[Mike_Young]

As much as we like the Temperatures here in the south right now ti could really put us in a pickle if we have a cold spell.  I remember about 12 years ago this happened and much bermuda grass was destroyed..... someone that knows more may speak up but I think it also causes insect problems etc......
Mike

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I think there are problems world wide, but at least you in the US know there are no global warming issues because your President tells you so.  Our PM is hardly going to disagree with him.

[ed_getka]

Mike,
   Why would a cold spell cause a problem with the Bermuda now? Isn't it supposed to be cold?

[Brian_Sleeman]

Here in Marquette we typically get from 250 to 300 inches of snow each winter - right now we have zilch, though we did get about a foot spread out over the first week of December.  I just walked my dog on the beach of Lake Superior and it's about 45 degrees - too bad no courses are open.

But people are playing a couple of them anyway, and that certainly can't be good for the turf, can it?  Is there a time limit on the effectiveness of snow mold application?  Does it rely on a fairly quick and thorough snow cover to work, or do two months of cold, dry conditions with one brief snow interval mean nothing?

[A.G._Crockett]

Ed,
The situation Mike is referring to occurred a few years back (maybe 7 or 8?) when we had unseasonably warm, wet weather for a long period of time, followed by a sudden, deep cold snap.  It happened actually a couple of times that winter, I think, and the result was a tremendous amount of winter kill in the bermuda.  At some courses it was acres of dead bermuda, at others spots here and there.

I guess it is because the roots aren't fully dormant due to the warm temps, and the high amount of surface water freezes them when the cold hits???

[Phil McDade]

I know here in Wisconsin (Madison area) we don't have any snow whatsoever, and I'm guessing some golf operators may be worried. A few years ago, we had a very similar mild winter, then a day-long rainstorm, followed instantly by sub-zero temperatures that basically covered everything with a layer of ice that really didn't melt for a good long time. The courses in the spring had huge amounts of winter kill, although I think most of the grasses around here aren't bermuda, but a combination of traditional bluegrasses (guessing here...)

[ed_getka]

AG,
  Thanks for the feedback. I didn't realize it was wet back there. I thought it was just unseasonably warm. Your explanation makes sense to me.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
   Why would a cold spell cause a problem with the Bermuda now? Isn't it supposed to be cold?

Ed,
Basically, the grass sees the warm and thinks winter is over thus beginning to burn up stored carbs....if it then gets cold and the grass was "fooled" it can die.....also many of the insect hatches survive the winter at much higher rates and you have bug issues.....from what I have seen.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

I think there are problems world wide, but at least you in the US know there are no global warming issues because your President tells you so.  Our PM is hardly going to disagree with him.

Well you are right that we down have global warming here in the US but it isnt because our president tells us so, it is because most scientists who don't have an agenda tell us so.  

Anecdotal evidence of a warm winter does not global warming make.  Unless that is a reality that you have an interest in, financial or otherwise.  I have a lot of friends and people I know involved in "The business" through my aquaintainces while attending engineering school (that also had an extensive atmospheric sciences department).  I find it interesting how most of the people that have a vested financial interest in perpetuating the GW myth seem to find the most compelling data to support their claims.  Just a coincidence?   I guess it could be.

[Gary_Mahanay]

Mike,

   Here in north Texas our tifeagle greens still have a lot of green color to them even though they are really not activly growing.  We are getting quite a bit of clippings in the baskets every other day or so.  We still have big patches, especially on the south facing slopes of our tifsport fairways, that have not gone completly dormant yet.
   From what I understand is that this El Nino pattern we're in temperatures are not supposed to get real cold anytime soon.  Now when we get one of those Alberta Clipper cold fronts that brings down a lot of Artic air then we may have some problems.
   In the past, the winter desication problems we've found in the spring were during the previous winter when we had some real warm days and then a cold blast sets in and the temps fall dramatically and stay cold.  That's were the stored up carbs in the plant come in,  but thats happened back in the 80's and sense the new ultra dwarfs have been introduced to this part of the country, we haven't had a winter like that yet.

