to utilize the dead and dying trees before they deteriorated and to (hopefully) stop the spread of the spruce bark beetle by removing infested trees.
 
Last edited:

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
[...]

Before warming climates, the beetle survived cold winters by not being where the winters were cold enough to kill them. That means they were farther south.
Nope. The beetles have always been in the north. In fact, large infestations have occured much more often in the northern part of the province than the south. They survived cold winters by moving to the base of the tree for the winter where the snow would protect them from severe cold, and by developing their anti-freeze. They survived the -46C (50 below) of 1991 just fine.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
There's a shocker. Leave it to someone who will analyze the results, and not publish under the rigors of review. Anyways, what I cited is direct evidence which refutes your claims. If you don't wish to examine it for yourself, then there's not much more to discuss..
What you cited is studies whose conclusions conflict with reality. If that's the best you can do, then yes indeed, there's not much more to discuss.

Well if the warming the septics are expecting isn't physically based on reality, we shouldn't expect their drivel to materialize.
You seem a bit confused. It isn't the skeptics that are expecting warming, it's the alarmists who are pushing the panic button over miniscule warming that contradicts the hypothesis that human emissions are responsible for dangerous global warming.

As to the rest, the sceptics are wrong. If they thought the warming should occur exponentially, then they have a great deal of learning to accomplish. Hint: forcing for carbon dioxide is logarithmic under the current atmospheric dynamics. Funny how they ignore that when it suits their purposes ehh?
Yes, logarithmically as opposed to liniarly. Very similar to exponentially. They don't ignore that at all. Rather it's the alarmists who do.

This hypothesis you refer to, can you show where this expectation is derived from, or is that just your strawman? Because the physics involved permit no such prediction, providing no grounds for such a hypothesis.

Entirely predictable...
Hey, don't ask me, it's the alarmists who came up with it.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Oh yes Extra, I almost forgot. Please provide some scholarly material for the three times the surface warming in the tropics figure. Also, please explain how this is different than what would be expected if it were not greenhouse gases, say increased solar.

I will actually read any scholarly material you present. I don't require bloggers to do my critical thinking for me.
What, you're disputing that if CO2 was causing the warming it would heat up the troposphere above the tropics faster? :lol: I recall you once tried to dispute the Medieval Climate Optimum as a defense for your position.

Pathetic, as usual.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
We are spending to much time on is this global warming or not, fact it sea water temperatures are rising. What can or are we going to do if all these predictions of doom to pan out. and if so how to survive it. For example, how many homes in the northern part of North America, Europe,and Asia are now equipped with air conditioners. If not, it is something to start thinking about.What are we going to do about water distribution? Avoiding the conflicts that will occur in Europe and Asia over food and water. There are a lot of things we can do to insure survival, and not many if any to prevent global change from happening.

2005 was a bad year globally for heat waves. Just something to think about.
I think you should look at history. In times past, warm periods (considerably warmer than now) were times of abundance and advancement for the human race. Cold periods were times of starvation, pestilance, retraction and population decline of up to 40%. We should be looking forward with anticipation to warming, with dread to cooling.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Actually, if it were me, I'd rather just get more expert opinion and more data and recheck everything. If the scientists on one side of an argument fudge, that doesn't make the other side honest.

Also works in the reverse mode when doubters attack the characters of the climate scientists.

And all scientists should be second-guessed.

No, it should trigger distrust of all scientists.

etc

etc

etc

Basically if one side screws up, it doesn't mean the other side is better.
I don't disagree. But I will maintain that when one side has that many black marks, an investigation is warranted at the least.

(PS - Nice forsythia in your avatar. Spring is here!)
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
What, you're disputing that if CO2 was causing the warming it would heat up the troposphere above the tropics faster?

No, I'm wondering if you know why the tropics should have a hot spot, and how you think this is a greenhouse fingerprint.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Yes, logarithmically as opposed to liniarly. Very similar to exponentially. They don't ignore that at all. Rather it's the alarmists who do.

Not in any way similar to exponentially...how do you figure that?

This is a logarithmic growth curve:

This is an exponential growth curve:


What similarities do you see?

If, as you say the sceptics pointed out that warming should occur exponentially, then they are the ones who are unaware of how the temperature response to carbon dioxide should progress given our current atmospheric dynamics.

You can't twist your way out of this one.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I think you should look at history. In times past, warm periods (considerably warmer than now) were times of abundance and advancement for the human race. Cold periods were times of starvation, pestilance, retraction and population decline of up to 40%. We should be looking forward with anticipation to warming, with dread to cooling.
Whatever happens, happens. I just hate to see the rest of the planet suffer because of human stupidity (greed, neglect, etc.).
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Not in any way similar to exponentially...how do you figure that?

This is a logarithmic growth curve:

This is an exponential growth curve:


What similarities do you see?
Actually if you invert one and ignore the numbers they do look similar. lmao
 

globegenius

New Member
Jan 11, 2010
46
1
8
Matrix
globegenius.blogspot.com
Everyone has an opinion. Last I heard it was an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. With ash circulating the earth and blocking sunlight the earth would have cooled off. I have read that the planet was pretty much burnt over before also. Who knows what the long term trend has been? We have been keeping track a short time. Recent drill studies in glaciers do reveal some facts. Also satellite pictures do show the ice caps are melting. Super tankers are being built to navigate the North West passage which will soon be open year round. The planet is warming up. Whether it is made made or not I would not speculate. There is so many things that could do it. The sun having bigger solar flares or even a slight change in the earth's orbit. Some say that a warming planet leads to another ice age as the oceans then cool down a few degrees from the ice melting. The oceans affect our weather dramatically.

On another note a super bug will probably come along before long and wipe out 99% of us. Then the earth can go its natural course and maybe all the animal species will not become extinct. Mother earth will look after herself. Us humans have been here a blink of an eye in time relevant to how long the earth has been orbiting the sun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.