Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - CeeJey

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
I did wonder from the Exxon chart (your climate files link). Bottom right shows Exxon's estimate of temp change stretching back 150k years overlaid in red with "simulated change". Any thoughts on the disparity between the pre"today" temps? Advances in core drilling and interpreting maybe? Or just years of additional sampling maybe? ... Not really an argument for or against anything, just interesting.

Okay, I finally got a minute out of the heat with a cup of fresh coffee to look at this. I kind of want to talk to a scientist about this (I have a couple of acquaintances who are forest ecology scientists who could probably point me at a climate scientist colleague), but I'm guessing that it's not as big of a disparity as it looks since what they're looking for is a broad trend match; you want to see dips and rises in about the same places even if by different amounts to tell if that last complete divergence is just a statistical fluke or not

I have to imagine that modeling has improved by now based on forty additional years of data collection and better collection methods, but I admit I don't know as much about the specifics of climate modeling as I would like to. I do understand that part of it also has to do with vastly enhanced computer processing, and very recently deployment of AI. Ironically to this conversation, two recent AI simulations that were trained on all available climate data in the world put us relatively close to Exxon's worst-case-likely projection (2C rise by 2050-2060, which is... not great) than to other more optimistic independent researchers that were probably assuming more would be done by now to sink or reduce carbon output.

I'll let you know if I get an answer back from the climate scientist, I'm curious too now.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Epoch_Times

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1e5HAZo4iw

Thanks, I was going to say something about that. The Epoch Times is not a trustworthy source for info and they do not have the best interests of anybody but their inner group as a guiding principle. Also they won't stop spamming my parents after they signed up for one mailing list, once.

I did actually watch the first half of that video just to be fair and it has some serious issues. It's conflating predictions by news outfits and PR groups with scientific predictions (I think I mentioned this earlier, but you can't use news article content as proof of the science it is referencing, and that was apparently true in the 50's as well as now), and they just outright lied about the thickness of the arctic ice caps being basically the same when they've actually decreased by a significant and accelerating amount per decade (https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/). And Arctic Shipping HAS increased drastically as a result of new lanes opening up as the permafrost recedes (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230427173544.htm). Like... that prediction IS in the process of coming true.

EDIT: Okay I rewatched part of it and there are definitely some other issues: AOC is not a climate scientist and her being hyperbolic doesn't prove anything about the science, the Doomsday Clock has ALWAYS been a PR stunt to raise awareness of existential threats to humanity like nuclear war and not a prediction of when the world would actually end, Paul Erlich was a nutbag biologist whose wild predictions outside his area of expertise were widely decried at the time that book was published by other scientists ALTHOUGH we DID avoid a famine in parts of the developing world after WW2 due to the Green Revolution.

And I looked up the actual paper that he referenced about the Ice Age and actually that was fascinating. It's true that climate scientists Rasool and Schneider predicted that a global mini-ice-age was possible (their paper is here: https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ra00600k.html) due to a massive increase in aerosols. Ars Technica does a better non-technical write-up of WHY they thought that but basically it came down to a math and assumption error: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/that-70s-myth-did-climate-science-really-call-for-a-coming-ice-age/. By ten years later when better models were available, it was clear that aerosols didn't have more of a cooling effect than the warming effect of the greenhouse gasses (this was mentioned again in those oil company papers I originally linked). I'd understood that this was a fringe theory but the actual specifics are interesting.

Also this is important for illustrating that modeling has improved over time, actually, which I don't think is what the people making this video want people to think. I mean, if you're like "yeah seatbelts were way worse in the 1970s than now", my thought isn't "well seatbelts are inherently untrustworthy".

Anyway, I don't have more time to watch but yeah that bit was interesting at least. Full of inaccuracies and important omitted context, but interesting.

2
Thanks, CeeJey, for all your hard work in responding so thoroughly. I hope it helps a few people to discern where the truth lies. On the right, denial/mockery of climate change is simply a war against government control and any (weak) agenda coming from Democrats to try to do something about it.  Strangely enough, in other areas they want more government control.

Thanks John. Actually part of what I deleted last night was about the partisan divide and how it's... weird, in the US. According to the best research available (Pew Research, they're the gold standard for public opinion research, they've surveyed hundreds of thousands of people about this over the last few decades), it's about 1 in 2 people who lean or identify as Rep who believe in anthropogenic climate change and about 1 in 4 who think it's a serious threat to their way of life within their lifetimes: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/18/for-earth-day-key-facts-about-americans-views-of-climate-change-and-renewable-energy/

Results actually show more of an age divide, so it's not "right vs left" but "mostly-older-mostly-right vs. most everyone else". So it's not necessarily that it's a right/ left issue, it's that the people who are still dug in that it isn't real are almost entirely made up of a subset of one political party. And they're actually a significant minority in the US, but I think they believe they're representative of a bigger group than they actually are (at least half their own party disagrees with them at least somewhat). The age gap also shows up on the left lean side in what to do about it; older folks who lean or are Dem are less likely to support more sweeping policy changes. Also, lots of people on both sides have a bunch of nuanced views about it, and that's been lost in that crap news reporting I mentioned. I have more research on this but the link I posted covers most of  it.

Personal opinion: I think this has to do with historical factors and who got targeted with the lobbying. Conservation and environmentalism as government policy has been hitched to the Democrat party wagon since Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir started hanging out, and it predates our modern concepts of "left vs. right". So later, imagine you're an oil company in the 80's, you know that public perception is swinging against you*: which political party are you going to lobby and target with a massive barrage of tailored research and talking points? The one that's had an environmentalist lobbying wing since the turn of the freaking century and through the flower-power 60's? No you do not, you focus mostly on the other one.

