kurtster wrote:
 

So Haresfur is going to fly into a rage (We can speculate why, but it's really impossible to tell) and search you out. He's going to lash you to a chair and then proceed to use his amazing ambidextrous skills and two sets of  garden sheers to cut off the end of your fingernail  one one hand, and your whole finger on the other hand.  We are all outside the door and ready to burst in and stop him. But since he has such skill we can probably only grab one of his arms. Would you prefer we stop the fingernail side, or the finger side?  They are pretty much the same, just different by a matter of degrees right?  Maybe we should just debate it for a while, since something is probably going to happen anyway. 

 haresfur wrote:
 


You are obviously not reading what I have been posting. I have only been talking about the earth's magnetic field, not the sun's.

No worries though. There is no point to move forward with as you are 100% sure that CO² is the only factor responsible for both Global Warming and Climate Change and is 100% settled science.

Your mind is made up and totally closed to any possibility of other factors that could have an influence.

So if we do lower the amount of CO² in the earth's atmosphere we must watch out for the danger of triggering an ice age, which would be much more devastating than warming.

Barnaby Joyce says sun's magnetic fields cause bushfires. Science says...

"We can measure the energy we get from the sun, and it does have a natural variability. But it’s very small, and it has not shown any long-term trend over the past century, when we have seen this dramatic warming.

"It is clearly not one of the factors that has caused this warming."

 kurtster wrote:
 
The point is that the changes in radiation and magnetism have insignificant effect on climate change. But, as usual, you continue to avoid coming up with any mechanism where anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases would not be causing climate change.

 haresfur wrote:
 

The atmosphere is composed of much more than just gases. It is also charged particles and their circulation within the atmosphere is most definitely affected by changes in radiation and magnetism, i.e. the jet stream. That is a physical system / mechanism, the movement of charged particles independent of the composition of gases present.

If not then what is responsible for the winds aloft ? Bovine flatulence ?

 kurtster wrote:
 

the thing is, there is no physical mechanism by which the changes in the earth's magnetic field could have a significant effect on the climate. by bringing it up, you are simply trying to deflect from the demonstrated mechanism. bottom line, you continue to deny the human impact on climate

sorry about the broken shift key

 Isabeau wrote: 
And to what extent the changes of the earth's magnetic field have exacerbated the changes we are observing.

And that is what is wrong with the whole debate.  No one is allowed to say that there may be other natural occurring affects contributing to Climate Change and Global Warming.  It is only CO² that is allowed to be discussed.  Climate Change and Global Warming are two separate issues, imo.  One does not necessarily explain the other.

I have never argued that the global climate is not changing just what may be the causes; causes other than CO².  Instead of acknowledging that there may be some natural causes involved, I promptly get canceled as a denier.  So who is denying science here ?

Anyway, thanks for having the courage to bring this up.

 haresfur wrote:
 

Agreed on all points. However, shifting poles DO affect the jet stream, wind patternsand the El Nino conditions. That is NOT to say that has anything to do with CO2 buildup, which is definitely facilitated by humankind. I'm merely suggesting that a polar shift, in addition to climate change, has exacerbated the issue.

Crazily around the world communities still remain divided, usually along political lines, for or against the climate change discussion .Meanwhile the stats are building up at an alarming rate. These near on daily accounts of radical weather variations are the alarm bells many wish to ignore.
The big hammer hit will come once the insurance industry (aka the worlds financial system) turns to dust after the mother of all fires/hurricanes/floods takes out much of somewhere like Europe or North America.
Then in the ensuing panic, are we going see the wheels fall off boys and girls.

This is not normal: what's different about the NSW mega fires

In NSW, our worst fire years were almost always during an El Nino event, and major property losses generally occurred from late November to February. Based on more than a century of weather observations our official fire danger season is legislated from October 1 to March 31. During the 2000s though, major fires have regularly started in August and September, and sometimes go through to April.

The October 2013 fires that destroyed more than 200 homes were the earliest large-loss fires in NSW history – again, not during an El Nino.

This year, by the beginning of November, we had already lost about as many homes as during the disastrous 2001-2002 bushfire season. We’ve now eclipsed 1994 fire losses.

 kurtster wrote:
 

The shift in the earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with global warming. Nor does any change in its field strength. There is no physical mechanism where the level of change would cause the level of climate effect. And if it did, it would be in addition to the anthropogenic change.

Burning hydrocarbons releases CO2. The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has been measured for decades and is consistent with the amount of CO2 released from burning. CO2 has a known, measured effect on trapping solar radiation and leads to an increase in temperature consistent with theory. Until, you come up with a mechanism that would explain how CO2 could not be causing global warming, you are just blowing smoke out your butt.

 Lazy8 wrote:
 
Except when it does not.

westslope wrote:

Invasive species generally can't be eradicated, they can only be controlled. The ecosystem adjusts to find a new equilibrium if you let it.

You don't have to pay hunters, they'll pay you. And feral hogs are only cute until they tear up your crops.

 Isabeau wrote: 
I've been saying that for about 10 years up here in Nova Scotia. It's like they shifted by almost a month. Except here, seasons are starting later than usual, whereas you say they are starting about 1 month earlier where you are. Hmmm...

 kurtster wrote:
 
Our carbon footprint isn't helping, but thanks for the wind speed comments and acknowledging the shifting magnetic poles. People are afraid of acknowledging that would dilute the support of dealing with climate change. It doesn't have to be one or the other. The actual seasons of the year have changed here in south texas, normally, our 'fall' doesn't come until near Christmas, but its already begun. Earlier snows in some parts, even some down here, which is a rarity. The sun is setting in a different place than it did a decade ago. We can still pick up litter, recycle and drive less, but lets acknowledge other factors.