Gary

[ed_getka]

Thanks for the feedback guys. I find this whole global warming thing interesting. Lately it sounds like some people are beginning to use the phrase "climate change".
    I don't know which it is but it is interesting to hear how worked up some people get about it. I was listening to NPR the other night and one guy said he would give more credence to the global warming argument when all it's advocates stopped flying to conferences to talk about it.

[Joel_Stewart]

The weather in the San Francisco bay area has been record cold for almost a month.  With that said, we have little if any snow in the Sierras/Lake Tahoe region.  Couple this with the massive snow in the Denver/Mid West area and the rain in Seattle/NW area and its confusing.

I know Al Gore is talking global warming but we sure don't see it here in the Bay Area.  I hope it snaps before the AT&T or you're going to see alot of unhappy people playing at Pebble Beach.

[RJ_Daley]

I heard a fellow from NOAA state that this particular odd weather snap in the US is not global warming, but the classic effects of El Nino.  I can buy that on a limitted basis.  

But Daryl, I can't also go with the folks that brought us every other catastrophe we are seeing time after time for this past 6 years (coincidentally the same time as the Bush admin) who tell us that GW is all chicken little, and BTW keep buying our fine petroleum and coal burnin products.  It's like old times when some folks in the Tobacco belt actually said smoking was good for you.

We are all having a little fun with this playing golf on the frozen tundra every day for the past week, in January!  But, perhaps the piper will have to be paid after this little dance.  

The poa is actually growing here.  The ground froze, and at the begining of last week, the balls hitting greens would bounce up in the air, and bound well beyond the greens.  Then, the ground thawed, and they got quite soft.  The grass is getting postively lush in FW low spots.  All that is fine, if a mild and blanketing snow cover finally decends and puts the turf back to bed gently.  But as Phil states, when it gets very wet and then rapidly very cold, turning to sheet ice, we are screwed with heavy winter kill.  If it goes cold slowly, stays dried out, and then stays real cold and windy, we will get dessication.  Turf damage and disease pathways, either way.

BTW dos Turboe...    How bout them Alps glaciers meltin and that huge ice shelf breakin off in the arctic, and those polar bears drownin cause it is too far to swim from ice flow to ice flow?  We have species of southern critters never before seen here on the tundra, particularly insects like the fiddle back spider being found.  

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

But Daryl, I can't also go with the folks that brought us every other catastrophe we are seeing time after time for this past 6 years (coincidentally the same time as the Bush admin) who tell us that GW is all chicken little, and BTW keep buying our fine petroleum and coal burnin products.  

Come on now Dick.

Its quotes like this that make the arguement from that side of the aisle laughable.  If we evil Republicans somehow wanted to change the climate on purpose, what could we have done that quickly "to make this coincide coincidentally with the Bush Admin".   That is just laughable.  

When you say "the folks that brought us every other catastrophe we are seeing time after time for this past 6 years".  Dick, tell me you aren't part of the tin-foil hat crowd that thinks W and Cheney somhow enlisted Halliburton to build a Hurricane producing machine and singlehandedly unleashed Katrina on New Orleans.

Now, it is debatable whether or not we are experiencing an appreciable trend of global warming right now, the modeling is basically educated guessing.  The programs can be set up to achieve pretty much whatever you want depending on how you model it.  And even if there is such a phenomenon going on now, the cause of it is definitely not man made.  Of that there can be no debate, there is just too much real scientific evidence to the contrary.  

That is where I have a problem with  the Global Warming/Climate Change industry, their interest is not pure, it is strictly anti-capitalism.  I have had to many real life experiences with these holier-than-thou organizations to trust anything they say.  They play very loose with the scientific principles to suit their end desires.

[RSLivingston_III]

These days I constantly wonder what level of collapse we will have to have to convince the anti-environment/pro-economy people that there is a problem with our environment.
I agree, they do need to come up with a more accurate name for what's going on. Global Warming is a poor and very incomplete description of what is happening.

[Doug Siebert]

Daryl,

You do make some good points, such as how the current warm winter does not make for proof of global warming -- the trend of the last 25 years shows that the earth is getting warmer, but whether it is a normal fluctation or something else, or whether it is caused by people or not are still under much debate.  But you blow all your credibility with stupid statements where you claim that "the cause of it is definitely not man made".  There is a lot of dispute on that, and BOTH sides have vested interests and millions to billions of dollars bankrolling their research.