Alright, I'll respond for poor Ceejay's sake. Y'all are keeping it entertaining, but poking him just to poke ain't very nice. For real people (as opposed to the media), it's a question of how much warming, how catastrophic that warming is, what role humans play in it, and what the reaction to it should be. There is real fear of more government control and interference. To me, that fear is totally legitimate. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I for one do not want more government in any area I can think of. I've got a rock solid belief that government screws up everything it touches.

Thank you for the reply, I appreciate it. I actually feel like your fear is valid and share it to a degree that is probably higher than you would suspect.

I'm in the boat where I think this is a problem, but I don't know what to do about it. I DO know that the snowpack decline that I mentioned is necessitating MORE government interference (see the recent fight between the Colorado River states about who gets how much water) than previous to sort out the effects, and if our entire water network starts to collapse out here then there's very definitely going to be even more of that. Although that's maybe a bad example since I don't think we can stop or reverse the snowpack issue in time to not have to make a bunch of changes out, based on the trendline and how much it would take to reverse it now (10-15 years of winters like this one maybe?). It's changing too fast.

I think one of the things, and this is a larger topic maybe that I don't have proper time to address here, is that there are some problems that specifically impact public health or safety or commerce or the existence of government itself (like, the ability to have a country that CAN make choices about who runs what) that are difficult to address without a central body of some kind.

With a regulatory body, I agree that you get all sorts of b.s. that we could probably both name a bunch of examples of, without it, you get whoever has the most money running the table to an even greater degree than they already do. An example just we're on the same page would be something like dealing with herbicides, say atrazine as a pertinent example. It causes SERIOUS reproductive harm to every species studied (including to us) at low doses, and is one of the most potent destroyers of wetland plants (which causes those systems to collapse) from run-off, BUT it's also one of the best selective herbicides on the market for some types of crops (corn, sorghum, sugarcane).

Obviously the companies that make atrazine want to sell more of it, and farmers who want to maximize their crop yields want to use the best and cheapest methods to do so including herbicide deployment as necessary. Meanwhile, it's absolutely not in the interests of having a society at all to hose down two of staple food sources with an unrestricted amount of a chemical that literally shrinks the gonads of every animal it has ever been studied on, right? It's also bad if wetlands collapse ecologically (something relevant to Florida, certainly), but just to focus on the "gonad shrinking poison" part for a second, you know, we're already seeing population decline and don't require more help with that.

I guess, without government interferance, how do you address situations like that where the needs and wants of multiple groups are not sympatico? In this case, the amount of atrazine that can be used and who can use it is regulated by the EPA. I personally think they were allowing too much of it even before regulations were loosened in 2017. The corn lobby probably disagrees with me, and I understand why they do, although again I think "ball-shrinking poison loose in the human food supply" is something that ALSO impacts them or will eventually.

For me, I don't want to need to know all this. I don't want to have to think thoughts like "how much ball-shrinking frog-sex-changing poison was sprayed on this corn cob before I put it in my mouth?". I'm a busy person, you know? I want someone else who is a specialist in this kind of crap to take care of it so that I can handle things in MY wheelhouse. I don't trust the companies or lobbying groups to self-regulate because observable reality, history, and even the law (public companies are legally bound to serve their shareholders, not the public) says that they will absolutely not. So what do we do?

I'm using atrazine as an example because it's something that's easier to look at multiple angles from, the harm is very clearly spelled out, and it isn't as politically charged, but that same situation with the balance of multiple competing interests (including threats to society as a functional entity that CAN make decisions) is tied up in the global warming issue. And again, I don't know what is right here. I acknowledge that it is complicated.

I did wonder from the Exxon chart (your climate files link). Bottom right shows Exxon's estimate of temp change stretching back 150k years overlaid in red with "simulated change". Any thoughts on the disparity between the pre"today" temps? Advances in core drilling and interpreting maybe? Or just years of additional sampling maybe? ... Not really an argument for or against anything, just interesting.

That's a good question, let me take a close look at that later when I have a few more spare minutes (I'm trying to take advantage of an ironically-unseasonably-cold summer day to fix some irrigation to the new trees I planted), and I'll try to have a response for you later.

It's not just a legitimate fear, it's happening as we speak. The Leftist/Globalists in charge in America (currently = the Biden administration) have declared war on petroleum, and they have exaggerated and weaponized climate change to help them put the petroleum producers out of business. Biden announced his contempt for petroleum during his 2020 campaign, and whoever is in charge in the White House is carrying through with it.

I appreciate you writing out a serious take on this, for what it's worth, although I still disagree with you for the most part. I do have some replies to some of what you said here that AREN'T entirely at odds (particularly on the waste issues with green tech) or at least aren't a direct rebuttal but I have to go take care of my trees right now while I have a day off.

For the record, I can't speak for anybody else, but haven't copy-pasted crap. I go, and look up research and read it. I read the article YOU posted all the way through. I probably came in swinging harder than I should have initially rather than asking questions like why do think what you think, which I apologize for for what it's worth. But whoever you think the "average" climate person is, the imaginary people you're yelling at, I don't think is representative of the people here in the forum including me.