 Isabeau wrote: 
I'm surprised no one has jumped on your mention of natural causes for changing climate patterns.  I've mentioned all the things that you have more than a couple of times and I immediately get responses calling me a denier.  Part of why I let this sit for awhile.

Earth’s Magnetic Field Shifts, Forcing Airport Runway Change

And the fields are also dramatically weakening which allows much more radiation to reach deeper into our atmosphere and the surface.

I do agree with your thoughts, all of them except that these stronger winds are something new.  Nope same as they always were.  Just more people in harms way.

 1953 Tilden Park Fire. The spectacular blaze started shortly before 3 PM on Thursday October 22 at the Park’s Mineral Springs Area, seriously burned one park firefighter, and for a time threatened a section of Berkeley as it swept out of control at incredible speed until it was stopped near Big Springs Camp in the park. Gale-like winds snapped a tree limb across high tension wires to set off this 800-acre fire that was pushed by gusts of winds that at time hit 90 miles an hour. It destroyed some 5,000 evergreens, valued at $40 apiece, momentarily trapped several Berkeley firemen and University of California students, and for a time threatened to head for the city by jumping to thick forests of eucalyptus trees on the parks’ western hills. Anxious residents, remembering the disastrous 1923 Berkeley fire 30 years ago, swamped newspaper, police and fire switchboards with inquiries.

I was raised with a heightened awareness of the local fire dangers.  Our last residence in Berkeley was in the burn pattern of the 1923 fire, near the intersection of Cragmont and Shasta Roads.  My Dad spoke frequently of The Wildcat Canyon Fire (1923) and used to do controlled burns around our house.

 Lazy8 wrote:
 

In 1979, a girlfriend from Scottsdale, Az and I did two long backpack trips through the High Atlas mountains in Morocco.  I have Kodak slides of goats climbing 15 to almost 20 feet up trees in order to browse.    The area was beautiful but the overgrazing was evident.  It felt like the Sahara Desert was creeping westward over the Atlas mountains.

This is classic Tragedy of the commons.   Berber mountain folk would work in France, save a lot of money, return home and buy livestock, mostly goats, sometimes sheep.  

Speaking of Nigeria which is mentioned in the article.  One of the bigger shocks I experienced while overlanding Africa, was the contrast between sparsely populated Niger and heavily, densely populated NE Nigeria.  The oil-driven Resource Curse gifted Nigeria out-of-control population growth and is likely a significant driver of violent conflict.   Call it Neo-Malthusian.  

Apologies for the feral pig invasion from Canada's prairie provinces.  I suppose our winters are insufficiently cold.  Europe is much farther advanced in the feral pig invasion and it is not pretty.  Time to offer a bounty to qualified, licensed hunters?   Likely only poison and introduced diseases will eradicate these pests.  The cuteness factor will render radical solutions politically impossible.

 kurtster wrote:
As I understand it, PG&E has placed greed above innovation and upgrades to their infrastructure for decades. Agreed on the Santa Ana's, but they said that winds of 80 - 100 mph are stronger and last longer than before. Personally, I don't believe climate change is creating all of the current disasters. There is evidence that the magnetic poles have tilted somewhat from a decade ago - Inuit people are saying the sun and the stars are different, the wind comes from another direction, snow drifts have changed and the sun sets in a different place. Just where I live the sun seems strangely lower on the horizon than previous years. An earth tilt + climate change + greed trumping regulation = Environmental and Economic disasters.

I guess, like ufo's and aliens, no one wants to bring up polar shifts. This planet does wobble ... and its not because they are selling Columbian coffee on one side.

 Isabeau wrote: 
PG&E has been burning down and blowing up cities and killing people for nearly 100 years going back to the Berkeley Fire in the 20's. 

Monday, September 17, 1923 began like any other day. In her last year at UC Berkeley, Ursula Cheshire likely had breakfast with her sorority sisters at Zeta Tau Alpha house at 1700 Euclid Avenue before walking to classes on campus. But little did she know she would never step foot inside that house again.

As the hours passed, the day grew hot and windy, with low humidity. At noon-time, about three miles north of Berkeley, a gale blew down a high-voltage wire in Wildcat Canyon, starting a grass fire that steadily spread to a grove of eucalyptus trees.

They have had 100 years to figure this out.  In a place that is one of the most regulated in the world.  In an economy that ranks either 5 or 6 in the world as an independent entity.  There is no excuse for this, period.  Many other places have similar geographic conditions to PG&E and they don't don't start fires with their transmission lines when the wind blows.

Go ahead and blame global warming for all the fires.  But even with renewable electric energy sources, you still have the same power grid to transmit the renewable energy.  PG&E's power grid will start fires regardless of where the power comes from.  Then you get into Sacramento and the people charged with regulating enabling PG&E.

These winds are nothing new.  You can tell how long someone has been in California by the names they use to call the winds.  The older residents call them the Diablo Winds or the Santana's.  The more recent call them the Santa Ana's.  Whatever you call them, they have been around forever and you would think that someone would have designed a power grid to be safe when these winds blow.  This is the 21st Century and the smartest, brightest and richest people in the world can be found in the Deep Blue State of California.

 Lazy8 wrote: 

florida has an issue with sus scrofa too (band name)

our turnpike cuts through some fairly rural areas

i've seen them tooling around the right of way

had both domesticated but only wild hog from an individual's hunt

free range swine is delicious

farmers are trapping them and selling them to a wild meat business

Floridians Turn Nuisance Pigs Into Profitable Pork