What happened to Winter??

[NewToy]

You aren't the only one missing their snow. I was watching the "Today" show the other day and they did their story on all the snow mobile dealers in Minnesota getting it handed to them this year. Probably would be prudent to deal in ATV's as well, maybe even tractors! /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[MN_Bob]

Yep--not much snow in MN. Temps have been mild to say the least, but you can still ice fish on many lakes. I spent the weekend on Mille Lacs Lake (approximately 109,000 acres) and we were all using ATVs (although full sized 1 ton trucks were also driving around). I just purchased a new ATV and the dealer is happy about selling both ATV's and snowmobiles, but said the UTV (Rangers, etc.) are what's selling best. I did see many of them on the lake this weekend as well.

 

[Highridge]

It's cold right now at 25 degrees. Yesterday it was at 18 degress, but of course, it will be back near 50 tomorrow. It only precipitates when it's warm /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[NewToy]

MN Bob, I have always wondered is there some kind of chart that tells you how thick the ice has to be for walking, driving etc. I'd hate to have to call Allstate and tell them about my truck at the bottom of the lake. I'm sure that happens a good bit up there.
John

 

[MN_Bob]

NewToy,

General Rule--4 inches to walk on, 8 inches for snowmobile/4 wheeler, 12 inches for car/light truck and 16-18 inches for full sized trucks. We've had many vehicles drop in the lake this year--people just can't seem to wait and they end up paying the price (insurance covers the vehicle, but not the cost to recover or the fine).

The lake I fish is one of the few with "decent" ice, but we typically have 2 feet of ice this time of year (rather than the 16-18 we have now)

Bob

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

<font color="blue"> Is it the dreaded "Global Warming"? </font>

I think it is pretty well-accepted that climatology is one of the most complex processes on the planet. As such, I don't think that it is prudent to be TOO SURE of whether or not man is affecting the climate through his actions. Those who call global warming a "farce" take it upon themselves to scientifically explain how dumping millions of tons of pollutants into the air, depleting the ozone levels, and pumping unprecedented amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere are having no effect whatsoever on air temperatures, ocean temperatures, and sea levels.

Air temperatures are poised to absolutely sky-rocket during the 21st century (potential rise of 4.5 degrees C.), and ocean levels are projected to rise 1.5 feet (50% chance) by 2100, with a 1% chance that they will rise by 3.5 feet.

Cause and effect is always tough, but whatever the causes, these seem to be the effects that we will be experiencing. I have become convinced that "mother nature" can be affected by the activities of man. I'll leave it to Rush Limbaugh to insist that the case is otherwise.

 

[EddieWalker]

John,

I see your point that there must be some effect from emisions and polutants being dumped into the atmoshere, but I disagree with you that it's having an effect on the planet in a measurable degree.

From a report on CNN, they said global temps have risin 1 degree in the last hundred years. If we go back five hundred years, theres very strong evidence that the planet has be warming since the 15th century. So for the last five hundred years the planet has been gradually heating up.

In my mind, this lends some credence to the theory that global warming is a naturaly event.

The hurricanes this year were blamed on global warming, but none of them were as bad as the period from the 1030's into the 40's. This tells me that it was worse back then when we had much less effect on the planet. What caused that decade of really bad hurricanes if it wasn't influenced by man?

My thinking is it's a natural cycle that happens over decades.

Here in Texas and much of the south we're experiencing a drought and unseasonably dry temps. So far we've had one day that broke record highs, but we've also had one day that broke record lows. Most of the record high times are spread out from the 30's and 40's.

Seems that these things go in cylces and since they have been happening for hundreds of years, it's hard to ignore them back in history and only blame the recent ones on polution and emmisions.

The Northwest is getting allot of rain. Will it break the record? I don't know, but if it does, that doesn't mean it's from something man has done, just that the cycle of dry weather down south has affected the wet weather up north.

Recently in the news it's been discovered that plants generate heat by holding temps on the ground after the sun sets. The more forrest we have, the longer the earth takes to cool off. Trees have more of an effect on planetary temps than cars!!

If you dump a glass of water in a lake, it will affect the water level, but is it noticeable to the overall lake? Nope. I believe the same is true with the planet and global warming.