Look, you say you believe in climate change just not that it's human-controlled, okay. Look at who's posting in here who DOES believe that: people in Miami, Vegas, Phoenix, desert-ish parts of California. We're almost all in marginal environments that have various water-related issues and are seeing changes that concern us, okay? I don't want to argue with you or anybody else about why Lake Mead is dry or whether or not this area out here being the driest it has ever been in a thousand years is human-caused or the result of natural weather patterns, but I will if people just say I'm full of shit for even pointing out that stuff is happening. It's a problem even if it is not human-caused. So is observable, measurable sea-level rise in Miami even if it is the result of the natural cycles. Please understand that the people who are posting about things like that here are doing so because we have skin in the game and not to score political points or because they're uncritical "sheep", okay? I'll try to do better about listening to you guys and responding without being a dick.

3
If we're going to have hammerhead sharks breeding in our backyards it would be appreciated if you didn't delete your large science-based rebuttal. Please re-type it and at least PM it to anybody you assume to be a flat-earther here.

Okay, since you asked. I'm going to actually take the time to write out a proper response to this like I'm talking to somebody who hasn't been openly mocking me when I hadn't said anything to you to provoke you first, for the last however many pages, and I would appreciate a similar consideration. If you don't agree with me, fine, just say so and we'll both move on like adults, okay?

I actually had something to say in response to your snow comment yesterday but first one thing: your hammerhead comment here is an example of the disconnect between your opinion and my opinion (and that of some other people in here). You have a habit in this thread of using big examples for emphasis that nobody here has actually been arguing. No one here is saying Florida's going to be underwater or something, the only reason that it was brought up at all is that there's a general understanding that sea level rise and more frequent storms, IF they are happening (and the sea level rise is measurably happening there, the local universities have been measuring it for decades: https://climatecenter.fsu.edu/topics/sea-level-rise), would cause more frequent and more severe local floods because Miami's drainage situation is already a shitshow. Not city underwater. Yes possible problems for local fruit growers.

The people who are saying climate change is real in this thread are talking about trends and averages that cause effects that are expensive and difficult but not apocalyptic within anybody's lifetime here and probably not afterward either. I get why you're doing it, but is disingenuous to paint the arguments as such. I don't believe Florida's going to be underwater, the OP doesn't believe that, nobody commenting here believes that, or at least if they do I think they're wrong too. Based on hard data. Well previous to this discussion I've looked at worst-case 6-degree-warmer-globally projections of sea level rise where all the polar ice caps and permafrost would be melted all year, and most of Florida is still above water even then. Probably even if that happened, engineers could figure something out. Seems like they're already trying to (https://miami-dade-county-sea-level-rise-strategy-draft-mdc.hub.arcgis.com/)

Similar issue with the snow comment, which actually is an issue in my back yard. Let's take a look at that for a second because that was one thing I was originally responding to last night:

Careful now! The "Snow is a thing of the past" and "Children just won't know what snow is" predictions were quickly shot down by reality so they've gone from instilling fear of Global warming to instilling fear of Climate change.

Okay. So here's the issue I think. You're responding here to a big batch of headlines that I've seen too over the last however many years talking about "snowless winters". Here's one of the usual for reference, pretty much the usual clickbait crap: https://brightly.eco/blog/scientists-warn-winter-without-snow-is-coming

That article is trash, it's full of the kind of overblown over-simplistic takes you've been making fun of, and so are most of the articles writing about that subject, because headline writers don't typically read science papers either even when they're referencing them. Their job is to get people to pass around ragebait on social media.

That said, let's actually look at the scientific study most of these articles have been referencing when they say "no snow" for a second. Most of these breathless "no snow" articles (including the one that I linked to, which again is garbage) have either been referencing this study or one of the studies that it is analyzing: https://rdcu.be/cAivm

It's a 20 page article which is full of jargon but they tried to sum up the main points at the beginning. If you look at "Key Points" on page two, that is a really far cry from what comes to mind when most people think "no snow". It's one study, looking at one area (Western US), and the only actual prediction is 25% less snowpack average by 2050.

Again, this is the actual science article that all those dumb headlines have been referencing (either that or New York and the East Coast seeing less snow on average over the last hundred years, but unlike the Western United States that isn't likely to impact the food supply so f' it).

Just to be fair to your comment, I *did* go hunting for any research at all in the past that predicted no-snow winters being common or the norm by 2023 or earlier (that paper I linked puts them at anywhere from 2035 to 2090 or not at all), but they don't exist as far as I can tell. If somebody ever told you that we'd be seeing "no snow" by now (which needs qualifiers, like, where? What states? Etc), they weren't a scientist or citing any actual science. I can absolutely believe some idiot newspaper writer might have churned out something like that once, though.

Anyway. 25% reduction is both way less than "no snow ever again", BUT ALSO it's a huge amount of decrease for us regionally. Most of those projections are based on the average over the last 70 years, in which we've seen a 15%-25% decrease which has been enough to drop Lake Powell and Lake Mead (major water resevoirs and power generation) to less than 25%. Someone else referenced that earlier in thread.

The problem isn't one dry year. We could have no water all year for a year, probably for a few years, as a freak act of god, and we would recover. It's that trendline that keeps going down down down for over seventy years now. The reverse is also true, big freak snow years don't fix it. We had a TON of snow this year in areas that feed the Colorado River (150% above twenty year average), which is the center of the entire water infrastructure of the west of the country, and those major resevoirs went from about 23% to... 26% full. Record snow, literal drop in the bucket. But I'm still hearing people (not here, but elsewhere) say things like "well since it snowed so much I guess the drought's over". It isn't yet. Check again in ten years.