You do not have the scientific credentials and political neutrality to make such a blanket statement, you believe it merely because you've chosen to believe a certain side, rather than investigating and weighing the evidence objectively yourself, and more importantly looking at the potential biases of those who produce the research.  If you look only at one side and see them rip apart of the neutrality of the researchers on the other side, but neglect to look at what the other side says about the neutrality of your researchers, you do yourself a disservice.  It would be like a jury listening to the prosecution then plugging their ears and saying "la la la" when the defense attempts to refute their conclusion.

There's a constrast here I find interesting.  If we were talking about something like mandatory registration of sex offenders so that people can know if a sex offender lives in their neighborhood, preventing them from living near schools, etc. that even though its never been proven that this helps do anything to prevent children from being abused, most people (especially law and order conservatives) will say that it is worth it even if one child can be saved from abuse.  But when presented with a similar argument about global warming, where we are pretty sure the climate is getting warmer but can't prove we're responsible for it or that making changes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would mitigate it, those same people will say we shouldn't act rashly.  Its a symptom similar to the "tragedy of the commons", it is easier to worry about a threat you understand that can directly affect your family and friends in the short term, rather than a threat you don't understand that probably wouldn't personally impact your family or friends in your lifetime.

I love hypocrisy, on side either of the political fence.  And similar to global warming, I can't prove that the amount of political hypocrisy is increasing, but it sure looks like it to me, and if I graphed it I'm sure it would look like a hockey stick!

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

You do not have the scientific credentials and political neutrality to make such a blanket statement, you believe it merely because you've chosen to believe a certain side, rather than investigating and weighing the evidence objectively yourself,

You are wrong, I have worked through college and in two different industries where I did do the research.  And it is from there as well as other scientific findings that cannot be disputed that I draw my conclusions.  The findings I refer to are hard and fast numbers.  Not the "We think, this might be happening" or "Scientists surmise that this might be happening" that you will find most all arguements on the other side of the arguement using.

You cannot deny, even if you take the Greenhouse Gases arguement for face value (which I dont, but for the sake of the arguement here lets just assume).  If "Greenhouse Gasses" are the culprits causing "Global Warming" the predominant source of CO2 and Methane are natural coming from the respiration (or other bodily functions) of all living organisms, and from decaying vegitation.  Volcanoes, and even pristine Forests also emit them it cant be helped.  

Volcanoes in fact are the worst offenders, the quantities of toxic material, aerosols, and particulates spewed into the air from Karakatoa in Indonesia, Mount Katmai in Alaska, and Mount Hekla in Iceland in one eruption each is more than the cumulative polution produced by all of mankind since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  ALL OF IT!!!!


But since Volcanoes are a little hard to predict, lets just get to natural items that can be quantified on an annual basis.  The single largest producer year in and year out are termites, whose digestive activities are responsible for about 50 BILLION tons of CO2 and methane annually (That is a measurable, firm, definite number that is a fact), an amount that by itself is about 10 times more than the present world production of manmade CO2.  And that is just the termites.   Cow flatulence itself produces about 50 Million tons, every rotting tree, plant, more and more it is mind boggling.  Now obviously you cant stop cows from being gassy or eliminate termites, but it goes to show you that what we produce is such a small blip compared to what mother nature produces and deals with on its own every day.  And has been ever since she has been around (long before factories and SUVs).

It would be like if your neighborhood was strategically located between a giant pig farm, a paper mill, and a fish processing plant, and when you didn't like the smell in the neighborhood you tried to get all your friends to sign a petition saying that your neighbor had to stop eating Mexican food because you think his gas was causing the neighborhood to smell.

And that is all I am getting at when I argue against it, and why I bristle up so much when orginizations (whom I know personally from past personal experience) have a particular agenda are playing loosy goosy with scientific rules to get their agenda advanced I say foul.  As an engineer it angers me that the people who call themselves "Environmentalists" frame the argument such that you cannot disagree with them without appearing to be "Against clean air and water", and that is just ridiculous we all know that no sane person can be against clean air and water.   What I am against is when anyone stifles what can be proven scientifically in favor of things that cannot be proven scientifically because in their words "it is too important not to believe."  If you are a scientist (as I have been formally trained to be) you know that there is no consensus in science.  There are only facts.  Things either are or aren't based on fact.