Just my thoughts on the topic,
Eddie

 

[scott_vt]

New Toy,
Well winter is back again. It was 56 deg saturday morning and monday morn -6 /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif Nothin lasts forever!

scotty

 

[NewToy]

Trees and emmisions go hand in hand. Increase the emissions and decrease the trees and you are compounding the problem. (Photosynthesis)

 

[waynokakid]

Here is something else to consider in the discussion on global warming: What about all the asphalt and concrete that is in our cities? Sure the emmisions and deforestation causes problems. But it is a known fact that it is always warmer in the city than in the suburbs or rural areas?!

 

[LBrown59]

Warm winter days are the perfect opportunity to get the jump on some of those summer projects.

Me I ain't complainin nope I aren't.

 

[jim_wilson]

I remember reading something a few years back where the scientists found that weather definitely is different around cities. The warm mass of the city - all the buildings, concrete, asphalt, etc. affects the weather patterns - at least locally. Whether it affects weather globally or not probably can't be proven ( at least not yet) but from everything I can understand about climate everything affects everything else in some way or another.

The whole global warming/global cooling debate seems to me a little bit like the arguments we hear about all the bad things that affect our health. Smoking for instance - it seems to be pretty much universally agreed (in this country at least) that smoking is bad - yet we still hear the stories about "my 90 year old grandmother" who smoked a pack a day and is doing just fine. When I hear those stories I tend to think - yeah, she is doing ok but she would be doing even better if she wasn't smoking. I think the weather is complicated enough that it can't be proven 100% that the climate is entirely being affected by what we do - but I think that it is also probably also 100% certain that human activity has at least some effect on the climate.

So why is it that the stereotypical "liberal" position is that we are killing the planet with all of our pollution - while the stereotypical "conservative" position is that it is not a big problem? I would think that when it comes to air we breathe and planet we live on it would be more prudent to say better safe than sorry - which seem a very conservative way to think of the problem. While claiming that pollution and global warming are no big deal is more of a liberal approach to the issue. Just another one of those things that confuse me. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

<font color="blue"> Just another one of those things that confuse me. </font>

I'd love to give you my take on it, but we're not supposed to talk about politics in here, or about how the undue influence of money on our elected officials has turned the entire political process on its head, so I won't.

 

[NewToy]

I believe Global Warming is an accepted fact among the scientific community. The conundrum is whether it is a natural cyclical occurence or is it directly related to fossil fuels. If one would talk to an Exxon executive or a representative from Green Peace the answers would be as different as the opinions expressed here. I guess we will find out at some point along the line. It is an endless debate with no definitive, concrete answer.

John

 

[plumboy]

This news article popped up on my home page and I thought of this thread.I know this could be a bad thing but I really cant help but enjoy the mild winter.I'm really closer to the tree hugger side but theres no since in worring on it,if it is our fault nothing is going to change.The multiplier is only going to increase in the equation as we populate.

 

[NewToy]

Plumboy, It seems to have gotten alot warmer in my lifetime. I remember as a kid we used to ice skate on the ponds most of the Winter. That sure has changed, no ice at all this year.

John

 

[DocHeb]

I agree - the ice hasn't been safe yet this year - but last year there were 18 inches of ice on our pond!

 

[scesnick]

I have heard this debate for years. I don't think there is really any significant change. if you look at the record books ALOT of the high temps in the winter in certian cold climate areas are from years and years back. Why?

I also always hear people say that " it just doesn't snow as much as it used to"
Well, in 2002 we had 54" of snow in one single snow storm. While me and a few buddies with FEL's started digging out my 2.5 mile driveway, my grandfathers 83 yr. old friend showed up to check on us. We then had this same conversation and he said he lived here all his life and has NEVER seen a snowfall like that.
I believe mother earth adapts to almost anything. If she can not adapt she will get rid of what is causeing the problem.

 

[CT_Tree_Guy]

<font color="blue"> I believe mother earth adapts to almost anything. If she cannot adapt she will get rid of what is causing the problem. </font>

I'm just afraid that's going to be US! /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

 

[LBrown59]

<font color="red">It's back here </font>