And like the flooding thing, this isn't about some apocalypse scenario in anybody's lifetime. It is potentially about trillions of taxpayer dollars completely reworking the water distribution in the western united states, it's about higher food costs, and it's about water cost increases and potential water rationing that's going to make it harder for (to bring this back around to the forum here) people in the southwest and California subtropics to take advantage of our otherwise somewhat favorable climates to grow anything besides cactus. That sucks. I don't want to deal with that. Nobody wants to deal with that.

Anyway, my central point here is that actual science that those stupid clickbait headlines are mangling are actually about slow but measurable changes that we can see (rising sea levels worse in some areas than others, decreasing snowpack decade by decade), and that are making areas with certain vulnerabilities have non-apocalyptic problems. And most of the people in here who don't believe in climate change are, instead of responding to that, talking about overblown apocalypse-like scenarios that they probably heard on the news ten years ago. That disconnect makes it hard to talk about current reality.

I'm willing to blame a lot of this disagreement on the news media, honestly. Left, right and center. They've all done a garbage job of communicating, or even intentionally obfuscated, what is ACTUALLY being measured and what people are doing their best to predict based on those measurements. Instead, they're all running stupid b.s. headlines and making fun of the other side's stupid headlines and framing difficult systemic issues (I don't think "just stop using petroleum, bro" is as easy or feasible as some people wish it was) as either nonexistent or simple to fix by just buying a Prius and turning off the water while you brush your teeth.

And just for the record, at no point did I actually have anything positive to say about that stupid racism news article that Calusa linked, even though you referenced me when making fun of it. I actually went and read that thing and the central idea was actually "hotter temps and systemic breakdowns of things like water supplies are going to effect poor people and people at the equator more, and there's a whole lot of darker-skinned poor people at the equator", which is kind of like "well no s*** sherlock". I don't want to debate that since I don't agree with a bunch of other conclusions in there either and it isn't relevant to what we do here except distantly so, I'm just repeating what is actually in there. Just because I believe in carbon-driven climate change based on the research made available to me, doesn't mean I uncritically accept every scrap of editorial ragebait that somebody slaps a dumb headline on. And that's probably true of everyone else in here who's expressed a belief in climate change in this thread, too.

TLDR: People in here who believe in climate change are mostly expressing concern about trends causing small but significant or expensive changes that mess up our ability to grow stuff, I don't believe that any actual scientist has ever said children are going to forget what snow looks like and so I don't think that's been disproven, the actual science is usually not saying what headlines are saying, and also the news sucks at actually informing people.

I'll be glad to respond calmly to anything that's an actual critique of anything I actually said as opposed to mockery, otherwise I'm pretty much done with this subject aside from congratulating Julie when the city fixes her issue. I've said everything I wanted to say.

4
CeeJay Calusa you guys are wasting a ton of energy arguing your points on here.

Last time Im ever making any comments on any left/right subjects online.

It's not a "right/left" issue, it's a "people who are literate at higher than a fourth grade level and are able to do basic critical thinking vs. willfully illiterate hooting clown" issue, and the "clown" side happens to line up in this thread with a bunch of people who happen to be right-wing.

And I don't even mean "clown" in an insult kind of way, I mean... all they're doing is clowning. Look at their posts. They don't know what they're talking about, so they just mock stuff they don't understand and laugh about stuff that isn't true. The last four or five of their posts are just repeating the same "jokes" that anybody with two brain cells to rub together can see are stupid.

It's like talking to a chimp. It doesn't know what words mean, it just throws crap and eats bananas and thinks it's cage is the entire planet.

Luckily most people in here seem to know up is up and down is down, and if four or five flat-earthers happen to be hanging out as well, oh well. No real skin off my nose.

It shouldn't be a left/right issue. However, no one EVER changes his mind when presented with an argument. It only increases resistance and makes him dig his heels in deeper. The process happens gradually over time with the right approach. Ya can't just call him an idiot and expect an instant conversion even if you present all the best, most rigorous scientific information.

I'm well aware of the backfire effect, but it actually doesn't matter in this case. There's a number of different studies that most folks can't have their minds changed once they get to this point of denial of reality, because it's basically a religious belief for them rather than anything rational. All you can do is take apart their talking points and explain how the propaganda works for other people who might be on the fence.

There's no point that Calusa or dwfl or I (after the first one or two posts) were trying to change each others' minds; I'm just picking apart their b.s. so it doesn't spread as easy, and they're just making fun of me for it and mocking stuff that they didn't read and don't understand. Like, read back through the thread, there's no good faith over there and hasn't been since the start. They're just being a-holes for giggles.

I did post a larger science-based rebuttal last night to some of the last batch of bad faith trash the yokels dropped off, but I deleted it when I realized that I have better things to do (like repot about two dozen jaboticaba that are waiting patiently for me) than argue with old men clearly suffering cognitive decline and other people who are so dumb they don't even understand their own links that they post. What are you gonna do with that level of stupidity? Seriously, they don't even read or understand their own talking points. You can't argue against that. There's nothing to argue against, and you can't change a mind if there's no mind.

5
You'd figure a bunch of misplaced tropical fruit growers would be excited about global warming

Not if you live in Miami-Dade County.  Also, it doesn't work out that you just seamlessly transition zones with no other issues

Agreed as a low desert resident. Higher winter averages may be great for most everything except the stone fruit but our average summer temps are already insane. More nights over 90 and days over 110 stress even the heat tolerant stuff.