We obviously are probably never going to change each others mind, I just feel obligated to take the less popular position because the facts I have seen and know tell me that is the side of more truth than I have personally seen from the other side.  I do so because most people (especially non technical people) are going to naturally side with the path of least resistance, and that is the way the environmentalists have framed the argument.  So be it.

Anyway this has gotten way off GCA topic and I am done.  Again I just feel passionately because the argument is always slanted in one direction.

And to get back to the original thoughts, yes it has been a warm December, and I hope it holds on for three more weeks for my Myrtle Beach trip.  Guess I better drive the Durango not my Accord for the next couple weeks to insure it.

[Willie_Dow]

Let's get David Moriarty on here !  Maybe he can extend this discussion beyond the number of posts on the Merion thread.

I'm with you, Turboe !

Willie

[Matthew Hunt]

Why do the USA not just sign up to Kotyo?

[A.G._Crockett]

Turboe,
A link for you to consider.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

I think that if you review his statements over the past year and a half, even Bush no longer disputes climate change.  He DOES dispute the reasons, of course, as well as what to do about it.

[Willie_Dow]

Look AK when in 1985 the "American Coasts: Progress and Promise (Coastal States Organization 1985)" said that by the year 2000, 80 percent of Americans will live within an hour's drive to the coast.  By the year 2010, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration says, population density along ocean coasts will be almost four hundred people per square mile, as against less than one hundred per square mile for the rest of the nation." Per Rhode Island Sea Grant, NOAA's Ocean Control Program, Science for Solutions (Washington, D.C.)

You realize where the money tree really exists !

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

BTW, Mars is also experiencing GW at approx. the same rate as earth...  http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html   Hmmmmmmmm...  

[Aaron Katz]

The "global warming" argument is being completely misconstrued here.  The scientists who have proposed that human activity is leading to some increase in average atmospheric temperature have argued three things: (1) that human polluting activity is responsible for very slight increases in average atmospheric temperatures; (2) that this slight change in atmospheric temperature can cause changes in weather patterns (i.e., three blizzards in Denver in a week at the same time that Boston is 70 degrees); and (3) that ultimately a very slight increase in atmospheric temperature can cause rising sea levels.  

The first argument recognizes that nature is responsible for most of the greenhouse gases that insulate the earth and regulate its temperature.  Scientists are not contending that all greenhouse gases are bad -- if there were no greenhouse gases on Earth, Earth would likely be too cold to support life.  

The second argument contemplates that marginal increases in atmospheric CO2 levels create "blips" in atmospheric temperatures.  

The third argument relatedly recognizes that these small blips can cause small environmental effects -- for example, a five foot rise in sea levels -- that can cause devestating consequences for human beings (who have settled and populated on the expectation of no significant climate change), as well as plant and animal life (this is simply a survival of the fittest phenomenon).  

I don't get why this argument is at all controversial.  Is there any doubt that atmospheric greenhouse gases are responsible for insulating Earth?  Isn't it simple logic that an increase in such gases will increase the insulation in a linear fashion?

It's like saying that square grooves are leading to an increase in spin rates on wedge shots from the rough.  Obviously v-shaped grooves will impart some spin on the ball from the rough.  It is simply the case that square grooves will impart more.  

It is probably a coincidence that are major population centers on the east coast are experiencing unseasonably warm weather just months after An Inconvenient Truth played in theaters.  I don't doubt that Boston and New York will get hit with frigid temperatures soon.  But it's not a bad thing that this coincidence is occurring.  Humans are like the frogs on the frying pan -- we don't take notice of small incrimental changes until it is too late.

[tlavin]

How quickly some threads spin out of control when there's a hint of politics involved!  The weather here in Chicago has been unusually mild for a couple months after a pretty wet fall.  We have really only had one significant snowfall, but plenty of rain, even in January (1.5 inches last Thursday).  I'm no agronomist, but I would venture to say that this will generally bode well for the turf in the spring...

Now, about this global warming debate...

[JESII]

My barber told me last week that everything in The Inconvenient Truth was true, so I haven't left the house since...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()