I'm not convinced what Phoenix is going to look like overall as time passes though, even if warming continues; a lot of our local water comes from the monsoons as opposed to the Colorado and there's not a strict consensus on what higher global temps is going to do to monsoon season. But Vegas and other parts of the low desert are very possibly going to see some ridiculous water costs and/or serious rationing.

6

I'm sttill trying to figure out

Hey bud, speaking of backpedaling as you say, where's all that evidence you said you had about all those totally legit and real scientists that contradicts all that climate change research that scares you so much? All you've posted is a trash link about one newspaper writer's personal opinions, and I'm sorry to tell you bud but, uh, those aren't the same things. You know what a "scientist" is, right?

Also still waiting on an answer to my first question to you about why you think the oil companies' internal projections for warming look almost exactly like independent scientists you claim are working for big scary green energy companies you can't name.

Of course I know you won't give any of that, because you can't, but as you say it's entertaining.

7
We can call it the BBCeeJay theory. Climate change and racism fueling stronger storms. I wonder if they've ever heard of the 1935 Labor Day hurricane, the strongest documented storm to ever hit Florida. Maybe Climate change was just ramping up in 1935 but racism was at its all-time high and this produced the strongest storm. Then Climate change died down for a bit, the Civil rights movement began, and the hurricane powers that be gave us a break until "the past 30 years or so" bro.

Yeah see this is exactly what I was talking about. Personal attacks, straw man b.s., not actually addressing anything factual or anything I said anywhere (or that ANYBODY said), trying to stress people out because that makes them feel like a big smart adult man or something. Pretty standard old-school trolling by somebody who abjectly failed to grow up after 14 or so, I guess, just codified in a political ideology.

Anyway, dwfl, you can keep going with your fanfiction shtick about me if it amuses you, or not, but honestly at this point it's just pathetic.

8
you can't expect critical thinking in a mixed bag of nuts.
You can expect someone to take a dump in the middle of the room , and defend it and clean it like it's their favorite piece of furniture.

That's distressingly true imagery, although I do still think in this context that if the dump is going to include blatant advertisements for their favorite politicians/teams, it should be reasonable to expect that they do their best to pinch that loaf off till they can get to a different room.

So go outside and plant seeds in the earth or enjoy nature, help do something you think would take care of the earth and make it nicer for the next generation.

Yeah, this is good advice in general. I think I'm going to take it and go work on the seedlings today.

9
I may have to agree with shot and say cool this down, it is getting personal.

These calls for chill and decorum need to include a call for ceasing the blatant partisan political stumping or it's not going to work. A couple of comments up somebody's posting an article calling for voting for Trump in the title, and that other guy is yelling about the "Looney Left" again while linking to some editorial fluff as a straw man argument about what he believes people with an opposing viewpoint to be like as a whole. Can we ask people to stop that crap too? It doesn't have squat to do with growing anything.

It's exhausting. Nobody else is here for this political horses***; we're trying to get and share info to grow our plants. But it sure seems like a subset of folks uncritically think that their particular brand is the One Truth and everyone else is automatically an idiot, and they're not afraid to say it loudly and repeatedly. Meanwhile the fact is that there are a lot of people here from different countries and of different political persuasions (including apolitical) who don't appreciate their hyper-local partisan "us vs. them" b.s.

The "own the libs" brand of hot trash where everyone who disagrees with the groupthink must be a "leftist" (or whatever it is this week) is particularly exhausting to deal with. Especially when trying to discuss non-political, factual content.

And that's the core issue that occurred here: Hard science about climate topics (which very definitely relates directly to growing tropical fruit trees in marginal environments) is only political/religious for this one single group; to the rest of us it's non-political and the same as discussing anything else related to agriculture like soil science or pathogenic bacteria. And the rest of us might disagree but we generally do so based on actual evidence and are open to having our viewpoint changed.

Meanwhile, you could post a series of satellite data showing changes in storms off the Florida coast in the last thirty years or something, with no commentary whatsoever, just hard un-processed data, and some of those other people are going to respond to it like it's a political attack which is insane person behavior.

They can't discuss any of this in good faith, because they just won't respond to anything that could actually disprove anything they believe. At least, they won't respond with factual content. Political slurs, straw man arguments, yeah sure they'll do those. They're doing that in this thread. Look at it: these guys are having a discussion with themselves about how stupid their perceived opposition are and making up arguments for them that nobody here is actually making. And you won't find a single case of one of them posting any actual evidence as support for their beliefs, they're just yelling about how everyone else with a different viewpoint is stupid and agenda-driven while shoving their own agenda down everyone else's throats. You cannot have real civility or productive discussion when people are acting like that.

If you want actual civility that includes a variety of viewpoints (which is generally a good thing to have when trying to solve problems, and a lot of this forum is about problem-solving when it comes to a highly specific skillset) then these guys need to grow up and learn to keep their personal politics to themselves.

10
The idiotic notions that emanate from the Loony Left are absolutely boundless.

Cool. Meanwhile, literally you from earlier today:

Science is helpful as long as it's real, unfettered, unbiased and unpoliticized science, and not agenda-driven.

Edit: Also, hey bud, what does that article you linked have to do with flooding in Miami or tropical fruit growing in general? Cause, ah, it looks like you and a couple of other people just decided to go completely off the rails and into weird political territory while yelling about others being political. Did you run out of bananas to pick?

11
Looks like some folks didn't get Roblack's memo asking for chill, I guess. Sorry Roblack.

Freeze this thread!!!!!

Not until we all read this National Science Foundation funded paper that is of utmost importance to all of us!

https://reason.com/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin/

Lol, yeah, nice, a strawman hit piece in a Koch-funded infotainment rag. Cause "news" the petroleum barons pay for is totally legit when it comes to stuff that directly impacts their business. Totally a legit source. What was that that dwfl said earlier, something about "agenda-driven"? Anyway.

EDIT: Y'know, this thread has been pretty depressing in terms of the quality of information and critical thinking that it turns out people are bringing to the table. Gonna have to take some of the fruit growing advice with three or four grains of salt going forward. At least folks like Pagnr and some others are around, I guess.

12
Freeze this thread!!!!!

Just out of curiosity, if the OP of this thread had instead posted some pictures of yellowing citrus leaves and asked "is this citrus greening" and the first reply had been somebody saying that citrus greening was a conspiracy theory by Big Mango, and then people here had correctly called them out for being chock full of crap, you wouldn't be calling for the thread to be frozen, would you? Honestly if that were the original exchange, the responses in here would seem kind of tame, eh?

Just because something has unfortunately been politicized, doesn't mean that it isn't extremely relevant to what we're all trying to do here, i.e. grow fruit trees.

Step 1) Slurrrrrrrp
Step 2) Regurgitate via Quote reply, sentence by sentence, slurped up agenda-driven content
Step 3) Add in a "Bro" here and there to really drive it home

Passive-aggressive much? You could just say you didn't understand what I wrote and I could re-write it using smaller words and shorter sentences for you, bro.

13
Much of the research used to promote the climate change scare has been proven by numerous respected scientific bodies around the world to be extremely flawed, skewed and downright fraudulent.

Oh yeah? Feel free to link this research by these "numerous respected scientific bodies". Go on, show some actual evidence.

And the doomsday projections from decades ago have never occurred.

And exactly which actual scientists were making doomsday projections decades ago that were to occur within this time period now? If you knew about the actual research, you'd know that the bulk of it from back then AND now put the major visible effects in either the second half of this century (2023 ain't halfway) or even later. I linked to some of it. Estimates have since been revised on some issues like the polar ice caps (which ARE receding faster than earlier projections, sorry to bust your bubble, but there are actual things happening that are measurable within a human lifetime).

Also, most of those "doomsday" scenarios I'm assuming you're talking about (like, what? A rapid release of frozen methane causing a rapid-in-decades five degree rise? Be specific, man) are discussed as hopefully-unlikely worst-case scenarios in the scientific community. Maybe you're confusing headlines you thought you read with actual science?

Seriously, how can you know that the science is bogus when you don't even seem to know what it actually is?

Sad to say, it's pretty plain to see that people have been spoon fed this climate doom and gloom for so long they accept whatever  comes across the television or the news feed on their phone, and will not listen to or accept any other scientific view, opinion or fact presented to them. They just keep slurping the Kool-Ade and repeating what they've heard.

You say this and yet everything you've said so far is free of anything that could be fact-checked, has no sources, and absolutely could be word for word something that you heard out the corner of your ear listening to Tucker rant while you fell asleep after dinner. It also doesn't directly answer anything that any of the rest of us have said. You're just giving us a straight party line.

You certainly haven't said ANYTHING that directly answers my point asking how it is all b.s. if the oil companies have internal research that shows the same effect curve as independent scientists. Do you have something for that or just gonna pretend it isn't real because it's inconvenient?

Also, if you read back up, nobody in this thread is doomsday-ing. There's been people discussing what amount to the effects of what would be really small changes. Miami's drainage is so crap that even a few inches of sea rise (something that is measurably happening right now whether your politics let you believe that or not: https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/rising-sea-level-impacting-south-florida/, the city is ALREADY having to take steps to deal with it: https://www.miamidade.gov/global/economy/resilience/sea-level-rise-flooding.page) could plausibly have effects on flooding that you over on a side with slightly higher elevation and more drainage wetlands wouldn't see as much of.

THINK for a minute and stop knee-jerk reacting to what you THINK people are saying.

14
Tropical Fruit Discussion / Re: Growing Maqui berry in the desert
« on: May 27, 2023, 03:33:26 PM »
Hey congrats on this and great job!! Super excited to see this developing, as yet another person who's not managed to get these to germinate.

Coincidentally seaberries are another experiment I'm also trying. I've totally fallen in love with the sweeter varieties.

I have four different ones in my front yard that will get some shade (Sirola, Orange Glow, Golden Sweet, and a male), and am manually watering them until they get established. From my understanding, full shade is bad for them and they need "full sun" with at least eight hours a day of direct sunlight regardless of how hot or cold it is.

I'm also working on this as well, I have a ton of seedlings from multiple sources that I'm winnowing out (some over-summered and overwintered successfully outdoors) along with an Orange Energy and a Male I snagged from Planting Justice this year.

I don't know about the light source thing, I keep hearing that too but "full sun" NEVER means the same thing in Phoenix that it means everywhere else and my small ones are doing better currently under dappled shade/ 30% cloth. The big ones are getting about 4-6 hours a day of direct sun but I'm keeping a close eye on them. I suspect this may be yet another "does better with a moringa on the west side" tree for me if I can keep them alive, we'll see. Hope we can compare notes later.

Itís suggested that they be given indirect sunlight in hot regions, and by following that mantra my seaberry seedlings seem to be faring quite well.Theyíre getting some new leaf growths so thatís a good sign to note, but I also feel like you really need to baby them along way, especially in the heat of the summer.

That was my experience last year. All seedlings spent the summer under near-complete full shade except for two hours in the AM or so, and the ones that didn't died. They grew almost not at all until this spring but they survived.

15
Just wanted to thank CeeJay and johnb51 for fighting the good fight here, but it's unlikely to change any minds. For political reasons, many people have decided "academia is bad" and "big business is good" and until the leaders of their wing of politics finally accept what every good-faith scientist in the world has long since accepted, they will continue to spout the same denialist conspiracy theories their leaders are spouting.

I appreciate the sentiment. It's non-academic to me, my state's still in the midst of negotiations for water rights from MUCH reduced sources that we share with other states, for a start. Like, it's already here and biting those of us in the Southwest in the bum.

Also we're on a forum that is very heavily centered on pushing the boundaries of very climate-specific produce; everything we talk about on here is at enhanced vulnerability for any sort of environmental disruption. It boggles my mind that people who spend oodles of cash and personal time to *grow finicky tropical fruit* are sometimes so willing to toe a party line or just stick their fingers in their ears without doing some critical thinking on something that might impact their trees (which, you know, is something I don't like to think about either with the water situation but it's something that I have to weigh).

Yes, agreed drymifolia.

Getting back to the OPís question.  Has there been any recent construction in your area?  It can affect the hydrology of the area. Retention ponds can drain the surrounding area while building up a nearby neighborhood can cause flooding in the older areas.

Good question. That was my (non-engineer) understanding of Miami's situation too, that the loss of draining wetland areas for non-draining concrete was the main driver of the local flooding and sea level rise was mainly an accelerant. Also, looks like precipitation HAS been notably higher than last year for the same months: https://www.weather.gov/mfl/mia_cliplot

16
When I was a child it was the ozone layer.

That's because there WAS an expanding hole in the ozone layer and then the largest global cooperative effort in history banned the use of the chemicals responsible and the issue improved. This is actually a counter-example to your point, not support for it.

For my parents they were told we were headed for an ice age.

I highly doubt that they were told that consistently (because they weren't, that was a fringe theory), but we WERE on track for a natural cooling period EXCEPT that this cycle was and is disrupted by greenhouse gas emissions. This is discussed in most relevant science on the subject including in the old oil company research that I linked literally one message up: Shell's own internal communications explicitly rejected the "coming ice age" crank theory that was making the rounds at the time as a counter to the CO2 theory as did other scientists at the time.

Lots of theories but they keep changing the message.

No, the scientific messaging on this has been extremely consistent since the 70's: greenhouse gas emissions is making the planet warmer and is going to have effects including but not limited to stronger and more frequent storms (check), disrupted weather patterns (check), collapse of local ecosystems, replacement of permafrost with seasonal ice (check), rises in sea level from the loss of the permafrost (check), and all that is going to have knock-on effects towards human society.

Effects like, oh I don't know, coastal cities at sea level seeing greatly increased seasonal flooding due to many of the above.

What you think is "changing the messaging" is a combination of admitted uncertainty inherent to modeling large-scale chaotic systems, normal disagreement over minor details, but more relevantly an intentional large-scale decades-long astroturfing campaign by the fossil fuel lobby trying to fool people like you into thinking that this isn't a problem. The only real differing opinions are on timescale, overall severity at any given, and micro-effects as opposed to macro-effects.

Oh and at what point we can no longer do anything about it, that's in debate too.

No doubt the climate will change it always has, but we are still basically idiots when it comes to predicting anything.

No, the predictions have actually been pretty good for such a large and hard to model system as the global climate. YOU don't understand the predictive model so you say things like this, so that you don't have to think about it, change your opinion, or lift a finger to do anything.

The people invested in Green Tech seem have tons to lose if people arent on message.

Not nearly as much as the fossil fuel companies have to lose if every competent scientist in the world, NASA, every branch of the US Government (including the military) who has independently looked into this, every other government of a developed country in the entire world, and the oil companies themselves, all turned out to be right.

You get how stupid your conspiracy theory sounds when examined closely, right? That "the green tech people", whoever they are, have managed to somehow make up a threat that has fooled every government in the world and every competent scientist acting in good faith in the world (including the ones that work for the fossil fuel companies!) to maintain their strangehold on... a tiny amount of market share compared to the fossil fuel companies that continue to dominate the energy sector? Seriously?

Go google "occam's razor" please. The most likely explanation and the one that actually has the most evidence is that climate change is real and that the fossil fuel lobby and associated industries that depend on it have been spending an enormous amount of money and manpower to slow or stall legislation and public support. Hell man, I literally posted links to documents that show them talking about this in the 80's in the comment above yours. This isn't hard math, bro, Big Windmill isn't the issue here.

Similar to what we just went through with big pharma.

Pharma is a GREAT example but not for the reasons you think. They routinely spend enormous sums on regulatory capture and hiding the dangers of their own products from the public, to a lesser extent than the fossil fuel industry but same playbook. Perdue Pharma's lobbying and public obfuscation of the extreme addictiveness and dangers of oxytocin kicking off the current opioid epidemic is actually a decent but not perfect parallel for what the fossil fuel companies have been doing in regards to lobbying and obfuscating the effects of greenhouse gas emissions for corporate profit.

Again, this is a great counter-example for your point of view, not support for it.

17
EDIT: It's probably pointless to engage with people whose position boils down to "well it's not raining where *I* am so clearly it's not raining *anywhere*, and also my recollection of the weather in the place I live is more valid evidence than global satellite data" as if that were evidence or proof of anything, but for anybody else besides Calusa who's still on the fence on the whole climate change thing: Shell Oil (https://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/) and Exxon (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063) both had internal research as far back as the 1970's that fossil fuel emissions were causing a CO2 buildup that would have effects before 2050. In fact, Exxon's own internal projections from that time period (https://www.climatefiles.com/harvard/assessing-exxonmobils-global-warming-projections-science-january-2023-supran-rahmstorf-oreskes-reference-documents/) are very close to independent scientists then and later, including those that Calusa dismisses as just wanting that gub'mint cash (a motivating factor that wouldn't have applied to Exxon's internal scientists, btw). Possibly closer, actually, since we're on track to hit 2 degrees of global warming (GLOBAL, so not just St. Petersburg or Miami) closer to Exxon's 1980's estimate than some more conservative models.

So yeah, we don't have to trust the scientists that people like Calusa thinks are biased for whatever reason, because the oil companies themselves came to the same conclusions as all those other climate scientists forty freaking years ago.

Also, ffs, Miami is 30-something feet lower in elevation on average than St Petersburg even before considering differences like water abatement or position in regards to weather or soil composition; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that hey maybe the *lower elevation* coastal city might see effects sooner, assuming the Exxon and Shell scientists to be correct.

18
PM Sent

19
Hey thanks folks for the replies. I've changed up the soil medium a bit and also started adding some gentle balanced fertilizer to see if that fixes the issue.

20
I have a 4ft tall cacao and it does this also.  I have no idea why, I was thinking of switching to distilled water to see if that has an effect.  My city water is neutral ph, low hardness, but has a small amount of chloramine or chlorine.

Thanks for weighing in! Yeah, I was about to switch it back to distilled, which I had it on for a while. It's been on ph-adjusted reverse osmosis water which I guess doesn't remove chloramines now that I look it up.

21
Tropical Fruit Discussion / What's going on with this theobroma?
« on: May 15, 2023, 02:20:49 PM »
Hey gang, I'm still learning to grow theobroma and I was wondering if anyone experienced is sure what's going on with this guy. Leaf edges and tops are browning slightly, slight yellowing. One of the new leaves just dropped off. Plant is in well-draining moist slightly acidic soil, very mild very infrequent fertilizer (I'm afraid of salt burn), neutral ph water. Plant has a mix of indirect natural light and indirect full spectrum grow light.



Thoughts?

22
Holy crap y'all, my yard saguaro is blooming for the first time ever this year.  If it fruits I'ma make jam out of it like the native population does/ used to. Edit: I've heard that the flavor of the fruit generally doesn't match good opuntia but I still want to try because saguaro.

23
Occasional bad winters over time would have winnowed out the plants that couldn't handle periodic freezes. Citrus lives for decades so one lost year at creating seeds isn't the end of that genetic line, but the plant freezing to death would be.

24
In Florida I wouldn't try to grow:
Pomegranate (small fruit, fungus)
Fig (slowly declines and finally dies)
Cherry of the Rio Grande (not a favorite)
Canistel (not a favorite)
Rollinia (slowly declines and then dies)
Noni (tastes awful, like rotten socks)
any citrus (disease prone)
Atemoya (chronic underperformer, disease prone)
At some point I tried to grow any of those, some multiple times before I gave up.

Lol, minus the noni this is basically a list of what TO grow in Arizona low desert, depending on soil and microclimate  (with protection in winter for the annonas and canistel).

Different gojis have different tastes. L. chinense supposedly tastes bad, like a weird pepper. I found L. barbarum Crimson Star to be decent (not spectacular, but worth growing), but it failed to thrive for me. Iíve read that Yellow Gojis are the best for juicing, and L. ruthenicum Black Goji has a metallic, medicinal taste. Thereís a purple-fruited hybrid of Yellow ◊ Black called Stardust that apparently has good grape-like flavor, but it died on me after spontaneously entering dormancy. I didnít get to taste it.

I've got some L. Babarum that definitely also tastes like a weird pepper. It depends very heavily not just on cultivar but on ripeness and time of year, and also I've found soil ph matters (goji like higher soil ph than most of the stuff on here and tolerate clay which is just GREAT for my yard). A couple of strains of black goji don't taste like anything at all, weirdly.

I try to think of them as very small spicy tomatoes rather than fruit or berries. EDIT: They do better when treated like perennial tomatoes, at least out here in the desert. Tomato fertilizer and schedule.

Also I have a stardust and it's definitely finicky compared to the barbarums and the black goji; it caught powdery mildew in the winter but is taking the heat and crap soil out here so we'll see if it fruits. I know they say it's a yellowxblack cross but the leaves look more like L. chinense to me. I need to plant more yellows and trial those. But yeah try letting them have higher ph soil patches.

There are also some sonora-native varieties that have a slightly different taste and habit like Lycium exsertum that you see growing as a shrub out under the little-leaf palo verde in the wild here. Some very bitter or spicy varieties. Also some native barbarum that escaped from Chinese railway workers' gardens; those were the ones Phoenix Tears variety were isolated from iirc.

25
Great selection and glad to see all the survivors. I'm kind of wishing that I had left my campomanesia guazumifolia out a bit more this last winter to acclimate seeing how well the related did here.

Still wish I'd picked up a governor's plum when they were available last year in Nate's shop >.<.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk