Slashdot Mirror


Acorns Disappear Across the Country

Hugh Pickens writes "Botanist Rod Simmons thought he was going crazy when couldn't find any acorns near his home in Arlington County, Virginia. 'I'm used to seeing so many acorns around and out in the field, it's something I just didn't believe,' said Simmons. Then calls started coming in about crazy squirrels. Starving, skinny squirrels eating garbage, inhaling bird feed, greedily demolishing pumpkins. Squirrels boldly scampering into the road. And a lot more calls about squirrel roadkill. Simmons and Naturalist Greg Zell began to do some research and found Internet discussion groups, including one on Topix called 'No acorns this year,' reporting the same thing from as far away as the Midwest up through New England and Nova Scotia. 'We live in Glenwood Landing, N.Y., and don't have any acorns this year. Really weird,' wrote one. 'None in Kansas either! Curiouser and curiouser.' The absence of acorns could have something to do with the weather and Simmons has a theory about the wet and dry cycles. But many skeptics say oaks in other regions are producing plenty of acorns, and the acorn bust is nothing more than the extreme of a natural boom-and-bust cycle. But the bottom line is that no one really knows. 'It's sort of a mystery,' Zell said."

474 comments

  1. Let me guess... by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...to what the majority of comments to this article will be related, given the delicious quotes like this in the article:'

    "I'm used to seeing so many acorns around and out in the field, it's something I just didn't believe. [...] But this is not just not a good year for oaks. It's a zero year. There's zero production. I've never seen anything like this before."

    [...]

    The absence of acorns could have something to do with the weather, Simmons thought. But he hoped it wasn't a climatic event. "Let's hope it's not something ghastly going on with the natural world."

    [...]

    "This is the first time I can remember in my lifetime not seeing any acorns drop in the fall and I'm 53. You have to wonder, is it global warming? Is it environmental? It makes you wonder what's going on."

    Of course, these will be ignored on page two of the story:

    Whatever the reason for no acorns, foresters and botanists are paying attention.

    But they say they're not worried yet. "What's there to worry about?" said Alan Whittemire, a botanist at the U.S. Arboretum. "If you're a squirrel, it's a big worry. But it's no problem for the oak tree. They live a long time. They'll produce acorns again when they're ready to."

    White oaks can live as long as 300 years. Faster-growing red oaks can reach 200. And it takes only one acorn to make a tree, he said, which in an urban area with little open space is often more than enough.

    "This is probably just a low year, a biological event, and it'll go away," Zimmer said. "But if this were to continue another two, three, four years, you might have to ask yourself what's going on, whether it is an indication of something bigger."

    I know it's not a popular sentiment here, but Beware the church of climate alarm.

    [P]erhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

    One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

    In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

    "Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will.

    His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

    Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the "lessons from history" to which geologists are privy: "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature."

    [...]

    Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that "we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational".

    Human-caused climate change is being "promoted with religious zeal ... there are fundamentalist organisations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging

    1. Re:Let me guess... by wisty · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or maybe the squirrels had banked them in citi?

    2. Re:Let me guess... by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although I tend to side with the thesis of anthropogenic climate change I agree that there are too many alarmists who will draw an instant connection between occurances such as this and "global warming".

      That said, I would have hoped that you could dig up some better references to support your post; Miranda Divine is an ignoarmus and Kieth Windshuttle has only slightly more credibility than David Irving.

      ...to what the majority of comments to this article will be related, given the delicious quotes like this in the article:'

      "I'm used to seeing so many acorns around and out in the field, it's something I just didn't believe. [...] But this is not just not a good year for oaks. It's a zero year. There's zero production. I've never seen anything like this before."

      [...]

      The absence of acorns could have something to do with the weather, Simmons thought. But he hoped it wasn't a climatic event. "Let's hope it's not something ghastly going on with the natural world."

      [...]

      "This is the first time I can remember in my lifetime not seeing any acorns drop in the fall and I'm 53. You have to wonder, is it global warming? Is it environmental? It makes you wonder what's going on."

      Of course, these will be ignored on page two of the story:

      Whatever the reason for no acorns, foresters and botanists are paying attention.

      But they say they're not worried yet. "What's there to worry about?" said Alan Whittemire, a botanist at the U.S. Arboretum. "If you're a squirrel, it's a big worry. But it's no problem for the oak tree. They live a long time. They'll produce acorns again when they're ready to."

      White oaks can live as long as 300 years. Faster-growing red oaks can reach 200. And it takes only one acorn to make a tree, he said, which in an urban area with little open space is often more than enough.

      "This is probably just a low year, a biological event, and it'll go away," Zimmer said. "But if this were to continue another two, three, four years, you might have to ask yourself what's going on, whether it is an indication of something bigger."

      I know it's not a popular sentiment here, but Beware the church of climate alarm.

      [P]erhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

      One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

      In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

      "Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will.

      His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

      Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the "lessons from history" to which geologists are privy: "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature."

      [...]

      Plimer says creationists and climate alarmist

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    3. Re:Let me guess... by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 0

      Oh, and...funnily enough I've found that climate change skepticism seems to be the prevalent sentiment here

      Although I tend to side with the thesis of anthropogenic climate change I agree that there are too many alarmists who will draw an instant connection between occurances such as this and "global warming".

      That said, I would have hoped that you could dig up some better references to support your post; Miranda Divine is an ignoarmus and Kieth Windshuttle has only slightly more credibility than David Irving.

      ...to what the majority of comments to this article will be related, given the delicious quotes like this in the article:'

      "I'm used to seeing so many acorns around and out in the field, it's something I just didn't believe. [...] But this is not just not a good year for oaks. It's a zero year. There's zero production. I've never seen anything like this before."

      [...]

      The absence of acorns could have something to do with the weather, Simmons thought. But he hoped it wasn't a climatic event. "Let's hope it's not something ghastly going on with the natural world."

      [...]

      "This is the first time I can remember in my lifetime not seeing any acorns drop in the fall and I'm 53. You have to wonder, is it global warming? Is it environmental? It makes you wonder what's going on."

      Of course, these will be ignored on page two of the story:

      Whatever the reason for no acorns, foresters and botanists are paying attention.

      But they say they're not worried yet. "What's there to worry about?" said Alan Whittemire, a botanist at the U.S. Arboretum. "If you're a squirrel, it's a big worry. But it's no problem for the oak tree. They live a long time. They'll produce acorns again when they're ready to."

      White oaks can live as long as 300 years. Faster-growing red oaks can reach 200. And it takes only one acorn to make a tree, he said, which in an urban area with little open space is often more than enough.

      "This is probably just a low year, a biological event, and it'll go away," Zimmer said. "But if this were to continue another two, three, four years, you might have to ask yourself what's going on, whether it is an indication of something bigger."

      I know it's not a popular sentiment here, but Beware the church of climate alarm.

      [P]erhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

      One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

      In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

      "Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will.

      His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

      Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the "lessons from history" to which geo

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    4. Re:Let me guess... by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That said, I would have hoped that you could dig up some better references to support your post; Miranda Divine is an ignoarmus and Kieth Windshuttle has only slightly more credibility than David Irving.

      It was more just that it was a very recent article (November 27, 2008) from a major media outlet, and very on point.

      It's the content of the article that matters, no matter who the author; "People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate," is still true no matter whence it comes.

    5. Re:Let me guess... by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They met Alvin, and now are trading songs for food.

      --
      Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
    6. Re:Let me guess... by Samschnooks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...the comments on this article can actually include speculation on what may be occurring beyond climate change alarmism?

      That's the thing that kind of bugs me is that Global Climate change gets all of the attention at the expense, it seems, over other issues. For example, coal fired power plants. The argument usually boils down to green house gases and maybe air quality. But the issue of coal burning releasing mercury into the environment (why do you think predator fish are contaminated with the stuff?) is hardly ever brought up and if it is, it's just ignored.

      Unfortunately, global climate change has become a very politically polarizing issue and it drowns out any sort of rational discourse. Which means, regardless of what needs to be done, it won't get done because folks will spend all their time digging their heals in to be "right".

    7. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "However, I expect that "vicious and irrational" will win out."

      Duh. You've already built the strawman you've outwitted.

      It's idgits like you that poison the discussion by defining it as a contest between alarmists and anit-alarmists.

      get bent.

    8. Re:Let me guess... by wisty · · Score: 1

      Kieth Windshuttle has plenty of credibility. You don't have to agree with his interpretations, but he got the facts right. The reason he is so deeply unpopular with mainstream Australian historians is that he actually checked the facts, and found that most historians had gotten them wrong. He wasn't gracious about it either. I guess a lot of historians these days value a "correct" interpretation, over "correct" facts though.

    9. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, and...funnily enough I've found that climate change skepticism seems to be the prevalent sentiment here

      SNIP, SNIP, FUCKING SNIP!! what are you an outlook user?

    10. Re:Let me guess... by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Au contraire, in an ideal world, or a close approximation (say a fully refereed journal) content can stand alone, but in any journalist outlet (especially from a so called "think tank") the content tends to be selective at best and is often down right fraudulent, now I admit that I haven't read the particular issue of Quadrant to which you refer but the journal definately sits in the former category and until I can see a fully referenced and sighted article from Mr. Windshuttle then I'm afraid his past transgressions will continue to weigh heavily.

      And as for Ms. Divine, an article written by an actual journalist from the SMH could fairly be described as originating from a major media outlet, but her piece is an Editorial comment placed in the paper to stir the pot from the right, just as say a Philip Adams editorial will stir from the left, I quite enjoy Mr Adams' rantings, but I admit the fact that it is an editorial opinion and cannot be fairly called journlism

      That said, I would have hoped that you could dig up some better references to support your post; Miranda Divine is an ignoarmus and Kieth Windshuttle has only slightly more credibility than David Irving.

      It was more just that it was a very recent article (November 27, 2008) from a major media outlet, and very on point.

      It's the content of the article that matters, no matter who the author; "People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate," is still true no matter whence it comes.

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    11. Re:Let me guess... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Maybe -- and I know it's a fool's hope -- the comments on this article can actually include speculation on what may be occurring beyond climate change alarmism?

      Actually, they should include "are the acorns even really disappearing?", which is the correct response to someone who questions accepted science.

      Throw in a reference to the "hyrocarbon cycle" and you'll be all set.

    12. Re:Let me guess... by missvolare · · Score: 1

      It is a tempest in a teapot. The change in the fruiting bodies of flora is regulated by planetary cycles. In Northern Cal this year there are quite alot of acorns coming off the Oaks all over.

    13. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The squirrels have had them all. Early in the morning, before you guys had gotten out of your beds.

    14. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They met Alvin, and now are trading songs for food.

      Oh <deity> no. Won't someone think of the children, and by extension, the rest of us.

    15. Re:Let me guess... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The "planetary cycles" are different in Northern Cal?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    16. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for sounding the alarm about alarmists!

    17. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, having 2 huge oak trees in my back yard, let me preface this comment by stating that I had plenty of acorns this last season (I would guess no more or less than usual for the last 15 years).

      Now on to speculation: lack of bees.

      Perhaps there is a correlation between the absence of bees and the absence of acorns.

    18. Re:Let me guess... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If it's one thing I've realized in years of working with a lot of freaky non-profits, it's that the only people on this planet more consistently and radically pessimistic than millennialist religious leaders and farmers are environmentalists. And all three believe with equal fervor that the world is about to end and the sky will fall anytime.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:Let me guess... by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1, Informative

      That's the thing that kind of bugs me is that Global Climate change gets all of the attention at the expense, it seems, over other issues. For example, coal fired power plants.

      Coal-fired power-stations DO contribute to global warming. The down-wind mercury levels, whilst elevated, aren't high enough cause the well-known chronic toxity effects (google 'minimata' for the gory details), but they could (collectively) lead to TEOCAWKI. Which would be bad.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    20. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gift suggestion for mods; all the above gratuitous quoting should be considered redundant.

    21. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC as above, my CAPTCHA word was "paranoia" and I thought that was fitting.

    22. Re:Let me guess... by Choad+Namath · · Score: 1

      This likely has nothing at all to do with climate change, but there's always some moron trying to connect every "abnormal" occurrence with it. Regardless, the fact that there are climate change Chicken Littles doesn't prove or disprove the existence of climate change any more than the fact that there are hypochondriacs proves or disproves the existence of cancer or autism.

    23. Re:Let me guess... by je+ne+sais+quoi · · Score: 1

      But the issue of coal burning releasing mercury into the environment (why do you think predator fish are contaminated with the stuff?) is hardly ever brought up and if it is, it's just ignored.

      Actually, it isn't ignored. You'll notice in that reference that the new Bush administration rules were struck down. That's hardly a surprise though, it seems like most everything they try to pass gets struck down.

      --
      Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
    24. Re:Let me guess... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Huh. And to think here I was starting to wonder what the collectors were going to do to protect their computers.

      Wha? I can't be the only person to think this when I read the headline!

    25. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I just thought it would be fun to quote again... All the cool kids quote the parent when they reply!

      Oh, and...funnily enough I've found that climate change skepticism seems to be the prevalent sentiment here

      Although I tend to side with the thesis of anthropogenic climate change I agree that there are too many alarmists who will draw an instant connection between occurances such as this and "global warming".

      That said, I would have hoped that you could dig up some better references to support your post; Miranda Divine is an ignoarmus and Kieth Windshuttle has only slightly more credibility than David Irving.

      ...to what the majority of comments to this article will be related, given the delicious quotes like this in the article:'

      "I'm used to seeing so many acorns around and out in the field, it's something I just didn't believe. [...] But this is not just not a good year for oaks. It's a zero year. There's zero production. I've never seen anything like this before."

      [...]

      The absence of acorns could have something to do with the weather, Simmons thought. But he hoped it wasn't a climatic event. "Let's hope it's not something ghastly going on with the natural world."

      [...]

      "This is the first time I can remember in my lifetime not seeing any acorns drop in the fall and I'm 53. You have to wonder, is it global warming? Is it environmental? It makes you wonder what's going on."

      Of course, these will be ignored on page two of the story:

      Whatever the reason for no acorns, foresters and botanists are paying attention.

      But they say they're not worried yet. "What's there to worry about?" said Alan Whittemire, a botanist at the U.S. Arboretum. "If you're a squirrel, it's a big worry. But it's no problem for the oak tree. They live a long time. They'll produce acorns again when they're ready to."

      White oaks can live as long as 300 years. Faster-growing red oaks can reach 200. And it takes only one acorn to make a tree, he said, which in an urban area with little open space is often more than enough.

      "This is probably just a low year, a biological event, and it'll go away," Zimmer said. "But if this were to continue another two, three, four years, you might have to ask yourself what's going on, whether it is an indication of something bigger."

      I know it's not a popular sentiment here, but Beware the church of climate alarm.

      [P]erhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

      One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

      In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

      "Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will.

      His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.

      Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carb

    26. Re:Let me guess... by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Plenty of acorns in northeast Florida. And fat squirrels.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    27. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Maine, and we have gazzillions of acorns on the ground this year, as in years past. We are 20+ miles in any direction from anything even remotely resembling a town, let alone a city.

    28. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yes. It's a different planet.

    29. Re:Let me guess... by yakmans_dad · · Score: 1

      slashdot contains half the climate change deniers and about 90% of the technologically-savvy deniers. And any response that grumps about climate change gets modded up. Idiotic.

      The article mentioned the possibility of climate change -- which is only rational. A story about a machine gun murder of a couple of diners in Sicily would probably speculate on the possibility of Mafia involvement, too. But the mere mention of the possibility draws the deniers' backs up like cats on a fence.

      Deniers don't even know what they're denying anymore. The physics? The extent? The human response? It's apparently enough for them to simply scoff at the phenomenon without specifying what exactly they're scoffing at.

    30. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate,"

      Really? Have you never argued with a moron? An obtuse, obstinate moron? No one wants to debate them, no matter how confident they are with their facts.

    31. Re:Let me guess... by Xest · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I was going to point out how ignorant it was of you to just suggest anyone that anyone who disagrees with you is "vicious and ignorant" but it's undoubtedly pointless if your attitude is to rather ignorantly pre-emptively label and dismiss anyone who has a different viewpoint to you in this manner.

      I do however have a question, you seem to accept climate change exists, but is instead something that exists as part of a natural cycle. My question is therefore if you believe it occurs why do you feel it's not possible that climate change is relevant to this discussion? How can you be so sure that a change in climate isn't a cause in this? Do you have some evidence we don't? Why is it that you seem to feel that this couldn't be a result of natural (as opposed to man-made) climate change?

      Certainly at least to dismiss something perfectly within the realm of possibility without exploring it is absolutely not a valid scientific approach. That way of thinking belongs much more strongly in the mindset of the very creationists talked down in your quote.

      What is it that you're so afraid of that you don't even want this perfectly plausible idea to be considered?

    32. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [P]erhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

      Perhaps people will understand that when a discussion of climate change starts with comments about "enormous new taxes" the person is not talking about climate change, but defending their economic interests.

      The notion that the scientific community is part of an international political conspiracy to raise taxes is preposterous. There continues to be a small handful of reputable scientists who are skeptics of the scientific consensus. But they aren't out giving speeches criticizing "enormous new taxes" and other public policies to address the issue. They are doing research to try to convince their colleagues that their colleagues are wrong. So far they haven't been successful.

    33. Re:Let me guess... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      they could (collectively) lead to TEOCAWKI. Which would be bad.

      The End Of Coal As We Know It?

    34. Re:Let me guess... by hey! · · Score: 1

      I know it's not a popular sentiment here, but Beware the church of climate alarm.

      Count me as neither one of the faithful, nor one of the satanists. Of the two sides, neither is free of "religious zeal". Witness, as it were, the choice of prophets here; Dr. Plimer's opinion is treated as authoritative even though he is outside the mainstream of scientific opinion on this. This doesn't mean he is wrong, of course, but it doesn't mean his opinions are more credible than those of the IPCC, for example.

      Unless you really, really want to believe them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    35. Re:Let me guess... by Graff · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Coal-fired power-stations DO contribute to global warming.

      They do? So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?

      The fact is that most of the global warming theories are based on poor evidence and conjecture. I'm not saying that all of the theories are wrong, they might tell some of the tale, but they certainly are not a foregone conclusion. I do agree that we should work to curtail pollution, it certainly won't hurt to have less emissions from power stations and the like, but we shouldn't have irrational, knee-jerk reactions to the use of fossil fuels.

      Now mercury levels from coal are a lot more substantiated because they are based on real science. Mercury levels have been measured downwind from power plants and compared to areas that are not downwind from power plants. The levels have also been measured before and after power plants have come online, and also when power plants had downtime. There is a fairly clear correlation between the use of coal and mercury in the environment. That's not to say that we should immediately stop using coal, but we should invest in cleaner coal-burning technology and also look for alternatives, such as nuclear power (which is much more containable than coal).

    36. Re:Let me guess... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 5, Funny

      The squirrels are merely saving them. They know the apocalypse is coming. That, or they are planning an all out takeover of the earth. Are you ready?

      Look! You've been warned! The hungry squirrel of the apocalypse rides!!!

      --
      blah blah blah
    37. Re:Let me guess... by neomunk · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why I prefer the term "ecological shock" or "ecoshock" to the various climate referencing terminologies. The ecosystem is going through drastic variations in a wide variety of systems, both global and niche, many systems, on many scales (from chemical to climate) are showing variables at levels (both low and high) the Earth-with-Life has never seen before. The variables are changing in an environment that is full of (ta-da!) changing variables. The weather is a part of this, a major part in fact, but it is not in isolation with respect to it's cycle deviation.

      Exotic chemicals have been concentrated to levels never before seen on this planet. Ever. Highly interesting new chemicals being made every day, produced millions or even billions of years before nature* would have accidentally pieced them together. Not only that, we've actually been introducing new ELEMENTS to the mix. We like to think that we get all of our resources from the Earth, so what we make is automagically Earth-compatible, but that begs the question, where does one go about finding a plutonium mine?

      We build these things at quantities/concentrations that would take nature* multiple-universes worth of time to amass, and blithely release it into the environment as if chemistry were just so-much superstition, and as if the biological system was just some machine that could be replaced if abused.

      To top all this off, very many natural cycles seem to have 'teamed-up' against us by hitting peaks/lows in a short window of time. I think that our ecosystem, when viewed from a 'gestalt' type mentality, is going through shock in dealing with these massive changes, hence the term ecoshock. Personally, I think it's going to be a bumpy ride.

      *nature - this means nature without humans, or at least our organizational knack. We've displaced a whole lot of entropy since we've been around, and an impressive amount in the past couple hundred years. Without that entropy-rearrangement the Earth would be a drastically different place.

    38. Re:Let me guess... by famebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the content of the article that matters, no
      matter who the author;

      Yes, but if the content incorporates more than facts widely known to be previously proven, and clear and verifiable logic building on those, evaluating the content is very far from trivial.

      If you are unable to, or cannot be expected to, do a thorough vetting of all remaining claims in the content, then you are in reality really also being asked to _believe_ the author's claims of knowledge, and to _trust_ his judgement in handling it.

      For that, reputation and past transgressions do indeed matter rather a lot.

      --
      sudo ergo sum
    39. Re:Let me guess... by Adam+Hazzlebank · · Score: 1

      I know this is old news... Acorn stopped trading in 2000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers

    40. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that no one should be jumping to attribute this particular event to climate change. Climate change is generally slow, and something that abruptly shows up in a particular year probably isn't climate related. If the acorns have been gradually disappearing over the past few decades, that would be another matter.

      That being said, most of what Plimer says about climate change is misleading at best, and dishonest nonsense at worst. (But it sure does sell books, doesn't it?) Climate change is real and is being substantially influenced by humans. You can start by reading last year's IPCC AR4 report.

      For example, Plimer says:

      "Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation.

      Total non sequitur. We know climate has changed over millions of years. That doesn't mean that we ought to be changing it further in ways that are to our detriment, or with consequences we can't fully predict.

      And the current climate change is not due to orbital wobbles (that takes place over tens of thousands of years) nor variance in solar radiation (whose measured history in the 20th century does not agree with the actual changes we've observed).

      "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change.

      No one is seriously claiming we can stop all climate change, forever. We can't even stop the current change we've caused. We can, however, slow it down to a more manageable rate.

      Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the "lessons from history" to which geologists are privy: "There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature."

      That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, and even more ridiculous to claim that this is some well known fact among geologists. See, for example, Royer et al.'s Phanerozoic climate sensitivity estimate, or the vast amount of work on the effect of CO2 on the glacial-interglacial cycle, or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event (although it's still debated whether that was CO2 or methane).

      Sure, you can draw a graph of CO2 vs. temperature (or rather, some paleotemperature proxy) over 500 million years, and no, they're not always going to agree with each other. That doesn't mean that CO2 is unrelated to climate. It means CO2 is not the only thing which affects climate, as Plimer himself acknowledges. Hundreds of millions of years ago, the continents were in totally different locations, the atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns were likewise altered, ice sheets were in different places or absent altogether, the distribution of vegetation was different, the sun itself was slightly weaker, and so on.

      All those things affect climate. But it's very difficult to infer all the factors which were contributing that long ago. To isolate the effect of CO2, the best we can do is look at certain intervals when there were large changes, like the PETM, where the climate signal is very strong. Or we can start going closer to the present, where we have more data; we can dig ice cores back a million years and reconstruct a lot of the past climate drivers more directly then we can if we have to rely on much older ocean sediment cores. That covers many of the glacial-interglacial cycles. And we do see direct relations between temperature and CO2.

      In short, it's completely dishonest to claim that you can disprove the link between CO2 and temperature using nothing but the correlation between the two. This goes the same for people who claim that you can prove the link using the glacial-interglacial correlation between the two. The link is vastly more subtle than that. Plimer would know that if talked to any of his geolog

    41. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you think climate scientists don't relish debate, you obviously haven't been to a scientific conference.

      What they relish, however, is honest debate by an informed opponent. As opposed to 95% of the so-called "skeptics" out there — like Plimer — who do little but repeat long-discredited misleading or wrong arguments. It's pretty much the same as the evolution-creation "debate". Evolutionary biologists argue all the time about evolutionary theory — witness the whole gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium debate. But that doesn't mean they relish correcting creationist wackaloons, again and again, every time they drag out the same bad arguments. Bypassing the whole scientific debate in the first place by going straight to the media. The reason why creationists don't engage in real scientific debate is because their arguments are so poor they can't get published. Of course, they then cry that the orthodox gatekeepers are "silencing" them. Pretty much like most of the climate skeptics. There is legitimate scientific debate about, say, whether the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to the lower or the upper end of the IPCC range. But you hardly ever see any of the real debate. Instead, you see the ridiculously wrong claims like "the geologic record proves that temperature is unrelated to CO2" or "all the global warming is an artifact of urban heat island contamination". It's a shame.

    42. Re:Let me guess... by EchaniDrgn · · Score: 1

      Waffles anyone?

    43. Re:Let me guess... by arelas · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a simple supply and demand thing. OAPT (Organization of the Acorn Producing Trees) decided that supply was too high and cut production. This has significantly increased the price per cheek full.

    44. Re:Let me guess... by gormanw · · Score: 0

      Here Here! I live within 2 miles of Arlington, and had a tremendous acorn fall about 3 months ago. I was quite surprised to see the volume. Additionally, my squirrel population has remained relatively constant, though they are definitely taking advantage of all of the ornamental pumpkins hanging around.

    45. Re:Let me guess... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard the saying "less is more".

      In this case, posting less (pasted!) content would have given you more likelihood that I read your comment.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    46. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?

      Yes, pretty much. Hardly anything is totally "irrefutable", but there is plenty of evidence which supports the link between warming and CO2, including the paleoclimate record, the observed timing, rate, and magnitude of the warming compared to the CO2 forcing (when other forcings are included too, of course), the stratospheric cooling fingerprint, the observed changes in the diurnal cycle, etc. All of those directly disagree with solar irradiance trends. The solar trend disagrees in rate, timing, and magnitude with the warming since the mid-20th century, although it explains a fair bit of the warming before then. So does the cosmic ray trend, for that matter. Solar warming doesn't lead to stratospheric cooling, it doesn't lead to the same changes in the day-night cycle as globally distributed greenhouse gases do, and so on. See Foukal et al., Lockwood and Frohlich, etc. Of course, your article doesn't bother to mention any of those inconvenient facts.

      The whole "other planets are warming" is among the dumbest of all skeptic arguments. The climate of other planets has about jack squat to do with the Earth's climate. Some of them hardly have any atmosphere, none have water oceans, and so on. When you actually look at what causes warming on various planets, it's not even the Sun; Martian warming is attributed to a change in global dust storms, Jupiter warming isn't even global, Pluto warming is due to it being summer there, and so on. I don't know why people ignore the large amount of data we have on Earth climate and what causes it, in favor of much sparser data from planetary climates dramatically unlike our own.

      The fact is that most of the global warming theories are based on poor evidence and conjecture.

      Oh, that's a "fact" is it? What establishes this fact?

      we shouldn't have irrational, knee-jerk reactions to the use of fossil fuels.

      It's not an irrational, knee-jerk reaction, it's one based on over 40 years of scientific and economic study. The IPCC AR4 WG1 report summarizes the state of the science. Nordhaus's A Question of Balance is a good introduction to the policy side of the issue.

    47. Re:Let me guess... by thedonger · · Score: 1

      The denial part is anthropogenic climate change. Clearly, the climate changes in short-term and long-term cycles. Whether or not we cause those cycles or change them, or if our contribution is akin to flapping your arms to fly is what is being contested.

      --
      Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
    48. Re:Let me guess... by samkass · · Score: 1

      They do? So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?

      No evidence is irrefutable-- That's the way science works. However, the evidence for fossil fuel combustion being a primary cause of global warming is extremely thorough. Much more so than that of coal-fired plants' Mercury emissions leading to any quantifiable health problems.

      Certainly the sun's output varies over time, as does the amount of natural greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. But the amount of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere is currently way, way outside of the historical natural variations and correlates very well with climate change.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    49. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the earth's temperature is being increased by the sun, then it's more important we do something about global warming, and quick.

      All the bad stuff that's going to happen thanks to global warming doesn't magically vanish because it's being done by the sun.

      If it's caused by humans, we just need to back off. As long as we don't hit the point where the ocean currents flip or the antarctic ice melts, we're okay.

      If it's caused by the sun, we need to back way the hell off, back to the stone age, and even farther, perhaps with some sort of technology to shade the earth, and attempt to weather it out without hitting the tipping point in several of the systems that would push us past no recovery.

      I.e., the car we're in just got a flat tire. Most people are arguing that it's because we're driving over a rocky road with bad tires, whereas you're arguing there's a sniper shooting at us. That doesn't make the situation better and somehow mean we can ignore it, that makes it a good deal worse and means we need to start panicking now.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    50. Re:Let me guess... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      It's the content of the article that matters, no matter who the author; "People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate," is still true no matter whence it comes.
      That is SO false. Many ppl debate who do not have a SINGLE CLUE of what they talk about. In addition, many who KNOW what is going on, do not debate. Why the difference? Because the first is a politician/lawyer, and the second is a scientist. Politicians will argue about any topic with out a clue about it. Look at all the debates that took place over the last 6 months and how many "FACTS" were trivially disproved. And scientist are notorious for wanting to not debate, even though THEY KNOW the facts.

      So a simple fact here is that you tend to be more lawyer then scientist on this site. I see it OVER AND OVER again (but of course, you are not alone).

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    51. Re:Let me guess... by yakmans_dad · · Score: 1

      The crux of AGW is that GHGs trap heat and increasing GHGs increases the amount of heat that is trapped. The amount of heat can be calculated and that amount is sufficient to raise the Earth's temps by the observed amount -- around 1C. So far. What deniers seem to postulate is that something else has caused the current rise in temps. What also must be postulated then would be a mechanism to finesse away the calculated increase in heat. Some vague hand-waving about "cycles" just doesn't cut it. That's an enormous amount of heat. There ought to be a specific mechanism involved. Over-turning in the oceans. Increases in cloud cover. What mechanism can both negate the increase in heat trapped by human-supplied GHGs and then turn around and raise the atmospheric temps by the observed amount?

      Maybe a really loud sneer can manage it.

    52. Re:Let me guess... by nahdude812 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I emailed my mom who lives in Pennsylvania (which was mentioned in the article), and who owns 5 acres of oak trees (terrible for raking in the fall - these leaves decay very slowly and lay very flat - each missed leaf is a dead bit of grass come the spring). She also lives on the edge of ~100 acres of forest composed largely of oak.

      Yes, we have lots of acorns - acorns are on a two-year cycle. It takes two years for an acorn to mature; so one year there are lots and the next year there are not very many. Our trees are not synchronized with each other, so we have pretty many acorns every year.

      The cicadas this year ate the tender tips of a lot of oak trees - that is where the acorns form.

      BUT the oak trees are in trouble. There is a disease called "Sudden Oak Death" that is doing a lot of damage and we have lost at least seven trees in our yard.

      She's a zoologist and not a botanist, though botany is a bit of a hobby of hers. This explanation sounds as plausible as any other, and more plausible than most.

      So I think that alarmism about this is overboard until there's more information. That said though, environmental concern under the guise of global warming is overall a good thing - it's causing people to pay attention to the impact of their actions on the world.

      Just like most main stream causes, the only way to maintain the public attention the cause requires is to either federally mandate the attention, or to engage in a lot of alarmism. The only way to get the federal mandate is to convince politicians that doing so is in their political career's best interest, so you need to engage the public with... alarmism.

    53. Re:Let me guess... by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to put this out here,
      I would like to see some sort of link or reference to support what you're talking about.

      This is partially because I believe that if you are going to make a claim, you need to defend it,
      and it's partially because I have no idea who Kieth (Keith?) Windshuttle is.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    54. Re:Let me guess... by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      If you think climate scientists don't relish debate, you obviously haven't been to a scientific conference.

      What they relish, however, is honest debate by an informed opponent. As opposed to 95% of the so-called "skeptics" out there — like Plimer — who do little but repeat long-discredited misleading or wrong arguments. It's pretty much the same as the evolution-creation "debate". Evolutionary biologists argue all the time about evolutionary theory — witness the whole gradualism vs. punctuated equilibrium debate. But that doesn't mean they relish correcting creationist wackaloons, again and again, every time they drag out the same bad arguments. Bypassing the whole scientific debate in the first place by going straight to the media. The reason why creationists don't engage in real scientific debate is because their arguments are so poor they can't get published. Of course, they then cry that the orthodox gatekeepers are "silencing" them. Pretty much like most of the climate skeptics. There is legitimate scientific debate about, say, whether the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to the lower or the upper end of the IPCC range. But you hardly ever see any of the real debate. Instead, you see the ridiculously wrong claims like "the geologic record proves that temperature is unrelated to CO2" or "all the global warming is an artifact of urban heat island contamination". It's a shame.

      Of course the great irony is that Plimer plays the other side in the evolution-creation "debate"

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    55. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Of course the great irony is that Plimer plays the other side in the evolution-creation "debate"

      You're right, I forgot about that. He does. Kind of amusing that he doesn't see the parallels between climate skeptics and creationists. He probably draws the opposite comparison: creationists and climate change "alarmists" are both "religious zealots".

    56. Re:Let me guess... by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

      Kieth Windshuttle has plenty of credibility. You don't have to agree with his interpretations, but he got the facts right. The reason he is so deeply unpopular with mainstream Australian historians is that he actually checked the facts, and found that most historians had gotten them wrong. He wasn't gracious about it either. I guess a lot of historians these days value a "correct" interpretation, over "correct" facts though.

      Windshuttle claims that this is the case, and it is true that during his research he has found many cases of factual errors, and rubbery truths.

      This would be very laudable if only he practiced what he preaches

      --
      Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
      Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    57. Re:Let me guess... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      I don't think it was alvin. Try This guy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBaU4geoSnA

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    58. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous+Monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Get decoy squirrels for your house. They may be evil super geniuses but are extremely short sighted. A few fake squirrels on your lawn and they will think you are being ransacked by their brothers and ignore you. By the end of this, only redneck humans and old ladys may be left alive.

      --
      We are the Borg...
    59. Re:Let me guess... by macbeth66 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I for one, welcome our furry overlords!

    60. Re:Let me guess... by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      wow. the first post is the most Insightful one in the set. brings a tear to my eye.

    61. Re:Let me guess... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are enough memes going around The Dot (now, including calling it The Dot) that we don't need another one.

      Especially not one so fucking annoying as quoting an entire article, plus one line, only to add one more line.

      Gift suggestion for mods; all the above gratuitous quoting should be considered redundant.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    62. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should get more acquainted with the informed and enlightened skeptics to climate change, visit http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and take a gander at the last few weeks of postings. Extensive in-the-field evidence of poor data gathering and management, especially terrestrial temperature monitoring equipment.

      Your data can only be as good as your collection methodologies, equipment, and consistency. When you rely on bad data you get bad results. It's not tired and old, it's true. Until the pro-climate-change side can demonstrate the validity and unbiased nature of their data, the models are built on fiction.

    63. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because climates have always changed does not mean that human causes are not the cause of current changes, nor that human causes are promoting more extreme changes. It is stupid and naive to ignore all the evidence regarding human causes for global warming and the impact it will have on humans and other life on earth. Your arguments here and your need to quote obscure sources that are way out of the mainstream ignores the elephant in the corner: humans are causing massive changes in climate and we can and should correct that. Natural cycles will occur, but it is silly for us humans to continue to disturb the environment in which we live, causing so much damage, just so we can drive big cars and consumer meaningless stuff.

    64. Re:Let me guess... by secondbase · · Score: 1

      I think both sides are pretty guilty of spin and other uses of the media. When the IPCC summary talks about 500 scientists signing the report (or whatever the number was), that's supposed to blow everyone away.

      But how many of those scientists have a truly informed opinion on this matter? A lot of them are ecologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, geologists, etc. All are critically important to discuss the symptoms, but none have any more right to an opinion on the cause than the supposed fringe that's always being dismissed.

    65. Re:Let me guess... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      This likely has nothing at all to do with climate change

      If you keep talking like that, you are going to get excommunicated by the global warming cult.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    66. Re:Let me guess... by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      This needs a +6 insightful. I've never understood why the group that believes we didn't do it think that means we can continue being oblivious. Climate change is climate change, man-made or not. It will cause problems, and we do need to think ahead.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    67. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      You should get more acquainted with the informed and enlightened skeptics to climate change

      Steve McIntyre is an informed skeptic. Anthony Watts promotes all kinds of nonsense on his blog.

      Extensive in-the-field evidence of poor data gathering and management, especially terrestrial temperature monitoring equipment.

      Every data product has flaws, but there is nothing wrong with it that is going to drastically change any of the global time series or conclusions about AGW. I'm sorry, but skeptic masturbatory fantasies about how global warming is going to turn out to be a data artifact are just that: fantasies. The urban heat island effect doesn't appreciably contaminate the record, the surface stations agree with the satellites, you get almost identical results if you only rely on the best stations, and so on.

    68. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      All of the IPCC scientists are leading world experts on the parts of the report they authored. The ecologists work on the ecology part of the report, and so on. The scientists who contributed to the attribution parts of the report are the leading experts on climate change attribution, and they DO have the expertise to judge the matter. The scientists who didn't contribute to the attribution studies don't have opinions on the matter which are included in the report.

    69. Re:Let me guess... by g8oz · · Score: 1

      No, the "fact" is climate change deniers typically respond to reasoned scientific conclusions with half-assed blog postings and variants of "we don't really know anything so there likely is no problem".

    70. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Frankly, it reminds me of the people who claim that Saddam did have WMDs and smuggled them out to Syria during the invasion.

      So...the net result of the Iraq war would be...give WMDs to Syria, where we couldn't keep track of them and they've probably ended up in some random person's hands, instead of keeping them in Iraq, where we could keep them contained?

      Yeah, you sure made us anti-war people look like idiots. Boy howdy were we wrong. Thanks for overriding our concerns and handing WMDs to terrorists, you fucking morons. (Luckily, this did not, in fact happen.)

      Some people are so concerned with proving the other side wrong they don't bother to think through the implications of what they are actually saying. Any hypothetical possibility as to what might be going on that isn't exactly what the other side has been saying is seized on.

      Even if, as in this case, it a) makes the global warming deniers still have been wrong for decades, now hilariously wrong in fact, and b) would logically result in us needing to everything everyone's been saying, even more than before.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    71. Re:Let me guess... by ncgnu08 · · Score: 0

      I think we are missing the point by relying on experts to walk us all the way through the discussion. Experts("they are scientists") collect and assemble the research; but it boils down to what a rational person would understand the data to conclude. From all the evidence I have seen, climate change is very real, and very dangerous to our climate. It also seems to me that any rational person, studying all of the evidence, would reach a similar conclusion. Are we really at such a low point that "we the people" cannot come to our own conclusions after covering the available research? We all lose when it comes down to experts shouting at each other on a split screen, as many "news" shows consist of today. I realize making my own decisions may not be popular these days, but weren't we taught the scientific method and how to draw our own conclusions? And I do agree those that argue for creationism and against climate change by bypassing science and only using emotion or religion are not helping anyone.

      --
      Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
    72. Re:Let me guess... by shentino · · Score: 1

      Please insert girdir

    73. Re:Let me guess... by ElectricRook · · Score: 1

      I think the wood-peckers did it...
      Stole them all, and hid them in nooks, crannies, & holes pecked in wood.

      --
      - High Tech workers, please say NO to Union Carpenters, their Union sees fit to control our compensation.
    74. Re:Let me guess... by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our squirrel suit wearing fetishist overlords!

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    75. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said "vicious and irrational", implying both sides are that way. You're the one making a straw man. You're the one twisting it into alarmists vs. anti-alarmists.

      Eat a dick.

    76. Re:Let me guess... by joNDoty · · Score: 1

      I was wondering how you were going to work that into a car analogy.

    77. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      I agree that non-experts can judge for themselves. But very few people "study all the evidence", and "cover the available research". Almost all self-styled "climate skeptics" rely on a rather biased set of sources, and most of the "climate alarmists" do too. I've met very few people of any position who have actually sat down and read, say, the IPCC report — even the summary. If all you're going by is, say, what you find on skeptic websites, then you're not really in a position to judge the science. Climate change is a subtle issue and there is unquestionably large uncertainty.

      To draw valid conclusions, a person needs to study the science for some time, and that has to start with reading some of the science, published by mainstream scientists. It took me several months of heavy reading before I had a real handle on where the legitimate areas of debate are. Not many people are willing/able to invest that much time. I submit that for those who are not, it makes sense to rely on experts. Even Steve McIntyre, one of the few skeptics I respect, acknowledges that he doesn't have that level of expertise, and if he was a government policymaker he'd be guided by what's in the IPCC report.

    78. Re:Let me guess... by tmosley · · Score: 2, Funny

      Obviously all we need to do is drop an ever-larger chunk of ice into the ocean every now and then. That'll fix the problem.

      FOREVER!

    79. Re:Let me guess... by Graff · · Score: 1

      I've never understood why the group that believes we didn't do it think that means we can continue being oblivious. Climate change is climate change, man-made or not. It will cause problems, and we do need to think ahead.

      First of all, there is a lot of evidence that global warming might actually be a good thing. The longer summers will tend to create more areas that have longer growing seasons and are more favorable to growing crops. Global warming will also increase precipitation levels in most areas, leading to less drought overall throughout the world and also contributing to more food for the world. Warmer temperatures will lead to a reduced need for fuel used in heating and it will reduce deaths due to exposure and the stresses placed on people during cold weather.

      Health and Amenity Effects of Global Warming
      Not the End of the World as We Know It
      Questions and Answers on Global Warming

      Secondly there are the costs and benefits associated with global warming. If you look at a detailed analysis of the sacrifices that would have to be made to carry out some of the recommendations of global warming alarmists, the economic impact is quite severe. Compare that to the economic benefits of a warmer climate and you can see that maybe we should be taking a less severe stance on global warming and instead of sacrificing everything maybe we should pick and choose our battles more carefully.

      Economics of Global Warming

      Lastly, although there is evidence that supports the theory that greenhouse gasses are part of the reason for global warming it is far from a foregone conclusion. There is also evidence that solar warming and several other factors might be primary causes. Without a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of global warming it is difficult to come up with methods of reducing the warming trend. We can call for severely impacting our economy and health by curtailing industry in the hopes that it will reduce global warming or we can make sensible cuts while we learn more about the situation.

    80. Re:Let me guess... by SirLanse · · Score: 1

      That is because the power plants have cleaned up most of that up.
      CO2 is much harder to stop producing, so IT is the boogie man now.
      I live in Florida, a warm place, and my yard is covered in acorns.
      This sounds more like the "windshield scratch epidemic". Some people say they see fewer acorns and all the drones think they are seeing the same thing.

    81. Re:Let me guess... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      First of all, there is a lot of evidence that global warming might actually be a good thing.

      Unless of course warming it past a certain point changes the path of crucial heat exchanging currents in the ocean and plunges us into an ice age...

      Warmer temperatures will lead to a reduced need for fuel used in heating and it will reduce deaths due to exposure and the stresses placed on people during cold weather.

      Unless it causes an ice age...

      The reason to fight climate change is because we DON'T know what it will bring. Sure it might actually be better... but it could also be FAR worse. We only have one planet, we don't understand it very well, and we have no backups. One should be extremely cautious of 'upgrades'.

    82. Re:Let me guess... by Toonol · · Score: 1

      I'm just slightly skeptical regarding global warming; I think it's probably happening, and I think there is at least a reasonable chance that humans are contributing to it.

      But I still don't really care. I haven't been convinced that global warming is a bad thing, whereas many of the proposed 'solutions' are quite painful, and many will result in economic collapse and the indirect deaths of many... primarily in poverty-stricken countries.

      On the contrary, historically, periods of increased temperature have typically been the times when life, both animal and vegetable, have prospered. Correlate extinctions and warming periods... it's cooling that is a tragedy, not warming.

      I remember reading one hysterical article claiming that one of the bad results of global warming would be a massive increase in the amount of poison ivy. Yeah. Think that one through.

    83. Re:Let me guess... by loftyhauser · · Score: 1

      If the earth's temperature is being increased by the sun, then it's more important we do something about global warming, and quick.

      All the bad stuff that's going to happen thanks to global warming doesn't magically vanish because it's being done by the sun.

      If the change is caused by the sun (and not by humans), then it is simply Nature at work. Who are we to be messing around with Nature? If the dinosaurs messed with Nature, they'd still be here! Evolution is the answer...we need to evolve/adapt to the climate change. If we can't, we don't survive--but that is evolution at work, right?

    84. Re:Let me guess... by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

      As somebody with a scientific and rational background, where would I go to find out more about the science of climate change? What would be a good scientific (as opposed to pop culture, mass market) introduction to the different aspects of climate change research?

    85. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An obtuse, obstinate moron?"

      Yeh, But I call them climate change deniers.....

    86. Re:Let me guess... by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      You MUST be joking. Windscuttle was nothing more than a Howard flunky, churning out articles that suited the liberal party line. Credibility 0.

    87. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      First of all, there is a lot of evidence that global warming might actually be a good thing.

      Are you insane?

      Any benefit to the growing season would be more than canceled out when, for example, England freezes to death when the gulf stream collapses.

      Or, thanks to the incredibly hot Gulf of Mexico, we end up with ten devastating hurricanes hitting the gulf coast a year, every year. (Talk about an increase in precipitation.)

      And let's not even dwell on what even minor rises in sea levels would mean to a large section of the population who would find their cities underwater. Or, hell, just their ports unusable so they can't ship food in.

      'Global warming' doesn't mean 'Everywhere gets slightly warmer'. It means 'All the weather patterns that human civilization has been built around get changed'. If the Sahara desert becomes livable again at the cost of Europe becoming unlivable, millions of people will stave because there are no fucking farms or even people in the Sahara.

      That doesn't mean, in the end, we'll be worse off. Maybe the patterns will be even better. But that's not where we have cities and farms. It's not where we have ports and shipping lanes. It's not where we have air conditioning and heating. (And in your 'less heating' dreamworld, you should perhaps notice that various parts of the world where it doesn't get over 75 have, every few decades, a heat wave of maybe 80 or 85, and thousands of people die cause they have no AC. And it's a lot easier to emergency heat a house than to cool it.)

      Lastly, although there is evidence that supports the theory that greenhouse gasses are part of the reason for global warming it is far from a foregone conclusion. There is also evidence that solar warming and several other factors might be primary causes. Without a thorough understanding of the mechanisms of global warming it is difficult to come up with methods of reducing the warming trend.

      Yeah, you go ahead and keep pretending that. And keep muttering about 'primary causes' like that means something...as I pointed out, we know CO2 in the air causes warming, and thus we know we're contributing to it, no matter what else you want to invent might be doing it. And we know there are tipping points beyond which the world's climate is irrevocably changed, so arguing we're only causing 15% if it's that 15% that will push us over, or push us over ten years earlier, is just a fucking stupid argument against reducing that 15%.

      We can call for severely impacting our economy and health by curtailing industry in the hopes that it will reduce global warming or we can make sensible cuts while we learn more about the situation.

      Yeah, no one's buying that 'impacting the economy' crap anymore. You asshats have been whining about it decades, and, hey, nice economy we've got thanks to that, isn't it?

      Every single ecological restriction has ended up helping the industry it's been placed on, and not a single one has ever harmed an industry to the extent it's been claimed it will in advance. Meanwhile, it's each to point to cases where lack of such a restriction has caused serious economic harm...ask Detroit about that and where they'd be if we'd forced them to actually improve their technology. Or the mountaintop removal of coal mining, which was supposed to create jobs but has ended up making less of them, cause you don't actually need coal miners for it.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    88. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Making car analogies on slashdot is like driving a car home from work...you just get so used to it that you hardly notice you're doing it, and you get there and you're thinking 'Hey, I must have driven here, but I don't remember it.'.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    89. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 1

      No, what you have is (at best) a "consensus" based on models, which just isn't science, even if your consensus is among scientists.

      --
      everything in moderation
    90. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I haven't been convinced that global warming is a bad thing,

      Then you need to learn about what happens when the gulf stream collapses. (As it has done before in times of heating.)

      When that happens, Northern Europe freezes to death. We're talking about decreases of ten-fifteen degrees. Iceland turns into, ha, solid ice.

      Meanwhile, the melting of glaciers in Greenland, and ice at the north pole, stops, in a rather ironic joke. Of course, the ice at the north pole wasn't the stuff raising the sea level, as that's floating. The Greenland ice is to some extent, but no one's worried about it for exactly this reason...before the melting could cause a rise in the sea level, it will shut down the gulf stream and undo the melting trend. It's a glacier with self-defense! (Antarctica, however, will continue to melt and raise sea levels.)

      Meanwhile, all that warm water that should have gone northeast to Europe stays in the Gulf of Mexico. Do you know what the major effect would be? Every single hurricane that makes it to the Gulf of Mexico turns into a Category 5 and rampages across the midwest. (And possibly it'd cause more hurricanes to start in the Atlantic, no one is quite sure about that.)

      whereas many of the proposed 'solutions' are quite painful, and many will result in economic collapse and the indirect deaths of many... primarily in poverty-stricken countries.

      Is it worth pointing out that the people most unequipped to deal with any climate change are the poorest people? They're the ones living in houses with roofs that won't survive the increased precipitation, or without air conditioners when their climate changes from 70 to 80 degrees, or without heating when it changes from 60 to 50.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    91. Re:Let me guess... by viper34j · · Score: 1

      ...corny overlords maybe?

    92. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 0

      Warming will cause an ice age. Because of "crucial heat exchanging currents." Got it.

      Some of you have bought so heavily into this crap that you can't even tell how ridiculous you sound.

      --
      everything in moderation
    93. Re:Let me guess... by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?

      Why, yes, actually, it is fairly well established that solar variation is not enough to account for observed climatic effects, and that fossil fuel CO2 emissions are a significant factor.

      Now, "irrefutable evidence"? Evidence is always subject to review and refutation by later observation. If you want "irrefutable" go talk to a Bible literalist.

      The fact is that most of the global warming theories are based on poor evidence and conjecture.

      No, the fact is that most of the "human activity is not impacting the climate" excuses for inaction are based on no evidence and a load of wishful thinking.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    94. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 3, Informative

      The best scientific introduction is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 4th Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (physical science). It attempts to be a comprehensive literature review of the mainstream science. It is all available online here. If you'd like to know more specifically about any particular issue, and are having trouble locating it in the IPCC report (e.g., if you don't know what keywords to look for), let me know and I might be able to provide more specific references.

      The IPCC report is kind of dense and is a survey of the modern state of the art. If you're looking for more of a textbook sort of introduction to climate science, I'd recommend David Archer's book Understanding the Forecast. It's aimed at undergraduate freshmen, so it might be below the level you're looking for, but it's still pretty good at laying out a lot of the important issues.

    95. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The consensus is based on both models and observations. Clue: all science is based on models and observations.

    96. Re:Let me guess... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The climate is changing, as it always has, and there is nothing we can do to stop it. (The most feasible solution is space mirrors.)

      Nothing we are doing is contributing toward or against it in any measurable amount.

      There is nothing we SHOULD do to stop it. If the Earth is to be roasted dry, frozen solid, or drowned in it's own salty juices, so be it!

      We should be focused on leaving this rock and settling on others. Diversify!

    97. Re:Let me guess... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      If it's caused by the sun, we need to back way the hell off, back to the stone age, and even farther, perhaps with some sort of technology to shade the earth, and attempt to weather it out without hitting the tipping point in several of the systems that would push us past no recovery.

      Great. I'm so much comforted with the thought that going back to the stone age is a solution to global warming!!! It doesn't matter if life expectancy is around 20 years and I'm expected to be dead already. Woo! All for the greater good of the Earth, and it doesn't matter that billions will die because we just "backed off" and discarded all our technology to the point that tigers can eat us for lunch!

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    98. Re:Let me guess... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Panicking is for liberals.

      If you have a flat tire, you pull over, stop, and change the tire with the tools and the spare in your trunk, sniper or not.

    99. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 4, Informative

      Warming will cause an ice age. Because of "crucial heat exchanging currents." Got it.

      Although that's an oversimplification, that has in fact happened many times in the past (e.g., Dansgaard-Oescher events). What happens is that warming causes more fresh water to be added to the North Atlantic, due to increased precipitation and ice melt, or freshwater pulses from draining inland bodies of water (e.g., Lake Agassiz and the Younger Dryas event). This disrupts the Atlantic thermohaline circulation which carries heat from the tropics to northern Europe. That region will experience strong cooling, although not all regions do. Numerous such cooling events are recorded in the geologic record, including plunging the regional climate back into an ice age shortly after recovery from one. However, it is thought that glacial climates are more susceptible to such events than is the current interglacial. Current estimates are that even if the thermohaline circulation shuts down, Europe will still warm, since the cooling there is counteracted by the large amount of warming necessary to trigger such a collapse.

      Some of you have bought so heavily into this crap that you can't even tell how ridiculous you sound.

      Some of you are so pathetically unaware of everything we know about climate that you can't even tell how ignorant you sound.

    100. Re:Let me guess... by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      So, its ok for our minds to develop shelters and clothes to protect us in climates where we'd otherwise die. Yet, its not ok to use our minds to try to protect humanity from a global calamity. Our intelligence and ability to overcome problems through innovation and invention is part of evolution. They're not mutually exclusive. We didn't need to evolve and get fur coats to keep us warm in the winter. We made our own friggin' coats.

    101. Re:Let me guess... by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      You took the analogy too far and missed the point. The point is that climate change is bad for us. Who cares what is the root cause, we need to find a way to stop it. No one is arguing that the climate isn't changing. The only controversial issue is whether its caused by us or not. That was the point with the analogy. Is it our fault or some external force? Your solution kinda proves the point. It doesn't matter what caused it, we need to fix it.

    102. Re:Let me guess... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Hardly anything is totally "irrefutable", but there is plenty of evidence which supports the link between warming and CO2, including the paleoclimate record, the observed timing, rate, and magnitude of the warming compared to the CO2 forcing (when other forcings are included too, of course), the stratospheric cooling fingerprint, the observed changes in the diurnal cycle, etc.

      I defy you to reference ANY such data that suggests a causal link from CO2 to temperature change! I've read nearly everything the IPCC has published, and there is nothing there on this central point except assumptions and models based on assumptions. If there is anything based in evidence, please provide a link. I've been looking for it for years. CO2 change rate FOLLOWS temperature change rate, after a varying lag that averages around 800 years. That's what the facts say. Getting from the facts to the theory of CO2 forcing comprises, in my experience, nothing but handwaving.

      It's not an irrational, knee-jerk reaction, it's one based on over 40 years of scientific and economic study. The IPCC AR4 WG1 report summarizes the state of the science. Nordhaus's A Question of Balance is a good introduction to the policy side of the issue.

      The IPCC is an organization established for the purpose of influencing public policy and public opinion. Its papers are advocacy papers. Its papers contain many factual things which are well-documented. They also contains a lot of assertions, especially on the key points, which are either undocomented, or send you on a circuitous chain of citations that ultimately lead you back to an earlier IPCC paper. I'm not saying that the IPCC is necessarily a bad thing in itself. But incorporating IPCC products in a scientific endeavor is a bad thing.

    103. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      The probable effects of an Atlantic ocean circulation collapse are not as severe as you describe.

      By the way, it's not the Gulf Stream — that's the primarily wind-driven component of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. What you're referring to is the thermohaline component.

      Although Europe would cool, it probably won't cool to lower than pre-industrial temperatures, because of the large amount of warming necessary to collapse the current in the first place. See Gregory et al.'s GRL paper from 2005 (section 4).

      I am unaware of any scientific support for the claim that an MOC collapse would turn every hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico into a Cat 5 storm headed for the midwest.

    104. Re:Let me guess... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Every 100,000 years we get a very brief warm period of a before heading back to the ice age. That's what we're in now. All the extreme talk about how horrible global warming is is utterly nonsensical. Ocean levels rising? Some species dying out? That is NOTHING compared to the ice age, which WILL return. When that happens, the human population will have to decrease by at least 95%, just to start with. Fresh water and food will be impossibly hard to come by, as rainfall becomes a memory and glaciers start to once again reclaim arable land. If it is possible that we have a way to cause global warming, then we need to find out if it works or not. And if it does work, we need to EMBRACE it, not eliminate it. If global warming is caused by the sun, then that's nothing that can help us, just par for the course. The last interglacial period, 100,000 years ago averaged significantly higher temperatures than we've had so far in this one. So if we get warmer before we get colder, then good for us... but it unfortunately won't last.

    105. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I defy you to reference ANY such data that suggests a causal link from CO2 to temperature change!

      What a joke.

      I already gave a number of such examples, which are all cited in the IPCC report you claim to have read. Not to mention the basic atomic physics of the greenhouse effect.

      I've read nearly everything the IPCC has published, and there is nothing there on this central point except assumptions and models based on assumptions.

      Yeah, duh.

      All of science is based on assumptions. Then you test the predictions of those assumptions and see whether they agree with what you observe. Then you test the predictions of alternate assumptions and see if they agree.

      CO2 change rate FOLLOWS temperature change rate, after a varying lag that averages around 800 years.

      ... in the specific case of the glacial-interglacial cycle. You can't say the same for other paleoclimate events, such as the PETM, Cenozoic cooling, etc.

      Nor does the glacial-interglacial cycle contradict a causal link from CO2 to temperature change (as noted in the Caillon et al. paper which first described this lag). And you cannot explain the magnitude and warming/cooling rate of the glacial-interglacial cycle without the CO2 greenhouse effect.

      The IPCC is an organization established for the purpose of influencing public policy and public opinion.

      The IPCC is charged with providing a thorough summary of mainstream research, and is specifically forbidden from making policy recommendations.

      I'm not saying that the IPCC is necessarily a bad thing in itself. But incorporating IPCC products in a scientific endeavor is a bad thing.

      The IPCC does not conduct scientific research. It summarizes existing scientific research. If you want to know what the state of climate science is, the IPCC report is a primary index into the literature.

    106. Re:Let me guess... by Fourpole · · Score: 1

      Damn it all I moderated this the wrong way. Posting to remove.

    107. Re:Let me guess... by lennier · · Score: 2, Funny

      "All for the greater good of the Earth, and it doesn't matter that billions will die because we just "backed off" and discarded all our technology to the point that tigers can eat us for lunch!"

      What the heck is with this argument? I keep hearing it from anti-environmentalists. It makes no sense.

      The point isn't that we should "save the planet" IN EXCHANGE FOR human wellbeing. Nobody's arguing that!

      The point is that we should save the planet TO SUPPORT human wellbeing. Because we, y'know, live here? And rely on a functioning ecosystem to, eg, eat and breathe? Do you want to continue doing that? Then perhaps you'd like to continue to have some trees to make the oxygen and something living to eat? As opposed to a dead high-tech sea of glass and asphalt willed into existence by John Galt and his heroic band?

      Yes, stone age society would suck. But if our only options are a stone-age society or complete mass extinction... which of those options would YOU rather take?

      I'm not saying those necessarily *are* our actual options - they're the potential extremes. But "dialing back" a bit on the industrial revolution is not this mass flight from reason and sanity that some of the weirder voices on the Right seem to think it is. It's about finding a way to stop our breathing privileges from being revoked because we've cut down all the trees to build parking lots.

      Seriously, what are you guys smoking over there?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    108. Re:Let me guess... by lgw · · Score: 1

      "An obtuse, obstinate moron?"

      Yeh, But I call them climate change deniers.....

      That's odd - last year you called them "Global Warming deniers". I figure 1-2 more years before "the consensus" changess fully from Global Warming back to Ice Age (the fear of the consensus when I was young - just the great cycle of nature, I guess).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    109. Re:Let me guess... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      We know climate has changed over millions of years. That doesn't mean that we ought to be changing it further in ways that are to our detriment, or with consequences we can't fully predict.

      Warming is to our advantage. Cooling is to our detriment. ...but that's a different argument.

      And the current climate change is not due to orbital wobbles (that takes place over tens of thousands of years) nor variance in solar radiation (whose measured history in the 20th century does not agree with the actual changes we've observed).

      The facts disagree. "Orbital wobbles", that is, changes in orbit eccentricity and axis inclination, take place at about a 100,000 year interval. This makes up, by an extraordinarily large margin, the largest component of global temperature change amplitude. The second and third largest components of global temperature change amplitude are at the 23,000 and 40,000 year periods. These also correlate to orbital cycles, namely precession and obliquity. Though all these things, eccentricity, inclination, precession, and obliquity, change gradually, the effects they produce in the earth's climate are (so far unexplainably) extraordinarily sudden.

      So while it is unknown whether human-induced CO2 level changes are currently influencing global temperature, it is well-known that "oribtal wobbles" are doing so. Anyone is free to speculate that some particular temperature trend is owing to CO2 rather than orbital parameters, or something else, but until there is evidence for it, it remains speculation. In the last million years, at least, there is nothing in the factual record that suggests CO2 forcing. But my point is, your statement, "current climate change is not due to orbital wobbles" is utterly unsupportable.

      That's an absolutely ridiculous statement, and even more ridiculous to claim that this is some well known fact among geologists. See, for example, Royer et al.'s Phanerozoic climate sensitivity estimate, or the vast amount of work on the effect of CO2 on the glacial-interglacial cycle, or the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event (although it's still debated whether that was CO2 or methane).

      A vast amount of work doesn't imply a vast amount (or even any) supporting evidence. It's absolutely true that a vast amount of work has been put in to formulating a model by which a CO2 level that trails temperatures by 800 years is actually triggering the changes that it then follows. It's absurd, but they're married to the theory that CO2 runs the show, so that's what they're doing. As for the PETM, the data is so sparse that it would be a big mistake to confuse the content of current theories on it with actual likely causes. Not that they're necessarily wrong. There's just not much to go on when you look 55 million years back. Regardless, the relationship between the PETM and the modern climate is remote. We're talking about a time when there were lush forests at the South Pole. If it turns out that the PETM was actually caused by changes in the greenhouse effect, it doesn't really add a lot of insight into what causes temperature changes in the current climate.

      Plimer is doing nothing but dragging out the persecution trope to frame himself (and his audience) as brave Galileos being burned at the stake by the church. Look at the repeated comparisons to religious zealots. It's a cheap and easy way to drum up support for any non-mainstream view -- just compare anyone who disagrees with you with the Inquisition, or Nazis, or whatever. It's the same argument used by creationists, UFOlogists, Electric Universe crackpots, and so on.

      Yes... except that dissenting climatologists are persecuted. They get fired if they do not adopt the "consensus view". There are more than a few examples. And there are multiple examples of tenured climatologists speaking out about it. It is not a "scientific" atmosphere out there.

    110. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Warming is to our advantage. Cooling is to our detriment.

      Another absurdly over-generalized claim. There are plenty of disadvantages to warming, many of which are detailed in the IPCC report you keep claiming to have read.

      "And the current climate change is not due to orbital wobbles (that takes place over tens of thousands of years) nor variance in solar radiation (whose measured history in the 20th century does not agree with the actual changes we've observed)"

      The facts disagree.

      The facts you cite do not contradict my statement.

      As you note, there are Milankovitch cycles which take place over tens of thousands of years. As I noted, they are far too slow (and in the wrong direction) to account for the recent warming.

      So while it is unknown whether human-induced CO2 level changes are currently influencing global temperature,

      That is not unknown. You just choose to discount all the evidence which supports it.

      it is well-known that "oribtal wobbles" are doing so.

      It is equally well known that "orbital wobbles" don't predict the modern warming in its timing, rate, or magnitude.

      In the last million years, at least, there is nothing in the factual record that suggests CO2 forcing.

      As I already noted, the last million years of the glacial-interglacial cycle rather strongly supports CO2 forcing as a feedback effect of the Milankovitch cycles.

      But my point is, your statement, "current climate change is not due to orbital wobbles" is utterly unsupportable.

      It's not only supportable, it's completely obvious to anyone who can look at a graph for longer than 5 seconds.

      A vast amount of work doesn't imply a vast amount (or even any) supporting evidence.

      Nevertheless, that evidence exists.

      It's absolutely true that a vast amount of work has been put in to formulating a model by which a CO2 level that trails temperatures by 800 years is actually triggering the changes that it then follows.

      You imply that models were somehow fudged to have a CO2 feedback from temperature after Caillon et al. was published. This is more nonsense. The lead of temperature was predicted by Milankovitch theory long before any such lead-lag was observed, and climate-carbon cycle models have likewise had temperature feedbacks in them well before Caillon.

      As for the PETM, the data is so sparse that it would be a big mistake to confuse the content of current theories on it with actual likely causes.

      The data is not that sparse, and both the carbon excursion and the d18O temperature response are EXTREMELY obvious in the geological record.

      Regardless, the relationship between the PETM and the modern climate is remote.

      Sort of. The climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases during the PETM was likely somewhat different than the modern climate sensitivity. However, the link between the greenhouse effect and climate change during the PETM is very clear.

      If it turns out that the PETM was actually caused by changes in the greenhouse effect, it doesn't really add a lot of insight into what causes temperature changes in the current climate.

      It gives a ballpark estimate of how much climate change you can expect from a very large carbon excursion, which is useful since we don't have any other analogs for our current carbon excursion.

      Yes... except that dissenting climatologists are persecuted. They get fired if they do not adopt the "consensus view".

      Hardly. There have been a few examples of "state climatologists" abusing their title by making statements to the media that don't agree with their employer's views. Academic scientists can pretty much do what they want, which is why dissen

    111. Re:Let me guess... by AsnFkr · · Score: 1

      It's a simple supply and demand thing. OAPT (Organization of the Acorn Producing Trees) decided that supply was too high and cut production. This has significantly increased the price per cheek full.

      Yes, but even if the PPC goes up, the cost of shipment method goes up with it, for the less you ship the more expensive it gets, per nut. They can only cut so much before it becomes cost ineffective.

    112. Re:Let me guess... by Graff · · Score: 1

      No, the "fact" is climate change deniers typically respond to reasoned scientific conclusions with half-assed blog postings and variants of "we don't really know anything so there likely is no problem".

      And then there are the realists who say, "Yes, the climate is changing but lets make small, reasonable adjustments that make economic sense rather than stopping our economy on a dime. After all, we don't totally understand the mechanics of the climate change and we may be overreacting."

      The world is a big place. The initial alarmist predictions said that we'd already have massive floods and drastic increases in temperatures. What we are actually seeing is small, incremental increases in temperature and some moderate variation in world climate. If we make the sensible changes that can be done without radically changing our economy then we've hit the sweet spot. Lets build nuclear reactors (because wind, and solar aren't extremely reliable and water is not viable in many regions) to replace the fossil fuel power plants. Lets build a hydrogen infrastructure so we can dissociate water at the nuclear power plants and run our vehicles off of it. Lets build better mass transit which will not only save energy but which will also be good for our economy.

      This whole mess of government subsidies for technologies that are extremely inefficient is such a wrong direction. Ethanol is a dead-end because without the subsidies it costs a ton more than fossil fuels, it drives up the prices of food crops, it burns poorly because it is already partially-oxidized by its very nature, it destroys equipment because it is also corrosive by its nature. Solar panels create more pollution in their manufacture than they save over their entire lives. Wind power has high maintenance costs and is not reliable enough in most regions to be cost-effective. Even in the regions where wind is worth using it's still not consistent enough to supply all the demand all the time, it needs to be supplemented with nuclear or fossil fuel generators.

      Scientific advances will make all of these technologies more viable but we can't rely on future discoveries to determine what we need to do now. Right now nuclear power is cheap and reliable. The only thing holding it back is the unreasonable fear of nuclear energy which makes it a mess to design and build a power plant. Lets standardize a half-dozen different designs to match different building conditions and lets make it simpler to get a nuclear plant built. Lets also get a central place to reprocess and sequester waste products. Once we get rid of the costs generated through irrational fear of nuclear power we will be a lot better off, both economically and environmentally.

    113. Re:Let me guess... by MacDork · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Pretty much like most of the climate skeptics. There is legitimate scientific debate about, say, whether the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 is closer to the lower or the upper end of the IPCC range. But you hardly ever see any of the real debate.

      Funny you should mention real debate over climate sensitivity. That too has been censored by the Cult of Climate Change.

      American Physics invited both believers and sceptics to submit articles, and has published a submission by Viscount Monckton questioning the core calculation of the greenhouse gas theory: climate sensitivity.

      ...

      But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.

      Question the methodology of the one paper that ALL of the IPCC's global warming theory is based upon... and be shouted down.

    114. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This year our Pecan trees didn't make any nuts either. We're in North central Texas.

    115. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the thing that kind of bugs me is that Global Climate change gets all of the attention at the expense, it seems, over other issues. For example, coal fired power plants.

      Coal-fired power-stations DO contribute to global warming.

      And sadly, you've proven GPs point. You're worried about the CO2 emissions of coal plants, while completely oblivious to the other emissions coal plants produce. But no... we can't save the environment from nuclear radiation. Let's all wait while another ... person... shares with us brilliant scientific insights regarding carbon footprints. Wow, really!? Burning stuff creates CO2? Riveting, truly. Do tell me more, no one has ever mentioned ANYTHING like this to me before. <sarcasm />

    116. Re:Let me guess... by dcam · · Score: 1

      You are aware that the smh article you linked to and quoted from is an opinion piece from someone why would be right at home on Fox News?

      --
      meh
    117. Re:Let me guess... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The point being I pull out a new tire and get the job done. Most people panic and call for help.

      As for global warming, we aren't causing it, there's nothing we can do about it, there's nothing we should do about it. We need to move to other planets and diversify. Planets die violently all the time. We possess no where near the means of being able to prevent the fate of a planet.

    118. Re:Let me guess... by shawb · · Score: 1

      Bees shouldn't have much to do with the this. Oaks are wind pollinated.

      unless you were simply asking about the lack of bees. In which case I'd say the most likely culprit is disease. We now have a worldwide bee trade, and some of those bees will carry disease (fungal, viral... doesn't matter for the point of this discussion.) The disease would have co-evolved with the native population of bees such that it doesn't harm them much, but bees that haven't evolved with the disease would be likely to suffer large plagues which destroy many hives. But... that's nature. The hives that do survive are likely just a little better at defending against the disease, so next time around they'll have a better chance. This CAN become a big problem if enough stresses and diseases start mixing with the population that no bees survive. I personally doubt that will happen, but if it does we had better get used to a very limited diet and the possibility of total ecological collapse.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    119. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the bad stuff that's going to happen thanks to global warming doesn't magically vanish because it's being done by the sun.

      You know how scientific theories are supposed to provide testable predictions so that you can determine if the theory is correct? What is this bad stuff that's going to happen thanks to global warming? Can we get a list of it and check and see if it happens? Or are we supposed to believe the theory without testing any predictions?

      For example, people say that the sea level will rise. Sea levels are measured quite a lot, so it'd be easy to test this one. Every port has tide charts indicating what the sea level will be at various dates and times. Interestingly, tide charts can be purchased for several years into the future. So how about it? Do you think global warming is real? Do you think it will cause a rise in sea level? If so, please provide a prediction of what the sea level will be at some time in the future. Then we can wait and see if the sea level does go up, thus providing some support for sea level rises caused by global warming.

      Unfortunately, the debate about global warming has been polarized between "alarmists" who say that the sky is falling and we're all going to die, and "deniers" who say various things equating to "nothing unusual is happening". And it's all rather pointless. Making a hundred posts on slashdot and other forums using big words isn't going to change anything much about global warming.

      What this global warming industry needs is to prove that global warming is happening. Prove that it's caused by burning fossil fuels. Do a cost/benefit analysis to work out whether the effects will on whole be good or bad. Provide information about the good AND bad effects. Don't just argue with the deniers, also point out the silly bits of the alarmists' rants.

      Obviously the climate on the planet changes. For example, mammoths no longer stomp around the world. Should scientists clone a mammoth? Should scientists cool the planet down enough to cause an ice age, giving the mammoth ideal living conditions? If you think that is a ridiculous idea, then should scientists cool the planet down enough to give polar bears ideal living conditions? It's the same argument.

      Some people say that we should shut down all the fossil fuel use in the world, just in case global warming is real. Surely they don't understand the massive human misery that would cause, or they wouldn't suggest it. And this is what the argument is really about. Should we all stop our high-energy lifestyles because it might be wrecking the planet.

      Is it wrecking the planet? No. The planet is in no danger, and will still be here for probably at least thousands of years. If the planet is not in danger of destruction, then is there any need to "save the planet"? No of course not. That is alarmist nonsense.

      In fact, the worst the IPCC says will happen is that the temperature will go up by 5 degrees in a century. Well big deal. The temperature goes up by more than that every day, and it's not the end of the world. This whole thing is probably just a stealth attempt to add new taxes to everything.

      Like that "green electricity" scam. I saw an advertisement saying that if everybody in the state switched to green electricity tomorrow, it would save x billion tons of greenhouse gases. Well no it wouldn't. It would lead to everybody paying higher electricity prices. But they wouldn't shut down all the coal power plants tomorrow, would they? No because they don't have replacement "green" power plants. So in fact, it's a scam. If they really cared, they could start building lots of "green" power plants. But they don't, they just set up a scam where you can pay more and "save the planet".

      Similarly, carbon emission caps and carbon trading. What is that really going to do? We can be sure it will increase prices of just about everything. In other words, stealth taxes. Will it "help the environment"? Probably not much. Many industries will receiv

    120. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a house in Blowing Rock, NC, up in the mountains. I can't even begin to describe how many acorns are scattered all over the place. They're everywhere. I can't even sweep them off my deck quickly enough.

    121. Re:Let me guess... by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      The planet isn't dying. Its just not going to be able to support as much life as our race will require. Plus, there's more proof pointing towards us having some impact on the environment than none at all. Whether we can stop global warming completely or if we can hold it off even for awhile is worth it. Feasibility studies for recolonizing other planets aren't even feasible right now. Because lets get realistic here, i think we have a greater chance at helping the environment than colonizing space.

      If we can't stop it, I highly doubt we'll have the required technology to colonize space before global warming starts becoming increasingly destructive to the point where it can't be ignored. So, I'd rather not have us not give up. You apparently just look at the problem, think its impossible and than try to solve a problem that we have even less experience in as a species. If you want to give up, fine. I don't think others think the same way.

    122. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You know how scientific theories are supposed to provide testable predictions so that you can determine if the theory is correct? What is this bad stuff that's going to happen thanks to global warming? Can we get a list of it and check and see if it happens?

      Prediction #1: Ice sheets in the antarctic and glaciers in Greenland will start melting.

      And, look, exactly that happened. Exactly on schedule. (In fact, at the highest end of the predicted rate.)

      Prediction #2: Sea level continue to rise (As they have for the past century), and the rate at which they rise will accelerate.

      Yup. (It's interesting to note this rise is almost entirely due to expansion of sea water as it got warmer, and the effects of melting glaciers have not shown up yet.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    123. Re:Let me guess... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      By the way, it's not the Gulf Stream â" that's the primarily wind-driven component of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. What you're referring to is the thermohaline component.

      Um, what? The thermohaline cycle is when the wind-driven surface currents, like the Gulf Stream, move water from the equator to the poles, during which it cools and sinks and heads back to start the cycle over.

      I did neglect to mention that stopping the Gulf Stream would also stop the cool water flowing back in the opposite direction, which could cause various Atlantic islands to get rather more tropical. But, regardless, saying the Gulf Stream would shut down is exactly correct.

      Although Europe would cool, it probably won't cool to lower than pre-industrial temperatures, because of the large amount of warming necessary to collapse the current in the first place. See Gregory et al.'s GRL paper from 2005 (section 4).

      'Europe', no. Northern Europe, yes. And anyone who says we need a 'large amount' of warming to collapse the current is just, essentially, guessing. We don't know how much it will take, and it's probably very dependent on Greenland glaciers, which are currently melting faster than expected.

      If Sweden is inhabitable without the current, so is northern Canada and Siberia. (They are at the same latitude, after all.) And I'm imagining New England with the climate of Spain. If you want to assert it won't happen until the earth heats up that much, well, that's kinda silly.

      I am unaware of any scientific support for the claim that an MOC collapse would turn every hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico into a Cat 5 storm headed for the midwest.

      Well, clearly all of them wouldn't be headed for the midwest. Some could hit Mexico, or Florida.

      But, yes, without the Gulf Stream clearing out the warm water, it would essentially keep building up in the Gulf of Mexico, and any hurricane that made it past Florida would get a giant energy boost. (In addition, Florida and Cuba would start getting some really horrible weather. Imagine Florida as India.)

      Of course, it's entirely possible that we'd end up with new ocean current flow and it would be fine, but I suspect that would take years to establish itself.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    124. Re:Let me guess... by instarx · · Score: 1

      Yep. Why worry? Melting ice sheets in the Arctic are a big deal for Polar Bears, but it doens't effect us humans so who cares. After all, the polar ice packs last for thousands of years.

      I'm not saying the lack of acorns is a result of global warming (in fact, no one said that in the article), but the so-called "expert" claiming it isn't caused by GW sinks to the typical level of spin and misdirection of these people. While decrying the jump in logic that MIGHT BE MADE that the lack of acorns is caused by global warming, he makes an equally unsupported jump in claiming that it isn't. This post is clearly the global-warming denying industry trying to get in front of this issue.

      Watch out people - this post is the typical of propaganda being promulagated by the highly paid cottage industry that supports big oil and big coal. Behold the anti global-warming industry trying to get in front of this issue. They are just more subtle about it than those who shout "Drill baby, drill".

    125. Re:Let me guess... by instarx · · Score: 1

      One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, ... his two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references

      Oh Wow! References! ...and fifty charts and graphs! Gosh, Plimer MUST be right, and there is no anthropogenic global warming!

      BALONEY! This is typical obsfucation and typical of the attempts of the politically-based anti-environmental lobby to give themselves gravitas. NO reputable scientist would try to base the validity of his postition on the number of charts he created nor on how many pages of references he cited. Also note that this was not a scientific paper, but a speech sponsored by a right-wing conservative magazine and given at a hired banquet hall (but having it at the "American Club" sure sounds impressive, yes?). This whole thing was a setup - expect to hear more from the right-wingers about this manufacturered "academic presentation".

    126. Re:Let me guess... by instarx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but if the content incorporates more than facts widely known to be previously proven, and clear and verifiable logic building on those, evaluating the content is very far from trivial. [emphasis mine]

      The politically-driven global warming "skeptics" rely on the difficulty of verifying their claims. I recently spent most of a day chasing down and reading original scientific papers that had been cited as references on a professional-looking anti-global warming site. Without exception the papers did not reach the anti-warming conclusions the site claimed they reached. In at least one instance the paper came to the exact opposite conclusion and stated it very plainly in its conclusions section. Yet it was still used as a reference against global warming.

      These charletans rely on people being unable or unwilling to go to the significant effort to check their sources. In this particular instance Plimer's "40 pages of references" and "more than 50 charts and graphs" is used to give his speech a gravitas it doesn't deserve. Quadrant Magazine is a right-wing conservative rag [see wiki] that vetts any pseudo-science articles it publishes through accepted conservative filters. The American Club of Sydney hires out its meeting halls to anyone. However, citing it as a venue implies support from the Club and sounds more impressive than if Plimer spoke at the local Grange Hall.

    127. Re:Let me guess... by instarx · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that there are only experts on one side of the argument. The global warming "debate" isn't honest experts shouting at each other - it is real experts being shouted at by PR propagandists who CALL themselves experts. Just look at all the so-called "Institutes" on the Web that look so professional and scientific when they claim to offer evidence that global warming is a myth. These are NOT scientific organizations - they are paid public relations firms posing as reputable independent research organizations. Don't be fooled - and they are very good at fooling people - it's what they do for a living.

      Their job is to create controversy where there is none. By creating pseudo-controversy and the appearance of scientific disagreement they delay legislation and influence public opinion to the benefit of their clients.

    128. Re:Let me guess... by sydneyfong · · Score: 1

      (Who modded you funny?)

      Well seriously, if the only options are going back to stone age and mass extinction, I'd choose not to think about it.

      And if the options are not that extreme, then I have no qualms trying to cut down on my impact on the environment. It's just that it's sometimes good to keep things in perspective and to use rational thought and argument. I mean, even if humanity is wiped out, so what? People die sooner or later, species go extinct sooner or later. I'm not going to go back to stone age (and probably die anyway because modern man is just not adapted to that life) just for some "forecast" of catastrophe.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
    129. Re:Let me guess... by instarx · · Score: 1

      Warming will cause an ice age. Because of "crucial heat exchanging currents." Got it.

      This was not very well said, but may be true. If we change the temperature balance of the planet too far in any direction we may get to a tipping point where change becomes unstoppable and unpredictable. The problem is that we have no idea where that tipping point may be.

    130. Re:Let me guess... by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Yes, we have lots of acorns - acorns are on a two-year cycle. It takes two years for an acorn to mature; so one year there are lots and the next year there are not very many. Our trees are not synchronized with each other, so we have pretty many acorns every year.

      The same seems to be true for plants which bear a lot of fruit. The theory being that because the plant uses so much energy in a good year, the next year is poor in comparison. Hey they deserve a rest after being so promiscuous they year before!
      Of course the weather has a huge affect on the productivity of fruit. Strong winds can blow blossom off the tree and frost kills them.
      However oaks are pretty hardy so I doubt the wind or frost is to blame. Neither would bees influence the number of acorns as oaks are wind pollinated. Therefore my best guess would be a natural cycle of the oak tree or disease. Bad weather would obviously make a difference but people would have noticed.

    131. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks for so eloquently proving my points. Specifically, these two:

      "It's so easy to label someone as a zealot. If somebody says, "Hey, your arguments are wrong for thus and such reason, and you shouldn't go around misleading people like that", just reply "Stop oppressing me you zealot!! You're trying to SILENCE THE DEBATE! Teach the controversy!!1!" Yet it contributes nothing to the actual debate. In fact, it shuts down debate by helping to polarize the issue."

      and

      "What they relish, however, is honest debate by an informed opponent. As opposed to 95% of the so-called "skeptics" out there -- like Plimer -- who do little but repeat long-discredited misleading or wrong arguments."

      Funny you should mention real debate over climate sensitivity. That too has been censored by the Cult of Climate Change.

      "Cult of Climate Change". Yeah, let's try to polarize things a little more.

      Monckton is in no way, shape, or form part of the real debate over climate sensitivity. The real debate exists in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and real skeptics like Lindzen, Spencer, Shaviv, etc. do get published in that literature. Hell, even Schwartz and Chylek got published, and any halfway decent peer review would have shown the glaring errors in those papers. (Both papers were published in a journal edited by Chylek, so I imagine the reviewers he picked were not particularly rigorous.) By contrast, Monckton doesn't do any scientific research and doesn't publish anything in scientific journals. Nor is he even a scientist, climatologist or otherwise.

      I'm a physicist. I followed the discussion of Monckton on the APS mailing list thread concerning the APS's energy efficiency report. The APS has every right to determine what gets published in their newsletters, and whether that reflects the considered opinion of their organization. The APS already has an official statement on climate change which has nothing to do with Monckton. The APS forums are not supposed to be the personal soapboxes of their respective editors. You'd see the same response from them if one of their editors decided to start publishing creationist literature or astrology. The APS can object to what a rogue editor is doing without being a "Cult".

      If Monckton has a real argument, he can submit it to peer review by climate scientists and get it published. Bypassing peer review and going straight to the media is, as I said earlier, the creationist strategy employed when you realize you don't have a real argument. Of course, as I said, when lousy work gets rejected, you can always cry censorship there too. It's easy! Doesn't matter if it's crap or not, if it gets rejected for publication by somebody then they're "censoring" you. Funny, my Great American Novel got "censored" by the evil publishing house cult.

      At the very minimum, American Physical Society newsletters are supposed to publish science editorials by physicists, or at least scientists. They could have invited a guest climate scientist who favors a low climate sensitivity value. But they didn't. They had no place inviting an opinion piece from a self-promoting journalist.

      All that being said, the APS didn't even censor Monckton. They let his article be published, with a disclaimer that it disagrees with their own position. And you STILL whine about "censorship" and "the Cult of Climate Change".

      As it is, they got exactly what they deserved for publishing it: a bunch of uneducated nonsense. It took me about 60 seconds flat to see how bad the "analysis" was. For example:

      Question the methodology of the one paper that ALL of the IPCC's global warming theory is based upon... and be shouted down.

      That's the very first error I noticed. Global warming theory is not based on one paper. The subfield of global warming theory which is climate sensitivity research isn't based on one paper either. I can think of at least a dozen published observational estima

    132. Re:Let me guess... by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Last spring was a big year for cicadas (sometimes called locusts); several of the multi-year cicada cycles lined up at once. Plus at least around here it had been several years of mild winters, meaning that more of the larval cicadas survived to maturity.

      It takes two years to produce an acorn, so the heavy cicada year last year explains low acorn production this year.

    133. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Um, what? The thermohaline cycle is when the wind-driven surface currents, like the Gulf Stream, move water from the equator to the poles, during which it cools and sinks and heads back to start the cycle over.

      The Gulf Stream is one of the wind-driven components of the meridional overturning circulation. The thermohaline circulation is the density-driven component. See here, here, here, and here.

      I did neglect to mention that stopping the Gulf Stream would also stop the cool water flowing back in the opposite direction, which could cause various Atlantic islands to get rather more tropical.

      The cold water is deep water. If islands get more tropical it's because less surface heat is being transported northward, not because less cold water is being transported southward.

      But, regardless, saying the Gulf Stream would shut down is exactly correct.

      It's exactly wrong, according to what oceanographers mean by the term "Gulf Stream".

      'Europe', no. Northern Europe, yes.

      As I said, see Gregory et al., which is one of the main model intercomparison studies. I quote: "Although THC weakening mitigates the CO2 warming in the Atlantic region (see also section 3), there is no cooling over any substantial region in any of the TRANSIENT experiments, because the CO2 effect is larger." When you see those scary temperature anomaly maps with huge cooling, what you're looking at is generally a freshwater hosing experiment which doesn't have CO2 forcing in it, just a freshwater response which is supposed to be analogous to the true warming-induced response.

      A northern European "ice age" is not really the main concern with an MOC slowdown/collapse. The main impact is probably shifts in regional precipitation patterns.

      And anyone who says we need a 'large amount' of warming to collapse the current is just, essentially, guessing.

      That may be a "guess", but it's an informed one, based on oceanographic modeling and paleoclimate evidence. As such, it's at least more credible than someone who says that we need little warming to collapse the current.

      We don't know how much it will take, and it's probably very dependent on Greenland glaciers, which are currently melting faster than expected.

      See Jungclaus et al., GRL (2006). They find that even in a high Greenland melt rate scenario, the MOC weakening in the 21st century (under a fairly high-forcing SRES A1B BAU scenario) increases from 30% to 42% by 2100. That's not insignificant, but it's not a collapse either, and they predict a recovery in the 22nd century.

      It's not the last word on the subject by any means, but most researchers in this field are converging on the opinion that it's hard to collapse the MOC in a modern interglacial period. If you've just come out of an interglacial and still have some of the bigger continental ice sheets lying around, that's different.

      If you want to assert it won't happen until the earth heats up that much, well, that's kinda silly.

      It's backed up by highly cited published research. It's kinda silly to ignore that research, unless you're aware of any new work which I'm not. If you are, what is the citation?

      But, yes, without the Gulf Stream clearing out the warm water, it would essentially keep building up in the Gulf of Mexico, and any hurricane that made it past Florida would get a giant energy boost.

      Likewise: what scientific papers back up your claim that every

    134. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 1

      It's Dansgaard-Oeschger and all we know about them is that we think they happened about 25 times during the last glacial period because of what we see in the Greenland ice cores. We do not, however, have any evidence that leads to more fresh water, or that more fresh water disrupts circulation (without any other factor disrupting the disruption,) or that the result will be any kind of a problem. You just made all that up, or are parroting someone else who just made it all up. Just because it sounds plausible to you doesn't make it true.

      Alas poor science, we hardly knew ye.

      --
      everything in moderation
    135. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      It's Dansgaard-Oeschger and all we know about them is that we think they happened about 25 times during the last glacial period because of what we see in the Greenland ice cores.

      We know a lot more about them than that.

      We do not, however, have any evidence that leads to more fresh water,

      DO events don't lead to more fresh water. They're caused by an influx of fresh water.

      or that more fresh water disrupts circulation

      A freshwater-disrupted circulation is what causes DO events in the first place. We have direct evidence of freshening in the North Atlantic at the same time as DO events, as well as other evidence such as drainage of glacial lakes such as Agassiz, and the isotopic record from sediment cores shows simultaneous changes in the ocean circulation.

      (without any other factor disrupting the disruption,)

      What the hell are you talking about?

      or that the result will be any kind of a problem.

      There is a literature on the negative impacts of MOC collapse too, which includes shifts in precipitation patterns, adaptation to rapid temperature change, impacts on fisheries, and so on.

      You just made all that up, or are parroting someone else who just made it all up.

      That's an amusing accusation coming from you, considering that everything you've posted here is profoundly ignorant.

      I've read a number of the main papers on the subject and have attended five or six talks specifically on MOC collapse given by researchers in the field. There's a nice bibliography in the IPCC report on this subject if you ever feel inclined to stop making a fool out of yourself.

    136. Re:Let me guess... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The planet is dying.
      All planets die.

      More proof? I think you mean evidence, and I disagree. (And no, there is no "scientific consensus".)

      I'm not giving up, I'm ignoring the political bullshit and the non-problem. I'm thinking long term in regards to colonizing other planets, but we have to start some time, so why not now?

    137. Re:Let me guess... by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      The cicadas this year ate the tender tips of a lot of oak trees - that is where the acorns form.

      This seems a bit odd to me. I'm not an entomologist but IIRC adult cicadas do not eat tips of trees. They don't eat at all in fact since they have no mandibles (part of the main reason I'm not afraid of handling them). The larval stage burrows into the ground feeds off of the roots and only emerges to molt. Maybe their growth in the tree bark merely damages the xylem and/or phloem and cuts off nutrients to the areas that would grow the acorns. Since we just had that huge influx of cicadas it would explain the severe lack of acorns this season.

    138. Re:Let me guess... by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      Let me get this straight. We can't change our climate. But we can change another planet's climate? Are you aware we haven't found a planet with a hospitable climate and terraforming is pretty much the only option? Which yes, a part of it is modifying the target planet's climate.

    139. Re:Let me guess... by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      You're right, the adults do not have mouth parts. The adult stage is however a very tiny portion of their life, composing around up to two weeks of their 1-17 year life cycle. They spend the majority of their life as a nymph, and the nymph does have mouth parts. When underground the nymph feeds on root juices; above ground they climb onto trees, and may require additional water content to swell enough to break out of their nymphal skin, thus prompting them to eat things high in water content such as tender tips from oak trees.

    140. Re:Let me guess... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      While instant connection is wrong, it is worth investigating the reasons.
      We already see bettles and fungis growing rapidly in many places becasue ti doesn't get cold enough.
      This could be the result of a fungus that is normally kept in check by the temperature.

      Just to be clear: I don't know if this is the reason for less acorns, only that there is enough evidences to form a hypotheses. From the article, it seems that this is not the case.

      ""There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature.""
      There is, it is seen an predicted and it best fits the data we see. If someone comes up with a credible different explanation it will be looked at, just like all the others have.

      Remember Global warming is in addition to normal climate swings, not the cause of normal climate swings.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    141. Re:Let me guess... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "...from a major media outlet, and very on point."

      "from a major media outlet" Define major? was it an editorial, or was it based on research?

      "...and very on point."
      That show that you have a confirmation bias.

      ""People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate,""

      Confident doesn't equal correct.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    142. Re:Let me guess... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The fact you can't do research properly, have no idea what the IPCC is, or how it is created, and can't clue in on the fact that it is a global report that is signed off by Countries doesn't mean there isn't global warming.

        If you have in clue about world affairs, the fact that China signed off on it speaks volumes in and of itself.

      Also, data from more then about 150 years ago s used as a template of what was 'normal' prior to the industrialization of the world.

      "! I've read nearly everything the IPCC has published, "
      I dn't see how that can be true when you don't understand that it leads to previous papers and research. It doesn't lead back to itself. If you see that, your methods are flawed. If you doubt that, then show some examples that can be verified by people who have actually read it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    143. Re:Let me guess... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Biodomes, dude.
      We don't need to terraform before we colonize, we can do it during.

      We can't save our planet. We could delay the inevitable, but our planet is doomed to die. Our solar system is doomed to die. Our galaxy is doomed to die. (The universe is probably doomed to die, too, sure.)

    144. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 1

      "What the hell I'm talking about" is that you're making unwarranted assumptions that X will lead to Y and you're excluding all possibility of other factors that may mitigate this assumed causal relationship. I understand this confuses and angers you, since if you're honest about it it prevents you from continuing to pretend you know (or even can know) exactly what will happen to climate in the future given a starting point and some number of the factors that may have an impact. The fact is neither you nor anyone else has any evidence other than conjecture to support your supposed chain of events yet you bandy it about as solid, irrefutable fact. That's not science.

      I guess while we're appealing to authority: I've read all of the major papers, attended dozens of talks (and even given a few,) and read everything in the IPCC report and its bibliography. The simple fact remains: none of it supports your claims. So unless you can cite page numbers (that actually support every link in your made up causal chain, not just ONE!) then you should sit down and learn some more before piping up. Fool.

      --
      everything in moderation
    145. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      "What the hell I'm talking about" is that you're making unwarranted assumptions that X will lead to Y and you're excluding all possibility of other factors that may mitigate this assumed causal relationship.

      "Freshwater forcing in the North Atlantic will lead to an MOC weakening" is both predicted by all oceanographic theory (from the simplest of box models to modern AOGCMs) and is supported by the climate record, including current observations of the MOC structure and past records of MOC collapses; the latter indicate both the freshwater source, the change in ocean circulation, and the temperature response.

      It's always possible that some different theory will be able to explain the same body of evidence, but so far none of them have. There are several different theories about the freshwater sources in past abrupt events, but they all involve changes in the MOC.

      I understand this confuses and angers you, since if you're honest about it it prevents you from continuing to pretend you know (or even can know) exactly what will happen to climate in the future given a starting point and some number of the factors that may have an impact.

      No one has ever claimed they will know "exactly what will happen". They can, however, make predictions based on theories which have been supported by evidence.

      The fact is neither you nor anyone else has any evidence other than conjecture to support your supposed chain of events

      I already described the kind of evidence which supports this chain of events, which you ignored. I even told you where to find a bibliography of the papers in which that chain of evidence is developed, which you also ignored.

      I guess while we're appealing to authority: I've read all of the major papers, attended dozens of talks (and even given a few,) and read everything in the IPCC report and its bibliography.

      The difference between you and me is that you're lying. Which doesn't really help your case.

      The simple fact remains: none of it supports your claims.

      Ooh, wow, you put it in bold. That's really convincing.

      The IPCC concludes otherwise, and cites supporting references. Try reading them.

      You can't even honestly assert that none of it supports my claims, because you've already admitted that you don't know the citations to the papers which develop this evidence. Nevertheless, not having read any of it, you assert the "simple fact" that this evidence doesn't support my claims. You know, that evidence that you haven't read.

      So unless you can cite page numbers

      I could go and dig up all the references and post them one by one, but I already told you where to find them. The IPCC report is pretty much nothing but lists of the main papers with references to them. They have several sections which discuss the MOC, paleoclimate evidence, and so on.

      (that actually support every link in your made up causal chain, not just ONE!) then you should sit down and learn some more before piping up. Fool.

      You're the one who's making a fool of yourself. In this whole thread you haven't made a single scientific argument. Every post consists of nothing but "I am ignorant of all the scientific work in this field and refuse read any of it anyway".

    146. Re:Let me guess... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me too!!! AOL roxorz1!!

      Oh, and...funnily enough I've found that climate change skepticism seems to be the prevalent sentiment here

      Although I tend to side with the thesis of anthropogenic climate change I agree that there are too many alarmists who will draw an instant connection between occurances such as this and "global warming".

      That said, I would have hoped that you could dig up some better references to support your post; Miranda Divine is an ignoarmus and Kieth Windshuttle has only slightly more credibility than David Irving.

      ...to what the majority of comments to this article will be related, given the delicious quotes like this in the article:'

      "I'm used to seeing so many acorns around and out in the field, it's something I just didn't believe. [...] But this is not just not a good year for oaks. It's a zero year. There's zero production. I've never seen anything like this before."

      [...]

      The absence of acorns could have something to do with the weather, Simmons thought. But he hoped it wasn't a climatic event. "Let's hope it's not something ghastly going on with the natural world."

      [...]

      "This is the first time I can remember in my lifetime not seeing any acorns drop in the fall and I'm 53. You have to wonder, is it global warming? Is it environmental? It makes you wonder what's going on."

      Of course, these will be ignored on page two of the story:

      Whatever the reason for no acorns, foresters and botanists are paying attention.

      But they say they're not worried yet. "What's there to worry about?" said Alan Whittemire, a botanist at the U.S. Arboretum. "If you're a squirrel, it's a big worry. But it's no problem for the oak tree. They live a long time. They'll produce acorns again when they're ready to."

      White oaks can live as long as 300 years. Faster-growing red oaks can reach 200. And it takes only one acorn to make a tree, he said, which in an urban area with little open space is often more than enough.

      "This is probably just a low year, a biological event, and it'll go away," Zimmer said. "But if this were to continue another two, three, four years, you might have to ask yourself what's going on, whether it is an indication of something bigger."

      I know it's not a popular sentiment here, but Beware the church of climate alarm [smh.com.au].

      [P]erhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.

      One of Australia's leading enviro-sceptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

      In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.

      "Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will.

      His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is

    147. Re:Let me guess... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Holy shit. Quadrant Magazine's own "about" page on themselves used to have:

      Its stance is often described as conservative, neo-conservative, or rightwing. In fact it is not necessarily any of these things, but maintains a sceptical approach to unthinking Leftism, or political correctness, and its "smelly little orthodoxies". (Retrieved on 15 June 2008, according to Wikipedia)

      Yeah, I'd say any left leaning publication selfdescribing as opposing the "smelly little orthodoxies" of the right would also well deserve the title rag.

      I mean seriously... smelly? What are they? SIX?
      Conservapedia has higher journalistic standards than that.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    148. Re:Let me guess... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      How do you expect him to believe you when you write smartsy-fartsy technobabble like 'thermohaline circulation', 'Dansgaard-Oescher events', and 'Europe'?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    149. Re:Let me guess... by MacDork · · Score: 1

      Monckton is in no way, shape, or form part of the real debate over climate sensitivity.

      He was invited to participate, and then they slapped a big red label on his submission saying his work was incorrect. Classic hit job.

      It would be a great exercise to give to students and have them see how many errors they can find.

      You mean the APS didn't back up their big red lettering with facts to dispute Monckton? How could that be? They dismissed his work without providing anything concrete that would cast doubt on its credibility? Noooo... really? That wouldn't be, like, the whole point I was making, now would it?

      You don't need silly facts to prove Monckton wrong, you're a believer. Reproduce experiments? Nah, we'll just give his paper to some acolytes... er, students, and see how much rhetoric we can produce.

      In short, you're a perfect example of what's wrong with the public debate.

      I'm sure you say that to all the people who disagree with you. Real science seeks answers. You aren't seeking anything. Your mind is already made up. You believe in global warming. For you, there's no need to question cult leader James Hansen's results.

    150. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      You're still proving my point for me. You engage in asinine polarizing comparisons to religion instead of arguing the science. Probably because that's all you've got.

      He was invited to participate, and then they slapped a big red label on his submission saying his work was incorrect.

      He was invited to participate by one of their newsletter editors. The APS itself has the full right to note that his submission, and that newsletter, does not agree with their stated views on the subject. They did note state his work was incorrect, merely that it disagrees with them and with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. Which is a completely factual statement.

      They dismissed his work without providing anything concrete that would cast doubt on its credibility?

      That's not the APS's place, which is yet another reason why the newsletter editor had no business publishing a faux "debate" in the first place. The proper venue is to submit it for peer review to a climate journal, where it can receive critique by someone who studies climate sensitivity for a living. Instead it was rubber-stamped for publication in a newsletter by a physicist. As I said, it's the usual creationist strategy.

      You don't need silly facts to prove Monckton wrong, you're a believer.

      I already listed a number of specific errors with Monckton's science, which you chose to ignore in favor of making false comparisons to religious cults. And then have the hypocrisy to claim that I ignore the science.

      Nah, we'll just give his paper to some acolytes... er, students, and see how much rhetoric we can produce.

      As I said, it would be a good exercise for students, since the errors are glaring enough that even they could find some of them.

      I'm sure you say that to all the people who disagree with you.

      No, just hypocritical ignoramuses like yourself who ignore the science in favor of polarizing rhetoric. You can see examples of me disagreeing with other people elsewhere in this thread who are civilly discussing the science.

      For you, there's no need to question cult leader James Hansen's results.

      Your hypocrisy continues. You're so emotionally invested in your position that you can't even discuss the science without using the word "cult".

      And who said I never question Hansen? Another example of you rushing to judgement based on your zealotry. As a matter of fact, I question his latest "Target CO2" paper, because its estimate of slow feedbacks don't take into account the difference in ice sheet sizes between glacial and interglacial periods.

      As for the article, neither NASA or Hansen "announced" that October was the warmest month on record. There were no announcements, papers, speeches, or press releases. Just the usual monthly data dump. As for the "hotspot" in the Arctic, that was from surface stations that hadn't reported in by the last data dump, and you can see it in the satellite record as well.

      Sadly for you, despite your skeptical masturbatory fantasies, global warming isn't going to turn out to be a data artifact. The surface stations, satellites, and shipborne surface measurements all agree that the globe is warming, as do the ship and float measurements of ocean heat uptake, and indirect proxies such as Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, species population shifts, and so on. Like I said in a previous message, this isn't where the real debate is about. It's mostly over the magnitude of climate sensitivity necessary to explain the observed warming.

      In short, your response has done nothing but reiterate what I already observed: Cry censorship when there's no censorship, whine about "cults" when scientific organizations have a legitimate right to determine what their organization publishes, conflate ignorant opinion pieces by unqualified authors with scientific research by skeptical scientists, and promote your general ignorance of what's actually going on in order to further polarize the debate.

    151. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 1

      all science is based on models and observations.

      So what happened to hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing hypothesis to empirical results? Just because that doesn't work with your "models" doesn't mean you can ignore it -- it's crucial to science. You are not talking science, you are talking consensus and FUD.

      --
      everything in moderation
    152. Re:Let me guess... by Demidog · · Score: 1

      So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products and not, say, the output of the sun?

      Yes, pretty much. Hardly anything is totally "irrefutable", but there is plenty of evidence which supports the link between warming and CO2, including the paleoclimate record, the observed timing, rate, and magnitude of the warming compared to the CO2 forcing (when other forcings are included too, of course), the stratospheric cooling fingerprint, the observed changes in the diurnal cycle, etc.

      Al Gore's cartoons notwithstanding, C02 levels follow warming trends rather than precede them. So any linkage cannot be attributed to cause.

      Furthermore, we have not seen any further warming since 2001. That's a 7 year pause in warming that cannot possibly be attributed to decreases in fossil fuel consumption.

      So, no there is nothing even close to irrefutable much less insinuating a human-caused warming trend.

      Personally, I find it absurd that anyone could put their faith in a global cooperative government solution to global warming. Governments are good for one thing - that is to break your leg, hand you a crutch and exclaim "See, if it weren't for us, you couldn't walk!"

      If man really is the cause of warming, it won't be the governments that reverse the trend.

    153. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      You sure know how to uncritically parrot things you read on skeptic web sites, don't you? You must be proud.

      Al Gore's cartoons notwithstanding, C02 levels follow warming trends rather than precede them.

      That's observed in the natural glacial-interglacial cycle, but not in other geological periods, such as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, Cenozoic cooling, etc.

      So any linkage cannot be attributed to cause.

      Your logic is broken. What happens in the glacial-interglacial cycle is that orbital variations trigger a temperature change, which produces a CO2 change, which in turn amplifies the original temperature change. The magnitude of the temperature change cannot be explained without appealing to the extra effect of CO2.

      And, remember, that the observed lag only occurs in the glacial-interglacial cycle, not everywhere in the geological record.

      Furthermore, we have not seen any further warming since 2001. That's a 7 year pause in warming that cannot possibly be attributed to decreases in fossil fuel consumption.

      There is rather large natural variability in the system, as is obvious if you look at the temperature record. A few years of noisy data don't prove or disprove anything about long term trends. The global warming trend is based on over a century of data. If that trend has changed, it will take several decades of data to determine that, not 7 years.

      So, no there is nothing even close to irrefutable much less insinuating a human-caused warming trend.

      Of course there is, you just choose to get your science from skeptics instead of from scientists.

      In the previous post I gave a rather long list of observational evidence in favor of human-caused warming. You chose to ignore all of it in favor of (1) remarking on the glacial temperature-CO2 lag which is irrelevant to the magnitude of the CO2 forcing and (2) claiming that 7 years of data overturns all the other evidence which you ignored. Good job there.

      Personally, I find it absurd that anyone could put their faith in a global cooperative government solution to global warming.

      If you favor the free market, you should favor methods which correct the market distortion that is the negative externality of CO2, such as a harmonized carbon tax. Read, for instances, Nordhaus's new book. Correcting market externalities is one of the legitimate uses of regulation.

    154. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      ... and he comes back with more retarded content-free remarks. But it's always amusing to watch non-scientists lecture me on what science is.

      So what happened to hypothesis, experimentation, and comparing hypothesis to empirical results?

      That's exactly what I'm talking about. Models are hypotheses, and all science, including climate science, is based on comparing models to observations.

      Now run along and come back when you have something useful to add to the discussion.

    155. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 1

      ...and there you again are failing to address my point. And assuming you know who it or isn't a scientist. Sorry to interrupt your religious service with logic and reason. I'll let you get back to praying to the gods of "anthropogenic climate change."

      --
      everything in moderation
    156. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      ...and there you again are failing to address my point.

      You didn't have a point. You merely stated that comparing models and observations is part of science, which was MY point.

      And assuming you know who it or isn't a scientist.

      Your profile says you're an EE. And certainly nothing you've ever said here has demonstrated any knowledge of science.

      Sorry to interrupt your religious service with logic and reason.

      Ah, the last refuge of the incompetent. Accuse your opponent of zealotry.

      Sorry, but the only logic and reason in this exchange is what I've posted. Your comments in this thread have been entirely free of actual scientific content, coupled with a persistent refusal to read anything scientific to which I've referred you. I predict your next response will be exactly the same. It would be kind of interesting to see just how many totally vacuous posts you're willing to make before you realize that your posts have zero information content.

    157. Re:Let me guess... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      So you have irrefutable evidence that global warming is due to fossil fuel combustion products

      Yes. It is trivial physics.

      Carbon dioxide (and other gasses) trap thermal radiation. No one disputes this trivial point of physics. Carbon dioxide and other gasses has already produced about 50 degrees of global warming.

      Yes, the size of underlying effect is already about 50 degrees. The normal pre-existing gasses in the atmosphere already trap thermal raditation and already warm the globe by about 50 degrees. Without the atmosphere and greenhouse gasses, the planet would be an iceball colder than the coldest ice age.

      Even the most radical global warming denialists do not dispute the fact that humans have increased CO2 (and other gasses) in the atmosphere. Humans have raised CO2 levels from about 280 ppm to over 380 ppm. This is not in dispute.

      CO2 and other gasses trap heat, and humans have increased the quantity of these heat trapping gasses. It is trivial physics - a blatantly obvious one - that increasing the quantity of trapping gasses will increase the heat trapping effect. The youngest school child knows that a thicker blanket will trap more heat and keep you warmer in bed.

      End of argument. The basic effect is is real and indisputable.

      The SIZE of the effect is a difficult complex and uncertain scientific matter. Predicting the FUTURE size and FUTURE consequences is a difficult complex and uncertain scientific matter. What we SHOULD DO or WILL DO about it is a difficult complex and uncertain POLITICAL matter.

      The idea that it is not a real physical effect, the idea that it is even uncertain, that is a public relations position, that is a media subject of argument, that is a political position, that is an ideological position, and it is simply factually wrong.

      and not, say, the output of the sun [freerepublic.com]?

      Any effect from the sun would be IN PARALLEL with the real indisputable physical fact that these will still trap heat, any effect from the sun would be IN PRALLEL with the fact that humans are increasing the levels of heat trapping gasses.

      The idea that this is an either-or situation is a fallacy.

      You, me, and Mr. Freeper walk into a room and see a man lying on the floor in a pool of blood.
      I say he's been shot and he's about to bleed to death if we don't do something to stop the bleeding.
      Mr. Freeper points to a broken window and says he does not believe the man was shot. Mr. Freeper says he believes the blood on the floor may have been caused by glass cuts.

      Guess what? There's an indisputable bullet hole in the man's chest. Yes, it is certainly possible that the man also has glass cuts. Yes, it is a potentially valid theory that the man is bleeding from glass cuts. However it is an obvious fallacy to suggest that pointing to broken glass somehow invalidates the idea that he is bleeding from a gunshot. If Mr. Freeper's idea is completely correct, all that means is that the man lying on the floor is bleeding from BOTH the gunshot AND bleeding from glass cuts. At most it means BOTH are true.

      Any possible issue with the sun, even if it is completely correct, is merely IN ADDITION to the indisputable physics that CO2 and other gasses do trap heat, and the indisputed fact that humans have increased the levels of these gasses, and the indisputable fact that this increases the warming effect.

      we shouldn't have irrational, knee-jerk reactions to the use of fossil fuels.

      I agree. However there is absolutely nothing irrational in the concern that CO2 does trap heat, and that we are dumping billions of tons into the atmosphere. Billions of tons of a gas is indeed a quantity of planetary scale. It has already increased atmospheric CO2 levels from 280 ppm to over 380 ppm.

      What we should do about that - that is a very difficult issue that needs to be considered carefully and rationally. However it is irrational and just plain false for anyone to deny the fundamental fact that human are emittin

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    158. Re:Let me guess... by randyest · · Score: 1

      One less than you.

      --
      everything in moderation
    159. Re:Let me guess... by MacDork · · Score: 1

      hypocritical ignoramuses like yourself Your hypocrisy You're so emotionally invested in your position your skeptical masturbatory fantasies your general ignorance

      Wow... truth hurts, huh?

      I already listed a number of specific errors with Monckton's science, which you chose to ignore in favor of making false comparisons to religious cults.

      I've learned over the years it is completely impossible to discuss science with the cult. It's like pointing out that virgin births and resurrection are highly improbably to someone who reads the Bible as literal truth.

      Take your very first point for instance: CO2 time lags. It's absolutely irrational to assume that increased concentrations of CO2 800 yrs after the fact are the cause of warming rather than a consequence of it.

      Furthermore, you engage in a classic logical fallacy: correlation equals causation. By taking a vanishingly small slice of Earth's geologic history, lining up CO2 and temp and then claiming that it is proof that CO2 invariably causes warming, the cult demonstrates it doesn't understand how real science works. The cult then proceeds to call a 100ppm rise to 370ppm a planetary emergency. You place all your faith in these cult leaders and their computer models, yet computer models are completely incapable of explaining an ice age with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 4000ppm. In fact, as Monckton pointed out, all you need to do is look a little further back into history and the correlation between CO2 and temperature falls apart completely.

      Probably because that's all you've got.

      Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than point out the flaws in your logic. As you've already demonstrated, you'll just fall back to your irrational religion and name calling, therefore doing so is quite pointless.

    160. Re:Let me guess... by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      There you go with your emotional problems again. I knew you couldn't make a single rational post about science without snide and unsupported references to zealotry.

      Take your very first point for instance: CO2 time lags. It's absolutely irrational to assume that increased concentrations of CO2 800 yrs after the fact are the cause of warming rather than a consequence of it.

      It's not "absolutely irrational", it's basic feedback physics. Feedbacks which were known to exist long before anyone ever actually measured the lag.

      Furthermore, you engage in a classic logical fallacy: correlation equals causation.

      Nope. I made no references to correlation at all. We have far more than correlational evidence between CO2 and temperature, we have basic physics which describes the quantitative effect of CO2 on temperature.

      By taking a vanishingly small slice of Earth's geologic history,

      I haven't taken a vanishingly small slice of Earth's history. You get substantially positive CO2 sensitivity estimates whether you look at the whole Phanerozoic, including the PETM, the Cenozoic, the Pleistocene glacial-interglacial cycles, the Holocene, or the modern instrumental record.

      lining up CO2 and temp and then claiming that it is proof that CO2 invariably causes warming,

      Once again, it's not correlation, it's physics.

      The cult then proceeds to call a 100ppm rise to 370ppm a planetary emergency.

      A 100 ppm rise is not a planetary emergency. The problem is the possible future 500-1000 ppm rise (or even greater, if we really extract and combust everything available).

      yet computer models are completely incapable of explaining an ice age with atmospheric CO2 in excess of 4000ppm.

      Actually there are a number of papers showing that they are capable of that. Google Scholar search for late Ordovician glaciation and CO2 ought to turn them up.

      In fact, as Monckton pointed out, all you need to do is look a little further back into history and the correlation between CO2 and temperature falls apart completely.

      That's because Monckton fails to grasp that CO2 isn't the only thing that affects temperature. Go to my very first post at the top of this thread and you'll find that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is more subtle than a correlation analysis implies. Anyone who claims that mere correlation either proves or disproves the link is wrong. You need to control for other aspects of the climate as well. Even modern climate models are not driven by CO2 only.

      Frankly, I have better things to do with my time than point out the flaws in your logic.

      I understand. It must be very frustrating for you to fail to do so time after time.

  2. In other news... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    ...Squirrels seen reading books on logistics.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      ...and Obama seen giving marching orders to kommunity organizers to parade rest. The elektion is over. Operation Minnie Mouse a resounding success. Plans to register Walt Disney as a Demokrat not necessary. Oh, wait. Different type of acorn...

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where pray did they get the books ????

  3. Anecdotal data point by Muad'Dave · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here in the Hanover county north of Richmond Va, we had an early and massive acorn crop. It would be interesting to correlate some weather phenomenon to acorns (long drought in late summer = early crop, very wet spring = huge crop, etc).

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Anecdotal data point by Double_Dark · · Score: 1

      Here in Milwaukee my oak had about 80 gallons of acorn remains that I picked up from my driveway and deck three years ago. Since then it hasn't dropped anything. I attributed it to the tree being pruned but, maybe not...

    2. Re:Anecdotal data point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? "There are at least 20 different species of oak trees in the region, and they produce acorns on different cycles: white oaks every year and red oaks every two years. Each tree, too, has its own two- to four-year cycle, producing many acorns one year and few in other years."

    3. Re:Anecdotal data point by jav1231 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is a lone observer in a single locale can muster up a climate scare like this and apparently get attention. Here in my area we too saw a large crop of at least the large variety of acorns. These are the kinds of things that we'll find Al Gore referencing if we're not careful.

    4. Re:Anecdotal data point by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here in my area we too saw a large crop of at least the large variety of acorns.

      And a lone observer like you can dismiss it with an anecdote. Which is why people have to compare notes across wide areas ... which is pretty much what they're doing, if you read the article.

      These are the kinds of things that we'll find Al Gore referencing if we're not careful.

      Oh look, I just fed a troll.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    5. Re:Anecdotal data point by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Oh look, I just fed a troll.

      Like rats, they can live on garbage. You have to be careful not to try to drop a banana peel in their path, because it only makes them stronger. And by stronger, I mean more stupid.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Anecdotal data point by human_geode · · Score: 1

      yet another big harvest of acorns here in Atlanta.

    7. Re:Anecdotal data point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in the Hanover county north of Richmond Va, we had an early and massive acorn crop. It would be interesting to correlate some weather phenomenon to acorns (long drought in late summer = early crop, very wet spring = huge crop, etc).

      I live in Tampa and we have plenty of acorns in my neighborhood. Not terribly worried about squirrels going extinct over one bad season. Hopefully our squirrels will migrate north.

    8. Re:Anecdotal data point by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      And a lone observer like you can dismiss it with an anecdote. Which is why people have to compare notes across wide areas ... which is pretty much what they're doing, if you read the article.

      No, that's not what "they" are doing. The person in the article is looking on the internet for OTHER anecdotes that agree with his, and shockingly enough, he found them. That is not research, nor data collection, nor "wisdom of the crowds."

      Babbling about a widespread acorn shortage based on individual posts on the internet is like assuming all women like golden showers because there are a whole lot of websites and BB posts that say so. So whip it out and try it with your SO and see what happens.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    9. Re:Anecdotal data point by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      A fair point (ignoring the poor tone of the last para), but the question "Am I the only one who..." generally precedes the question "What percentage of you find that...".

      I look forward to proper "data collection" following. The fact that it has not occurred yet doesn't mean that the whole thing should be dismissed out of hand.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    10. Re:Anecdotal data point by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I look forward to proper "data collection" following. The fact that it has not occurred yet doesn't mean that the whole thing should be dismissed out of hand.

      What thing? I'm just reading that some peoples' oak trees are producing less acorns than those people expected and that low acord production is routine. I think it should be dismissed out of hand. There's no evidence that there's anything to look into.

    11. Re:Anecdotal data point by StrawberryFrog · · Score: 1

      I think it should be dismissed out of hand. There's no evidence that there's anything to look into.

      I totally disagree. Even if it is a normal and regional fluctuation, this article raises the idea that fluctuations in acorn yield cpuld be normal, regional ... and not well studied or understood. Hundreds of plant biology grad students should be leaping at the chance to make a name for themselves by understanding what is a normal fluctuation and what drives it.

      That's part of what science is about - investigating anything that's not yet explained - not an ignorance-seeking "nothing to see here, move along" attitude.

      --

      My Karma: ran over your Dogma
      StrawberryFrog

    12. Re:Anecdotal data point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here in Westham, just West of Richmond Va, we had none. I mean nada. Previous year was a bumper crop. It's made keeping the lawn easier, but the bird feeder is busy - fight feather vs. fur.

    13. Re:Anecdotal data point by khallow · · Score: 1

      I totally disagree. Even if it is a normal and regional fluctuation, this article raises the idea that fluctuations in acorn yield cpuld be normal, regional ... and not well studied or understood. Hundreds of plant biology grad students should be leaping at the chance to make a name for themselves by understanding what is a normal fluctuation and what drives it.

      Ok, looking at the story again, I see that it is a regional fluctuation and not just a spurious anecdotal story. I also see that they have numerous factors that would explain a low acorn yield: 1) huge acorn yield the previous year, 2) recovering from drought, and 3) a lot of rain (around 10 inches) during the time of peak pollenization. I also see that there were numerous scientists quoted in the article with extensive knowledge. Maybe there is something worth studying here, but it doesn't justify the labor of hundreds of scientists especially when there are already people in the field.

    14. Re:Anecdotal data point by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Oh look, I just fed a troll.

      Consider it an act of compassion.
      They're probably going hungry from the acorn shortage.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  4. acorn years by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1
    there are good and bad acorn years. Depends on the weather when oaks are in flower (oaks are wind-pollinated). We had a really good acorn crop last year here("here" being Lancashire / England).

    And good riddance to the goddamn squirrwels.

    1. Re:acorn years by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking of squirrels, do the English hunt and eat squirrels? There is a tradition of doing just that at least in the southern US. I used to hunt squirrels every fall as a youngster. My grandmother would cook them for me. No time for it now 8-(.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    2. Re:acorn years by Fotherington · · Score: 0

      No. Though the headmaster at the school I went to was supposed to have kept an air-rifle in his study expressly for shooting the grey ones, it was always assumed that he threw any dead squirrels into the dustbin, that being what anyone would always do.

    3. Re:acorn years by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      I think that is a Southern (as in, Southern US) thing. I lived in NC for a couple of years, and was amazed that people did that. Here in western Canada, that is not done at all to my knowledge. I personally do hunt (for food) other animals, mostly big game like deer and elk. Due to my interaction with people in similar social circles, I think that I would be in a position to know about what other species are hunted as well (although that assumption may be incorrect).

      Cheers

    4. Re:acorn years by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Around here the largest commonly-hunted species (aside from white-tailed deer) are black bears. Here is a link to the hunting seasons in Virginia. As you can see, we've got seasons for nearly every critter, edible or not. Over in the fishing section, it reveals the Byzantine rules for frog-gigging, snagging, grabbing, snaring, and the use of a striking iron.

      I guess we Southerners are like the Tazmanian devil; we'll eat "Aardvarks, ants, bears, boars, cats, bats, dogs, hogs, elephants, antelopes, pheasants, ferrets, giraffes, gazelles, stoats, goats, shoats, ostriches... "

      The 'September Canada Goose' season used to be called the 'Resident Goose Season'. The joke was that you had to ask the goose if he's a resident before you harvest it.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    5. Re:acorn years by MightyDrunken · · Score: 1

      Speaking of squirrels, do the English hunt and eat squirrels?

      No, not in general. Though I'm sure a few farmers would. Otherwise the tradition of hunting is pretty rare in the UK.
      It's a highly populated island.
      Gun ownership is highly regulated.
      Killing cute animals like squirrels would be seen with distaste by the majority. Strangely people don't seem to mind the idea of eating game birds, pigeons and other birds.

    6. Re:acorn years by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I was going to say that the English tradition of bird hunting is well known. Although not England (but UK), Scotland is not what I'd call highly populated, at least north of Inverness. I saw some mighty wide-open spaces with lots of game when I was over there. Beautiful country, indeed.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  5. acorns going down hill for 2 years by dalewj · · Score: 2, Informative

    In Boston 2 years ago we were walkign on acorns, last year was a lower year, this year barely an acorn can be found. makes walking a bit safer :)

    1. Re:acorns going down hill for 2 years by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Same thing happens with hickory nuts.

      I can't believe how a little farmers' knowledge sends today's kids into desperate panic.

      These editors think they are smart because they can program, yet a little thing like this requires PhD climatology research to explain to them. (And some sort of political action no doubt.)

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    2. Re:acorns going down hill for 2 years by jcnnghm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having just walked across my patio barefoot yesterday, I can confirm that there are plenty of acorns in Maryland.

      --
      You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:acorns going down hill for 2 years by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      I have the back yard from Hell. Red and white oaks mean acorns, hickory trees mean hickory nuts, and holly trees mean prickly little leaves that fall all year. You can't walk around barefoot without taking damage.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:acorns going down hill for 2 years by quarterbuck · · Score: 1

      The worst amongst these cycles is Bamboo trees (plants ? Grass ?)
      They flower every 12 (or 8 or even 20 ) years or so. And when they flower they produce grains. These grains are eaten by rats and mice and this causes mice to breed rapidly. Then these rats go and eat all the rice from the rice paddies and causes starvation in large areas. This causes humans to start eating Bamboo grains repeating the cycle till rats die out. 50 years ago or so it would lead to starvation and human beings dieing in large parts of Asia out but it has'nt happened in the recent past since people started using pesticides. Here is an article from National Geographic about that.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    5. Re:acorns going down hill for 2 years by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1

      50 years ago or so it would lead to starvation and human beings dieing in large parts of Asia out but it has'nt happened in the recent past since people started using pesticides.

      Did you know that panda bears need access to two species of bamboo for exactly that reason? The cycle of one species alone would leave them starving otherwise.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
  6. Weird... by $1uck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember one year growing up the Oaks in my backyard didn't produce any acorns, instead they produced these strange green globes that were soft almost like a grape except more spherical and speckled. When I split one open there was something akin to what cotton wood trees put out or dandylions, a soft fluffy thing. I wonder if the Oaks have a secondary seed production mechanism? Is that what I saw? that was probably 20 years or more ago so the memory is a little hazy. I wonder if the oaks are producing those things? or nothing at all.

    1. Re:Weird... by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Those were probably marble galls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_marble_gall); I find them a lot, too. They are produced in addition to acorns, though.

    2. Re:Weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a biologist, but what you found sound like undried Oak Galls (aka Oak Apples) to me...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_marble_gall

    3. Re:Weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4. Re:Weird... by chri · · Score: 1

      I think what you saw are called galls. I saw this in the Attenborough documentary series "Life in the Undergrowth".

      --
      greetings earthlings
    5. Re:Weird... by Kamineko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Noo! Don't touch it!

      Touch Fuzzy, Get Dizzy! :(

    6. Re:Weird... by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      From the acorn wiki: "The larvae of some moths and weevils also live in young acorns, consuming the kernels as they develop."

      Perhaps your furry globes were the result?

    7. Re:Weird... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No. That was the begginning of pod ppl. Do not inhale one.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. The sky is falling! by PinkyDead · · Score: 4, Funny

    This really puts a causality twist on that old chestnut.

    --
    Genesis 1:32 And God typed :wq!
    1. Re:The sky is falling! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a chestnut? 31.

  8. Nothing new by paiute · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have noticed this cycle in the Boston area over the last 20 years. The squirrel population will follow the acorn yield. Some years there are very few squirrels about, and the chipmunk population seems to boom. Then the squirrels will have a great year and have too many little ones. Some of the babies will end up on the ground, pushed out by the others.

    Don't let your kids adopt them or talk you into taking them to a wildlife shelter. Believe me. All you have to do is put them back into a tree in a basket. The mommy squirrel will come find them and take them home by the scruff like a kitten.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Nothing new by LarrySDonald · · Score: 1

      Here in southern Kansas, I haven't exactly seen acorns (though it's not like I see many anyhow usually) but the past two years, this year in particular, we've been swimming in squirrels. There are three or four in my tiny back yard (like 1/6 of an acre) at any given time helping themselves to some pears (which is a-ok with me, I have to many damn pears anyhow any they don't bother anything) and driving around you're virtually guaranteed to see several live and roadkill squirrels around the place. Not sure how much it has to do with the acorn problems, but while they go through this boom/bust cycle all the time this is one of the biggest "boom" years I've seen.

    2. Re:Nothing new by colobo · · Score: 1

      um, or you can take the opportunity to teach your children that nature has a way of dealing with over-population and even though it seems sad, the best thing to do it to let the rodent die.

  9. Could be natural or something... by stokessd · · Score: 1

    These sort of things go in cycles. This year was insane for the maple tree seeds (whirlybirds), they were everywhere in the midwest and Pa. Much heavier crop than usual. I know, I had to clean my gutters.

    So if we had a heavy whirlybird crop, then we could just as easily have a light acorn crop that the squirrels gobbled up. Or it's aliens, one of the two...

    Sheldon

  10. Weighty by symes · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet they'll find a couple of really greedy overweight squirrels up in them woods.

  11. you can have mine... by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had what felt like a metric ton in my yard this year.

    All over my state we have the typical ton of acorns.. Some are freaking huge compared to previous years.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:you can have mine... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 1

      I live in the southeastern USA and have more oak trees in my yard than I would like. I hate them with a passion, but that's another story. I have not noticed any difference in the number of acorns in my yard over previous years and they seem to be the same size as normal. Maybe this botanist is just observing some sort of local phenomena.

    2. Re:you can have mine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tonne.

    3. Re:you can have mine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely. There's no shortage in Atlanta. By last count, eleventy-zillion acorns have lodged in my rain gutters already this year.

  12. Have the bees gone too? by keoghp · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hi

    What has your bee popluation been like this year?

    --
    For problems, seek only the simplest solution, complexity brings with it more problems.
    1. Re:Have the bees gone too? by Missing_dc · · Score: 0, Redundant

      RTFA, Oaks use wind pollination, not insects.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    2. Re:Have the bees gone too? by Plug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have a more open world view, moderators; the OP is referring to the arc linking all the episodes of series 4 of Doctor Who. It's the first thing I thought of when I read the post, and is also why the article is tagged 'badwolf' and 'starsgoingout'.

    3. Re:Have the bees gone too? by sraviik · · Score: 1

      you must be new here... he was making a reference to teh big scare about the bee population a year or two ago... but you wouldn't know that.

      --
      4c:61:7a:79
    4. Re:Have the bees gone too? by Missing_dc · · Score: 1

      you must be new here... he was making a reference to teh big scare about the bee population a year or two ago... but you wouldn't know that.

      Actually, I would know about that, being an avid maker of meade(that is honey wine to the uninformed), my hobby requires the efforts of bees.

      so kindly STFU

      BTW, the bee population issue is an ongoing concern to apiarists, not a thing that passed a few years ago.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
  13. Colony Collapse? by mkawick · · Score: 1

    Could it be related to the Colony Collapse Disorder of behives? It sounds far-fetched to me too, but it may be..

    1. Re:Colony Collapse? by Missing_dc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oaks have male and female plants that use airborn pollenation techniques, but they will self pollenate or clone themselves if needed. I would look at chemicals or precipitation before looking at bees.

      (for the Christers: perhaps God told the trees their children are no longer needed(/sarcasm))

      I have heard reports in the past of hungry packs of squirrels attacking and eating cats and small dogs. I wonder if those reports will increase this winter.

      --
      How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
    2. Re:Colony Collapse? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (for the Christers: perhaps God told the trees their children are no longer needed(/sarcasm))

      That was an entirely unnecessary comment that basically just shows off your bigotry.

      But I applaud your bravery as slaying strawmen.

  14. Acorn boom by ericferris · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For the record, there was an acorn boom a couple of years ago that was responsible for an increase of Lyme disease. Apparently, when you get more acorn, you get more ticks the next season.

    --
    Fantasy: http://ferrisfantasy.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Acorn boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The ticks that carry Lyme disease are carried by deer.

      2. Like squirrels, acorns are a primary food source for deer.

      3. More Food = More Deer = More Ticks.

    2. Re:Acorn boom by sireasoning · · Score: 1

      This is probably cause and affect. More acorns mean more deer grazing. More deer grazing mean more deer ticks left behind.

      --
      The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Albert Einstein
    3. Re:Acorn boom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you get more feed in one spot, you get more critters (especially deer) hanging around for longer periods of time, co-mingling and such. Typically, those solitary critters don't get as much chance to spread nasties among themselves.

  15. I blame the bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I blame the bees deserting earth like rats from a sinking ship.
    BEESSS!!

    1. Re:I blame the bees by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I blame the bees deserting earth like rats from a sinking ship. BEESSS!!

      So long and thanks for all the acorns?

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  16. Plenty of Acorns in Northern NJ by Crock23A · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every Autumn, my brothers and I get into a nice acorn fight at Grandma's house in North Jersey. There was no shortage of ammunition this year.

    1. Re:Plenty of Acorns in Northern NJ by spartacus_prime · · Score: 0

      Now I feel nostalgic for home. What part of North Jersey?

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    2. Re:Plenty of Acorns in Northern NJ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were plenty on the Jersey shore as well.

  17. Heh heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I see now that you have noticed the first signs of my little plot.

    You may notice in time that they will not be the last. /capeswirl

  18. The solution is obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Big Acorn needs a bailout.

    1. Re:The solution is obvious by MaggieL · · Score: 2, Funny

      They tried to put a lot of money for ACORN in the bailout, but the Republicans stopped them. Considering that a lot of the crap mortgages are ACORN's fault, it's only fair...

      --
      -=Maggie Leber=-
  19. One positive outcome - less Lyme by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

    I know this sounds bat-shit nuts, but there should be a significant drop in Lyme disease cases. It has to do with the life cycle of the tick and mouse populations- it sounds wierd as hell but it was backed up by field research. I think it was at the Institute for Ecosystem Studies- I just remember making fun of my mother walking around talking about acorn masts (the opposite of this year).

  20. Another anecdotal data point - Dallas Texas by portforward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Seems like there are plenty of acorns here.

    1. Re:Another anecdotal data point - Dallas Texas by honestmonkey · · Score: 1

      You beat me to it. I was going to say they could come to my house (near Dallas) and I'd be happy to give them all they want. We got layers going back years. Squirrels around here seem happy.

      --
      Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
    2. Re:Another anecdotal data point - Dallas Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The Dutch word for acorn is "eikel".
      "Eikel" also has another meaning, namely dickhead.

      So yes, I believe you :-)

    3. Re:Another anecdotal data point - Dallas Texas by goldberry · · Score: 1

      Plenty in North GA as well. The deer and squirrels are all fat and happy. The question is how many acorns will be around in the Spring before the plants begin to bloom. Wildlife depend on two waves of acorns to last them the Winter, though both waves drop at about the same time: acorns from the white oak group are eaten early in the Winter b/c they are tasty at that time of year, while red oak acorns are stored away for early Spring b/c the high levels of tannins make them unpalatable in the Fall and early Winter.

      --
      But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
  21. They can have all of ours down here in the South.. by Assmasher · · Score: 1

    Seems to be the same distribution as in years past in Georgia and South Carolina (visited in-laws in South Cack-o-lacky for the holidays...)

    --
    Loading...
  22. I know where they went.... by PontifexMaximus · · Score: 1

    They are all in the woods around UNC-Asheville and all over my back yard. No lack of Acorns here.

    Are you SURE you know what an acorn is?

    --
    Pax Vobiscum
  23. Near Dallas Texas... by azav · · Score: 1

    I have acorns. Actually, depending on the type of oak tree, there are certain years when the trees do not produce acorns as expected. If you have several species that are not producing all at once, then you have an acorn famine. If you have the same problem next year, then we've got a problem.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:Near Dallas Texas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North of Dallas I had scads of acorns on the post oak this year and they're still all over the yard.

      On a side note I got the eaves closed up so the squirrels aren't nesting in the attic now.

  24. I found them... by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
  25. hazelnuts in NW Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Similarly there were hardly any hazelnuts about this year in NW Europe (pity, as I'm rather fond of them)

  26. Credit Crunch by MosesJones · · Score: 1

    Remember all those adverts with an acorn that grows into an oak tree and some voice over about safe investments that flourish?

    Yes folks it turns out the banks really were just investing money in acorns and have now created an "acorn bubble" which has driven all of the squirrels into poverty.

    Simple explanation really.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Credit Crunch by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yes folks it turns out the banks really were just investing money in acorns and have now created an "acorn bubble" which has driven all of the squirrels into poverty.

      My understanding is that the squirrels are starving because we're making their primary food source (the acorns) into biofuel, which also accounts for the scarcity. Acorn-based ethanol, coming to a pump near you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  27. Ravaged Pumpkins by lseltzer · · Score: 1

    We had noticed that squirrels had eaten into almost every pumpkin put out on steps in my area and were stumped as to why we hadn't ever seen it before. This is an explanation.

  28. There were plenty in Maryland by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in central Maryland, right in the middle of where this story is complaining about. My oak trees all had plenty of acorns, just a bit early this year.

  29. Acorns? As in a nut, not a computer? by coofercat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Acorn is a long-forgotten, but actually tremendously influential company. Had Acorn not made the Acorn Electron, and subsequently the BBC Micro, I'm sure British IT would not be what it is today. Oh wait... this article is about a nut. Silly me, I thought I was on Slashdot.

    1. Re:Acorns? As in a nut, not a computer? by Ciarang · · Score: 2, Informative

      You've got your subsequently backwards. The BBC Micro came first - the Electron was a cut-down budget version.

  30. Nah, don't worry... by bhunachchicken · · Score: 5, Funny

    Panic when the dolphins decide its time to leave.

  31. At least 1 oak tree in GA producing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of acorns buried all over my back yard by a healthy looking squirrel population. If I'd of known they were going to be so valuable I'd of fought the lil bastards for them.

  32. Bumper crop in Southwest Michigan by wren337 · · Score: 1

    We had them ankle deep in our yard, our squirrels are fat lazy and happy.

  33. Must have skipped Indiana by bwohlgemuth · · Score: 1

    Tons of acorns in rural Indiana. Couldn't walk a step in the brush without crushing a few dozen.

    --
    Flamebait .sig for sale, low mileage, one owner only.
    Serious inquiries only.
  34. It's cyclical and difficult to predict by samwichse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There are really two groups of oaks: the red and the white oaks.

    The white oaks are generally preferred by most small animals (and deer!), as their acorns are lower in tannins and produced much more regularly (a good crop approximately every other year, and less difference between a good year and a bad year).

    Red oaks have a less palatable acorn and can go up to 7 years between heavy mast years (with up to a 135x difference between a bad and a good year).

    Oddly, with all the research done on the topic, there's little that can be done to predict a future crop, as cyclic production varies so widely and seems dependant on such a myriad of factors. In areas heavily dominated by oaks, we still even have to "wait and see" for a harvest... otherwise it's a game of roulette, and you might have such poor production you don't get a forest of oak back at all (but red maple is a whole other can of worms).

    Sam

  35. They're in my yard, dude, in Arlington County by yourpusher · · Score: 1

    Feel free to come pick them up (along with all the ()*#!@!@ squirrels).

  36. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  37. Those are an insect parisite by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

    Cut the very center open, and there is a fly inside. The fly forces the tree to grow the ball out of leaf material.

  38. sketchy incomplete anecdotal observations by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    leading to completely spurious hypotheses

    let me throw my hat in the ring with an equally valid conclusion by saying COULD IT BE BATMAN?!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  39. I know... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    I'd blame Secret Squirrel

  40. need some? by usacoder · · Score: 1

    ya want acorns. come down to raleigh, i raked 4 trash cans worth from just 3 trees.

  41. No shortage in DC by john82 · · Score: 1

    Complete BS. I live in the DC area too. Front of my yard was covered in acorns from just one 30' tree. The squirrels were having a field day. So were the deer.

    1. Re:No shortage in DC by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Well on Long Island the squirrels are eating our pumpkins. I saw several pumpkins with large bite holes in them and two squirrels eating one.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  42. Give them a few days by will_die · · Score: 1

    They are probably off celibrating the voting win. Give them a few days and things will be back to normal.

  43. Same in Eagan, MN by Icculus · · Score: 1
    No acorns here in the Twin Cities area either. I attributed it to stress induced by a leaf-stripping hail storm that rolled through toward the end of May, but apparently it's not just my yard.

    I have three of them hanging over my roof so it was kinda nice not to have the 2 weeks of acorn mortar shelling we usually get every summer. I'll start worrying if the same thing happens next year...

  44. Wha? by PhoenixFlare · · Score: 1

    I live in the Fairfax area of NoVA, and while I haven't seen the massive piles of acorns like last year, there's no shortage of squirrels running around....And they all look large, bushy-tailed, and energetic.

  45. Haven't seen them in a few years by erikdalen · · Score: 2, Funny

    I haven't seen them in a while either. But my first thought was these:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers

    --
    Erik Dalén
    1. Re:Haven't seen them in a few years by fuckinshitmotherfuck · · Score: 1

      Funny, I read the caption and immediatley got my hopes up that someone shut down the left wing machine called acorn! http://www.acorn.org/

  46. Pay attention, Hollywood by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 3, Funny

    This sounds like the beginning of an M. Night Shyamalan movie.

    --
    Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    1. Re:Pay attention, Hollywood by Celsius10 · · Score: 1

      Hey Oak tree say hi to ya mutha for me.

      --
      "Little things hitting each other. THAT'S WHAT I LIKE!" - Time Bandits
  47. Its all with the Bees by Shivinski · · Score: 0

    Find where the bees have gone, and you'll know where the acorns are

  48. there's something alarmist by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    About your apparent need to deny, out of hand, even a remote possibility that this or any other event is linked to anthropogenic climate change.

    You appear to have decided a priori how things are, and seem to go into an intellectual panic when something comes up that challenges you understanding of thing. You're just as bad as you claim the global warming "alarmists" to be, worse perhaps. You're willing to cling to what a tiny fraction of people have to say about the topic because it suits what you want to hear.

    1. Re:there's something alarmist by saider · · Score: 1

      Applying undue weight to an idea without proof can be just as bad as ignoring it. Keep in mind that when you use the words "remote possibility", you are going to need more than simple conjecture to back up your claim if you want people to accept it.

      Right now all we have is an observation. It will take many years of research to establish the strength of the link to anthropogenic climate change. It may be a direct effect, or it may have nothing to do with it.

      I do know that my mango tree goes through similar cycles. One year we'll have mangos, and the next year, nobody has any mangos. Life does not always run on schedule like the trains in Germany.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    2. Re:there's something alarmist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's VERY difficult to get worked up over global warming because its own proponents are liars and cheaters pushing their own agenda. I'm willing to believe what I see with my own eyes, and what I see is that global warming is bullshit. I see the alarmists twisting manbearpig to suit their needs. Hot day? Global warming! Cold day? Global warming! OH NOES GLOBAL WARMING MAKES IT COLD, TOO???

      Growing up in the 70s, when there was a cooling trend I heard the endless alarmist prattle about global cooling, and an impending ice age which would wipe us out. Then in the 80s (hello, Reagan!) it became global warming and a new era of such intolerably high temps that...um...we'd have to wear t-shirts. And the oceans were supposed to have risen by now, too.

      In fact, if the polar ice caps are melting as quickly as they're alleged to be doing, why isn't LA underwater by now?

      And if it's getting hotter, why was this summer the mildest, most pleasant I've experienced since the 70s? Oh, right. Global warming makes nice weather, too. Silly me.

    3. Re:there's something alarmist by E++99 · · Score: 1

      You seem to imply that if a only a tiny fraction of people believe something, then that thing is likely to be false. History doesn't bear this out.

    4. Re:there's something alarmist by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      And the oceans were supposed to have risen by now, too.

                        They have, look into vanuatu, tuvalu and so on.

      In fact, if the polar ice caps are melting as quickly as they're alleged to be doing, why isn't LA underwater by now?

                        The bulk of the rise is from an increase in volume from thermal expansion. I can't speak for LA, but I suspect that it's more than a metre above 1980s sea levels.

      And if it's getting hotter, why was this summer the mildest, most pleasant I've experienced since the 70s?

                        Because of personal subjective perceptions (have you any AC?) and because of El Nina this year.

      Oh, right. Global warming makes nice weather, too.

                          Global warming affects climate, not weather.

      Silly me.

                          Indeed.

  49. No acorns near Minneapolis by Phishcast · · Score: 1
    I'm in an inner ring suburb of Minneapolis, and I have 4 white oaks in my yard. A couple of these hang over my story and a half home, and every fall my wife and I are used to hearing them drop on our roof at night, tumble down the slope and then *tink* hit the gutter. It keeps you up some nights. Ever since we bought the house 5 years ago I've had to collect all these off the patio and out of the gutters.

    This year -- Zero. Not a one.

  50. Plenty of Acorns in North Central Mass. by bruceg · · Score: 1

    I have plenty of acorns in my yard, and if someone really wants them, they can come and rake them up for free. :-)

  51. Plenty of acorns in SW Connecticut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had to sweep the damn things out my driveway every few days before the leaves started falling.

  52. die squirrels die! by h4x354x0r · · Score: 0

    I've killed several that have gotten into my attic. Pests.

    --
    They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
  53. more than enough by dlavie · · Score: 1

    I have more of my fill from 1 oak tree in central VT. It wasn't safe to go on the deck when they were falling. Deer also eat acorns. If my tree is any indication the acorn harvest is cyclical.

  54. Actually its a normal occurence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every so many years the Oak Trees cut off production of acorns. It has been documented and studied somewhat. I remember reading a scientific article about it in my bio class. The thinking is that there is a codependent relationship between Oak trees and squirrels. The oak trees depend on squirrels for new oak trees (squirrels disperse and plant seeds and forget where some of them are) and the squirrels depend largely on the acorns for food. the Acorn production increases year to year, creating a population increase for the squirrels. (stable food = more babies, more babies that survive) This goes on until there is a population boom of squirrels. At about this time the oak trees halt acorn production, producing a mass die off of squirrels. From the human point of view this seems highly ungrateful of the oak tree. After all the squirrels are busy helping the trees reproduce and now the trees repay the squirrels by making them starve. But the thinking is that if the oak trees didn't do this the squirrel population would reach an equilibrium with the oak tree population's acorn production. Each and every (or nearly every) acorn would get eaten, and next to none of the acorns would result in new oak trees. This local population of oak trees would die out. So it is only the oak trees that are "underhanded" that survive and make new trees. It shouldn't be hard to find more information on this; probably under ecology literature.

    1. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by tbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The AC is right. In grad school, my wife studied population genetics of coast live oak (quercus agrifolia), and she saw the same boom-and-bust cycles of acorn production. The boom years are known as "mast" years--not sure what the bust years are called.

      This is just a normal cycle, and, as usual, the media's reporting of science is atrocious.

    2. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad has a degree in forest management. We actually spoke about this in the last month or two, and he basically said, yup, every once in a while, the oak trees don't make acorns.

      So, as can be seen on /. quite often,

      Move along, nothing to see here....

    3. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by amam12 · · Score: 1

      I've noticed not seeing any acorns in our yard this year, but this explanation seems to make sense. I do recall hearing something like this in biology as well.

    4. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by notmyusualnickname · · Score: 1

      IIRC it's once every seven years.

    5. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      This is a reasonable explanation, except...how do the oak trees monitor the squirrel population?

    6. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by Emperor+Zombie · · Score: 1

      Squirrel Census

      --
      I'm so excited I just made water in my pantaloons!
    7. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by tmosley · · Score: 1

      That's pretty interesting, but I would think that that would create a strong evolutionary pressure on the squirrels to get smarter and remember where ALL of their acorns are. The ones who remembered would have an advantage during the sparse times.

    8. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by rve · · Score: 4, Informative

      So I'm not the only geek in the world who takes an interest in trees after all?

      I knew about mast years, and the following meagre years. This is a common adaptation to predation pressure or parasites. An extreme example of this are cicadas; predators don't live long enough for their population cycle to become synchronized with that of the cicada.

      I'm curious what the synchronization mechanism could be. In my area (north western Europe), last year was a mast year ... for beeches, chestnuts and all four species of oak growing in my area. This fall I found only a handfull of chestnuts, no beech nuts and hardly any acorns.

      While hiking in North Carolina this fall, I didn't see a lot of acorn remains either, but I attributed that to having been a bit late in the season.

      I'm surprised and intrigued that the phenomenon appears coincided on both sides of the Atlantic this year. Are the cycles synchronized via some global (solar?) external trigger, or is this just coincidence? I always assumed it must be the weather, but that isn't even remotely similar on both sides of the Atlantic.

    9. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by rve · · Score: 1

      So it is only the oak trees that are "underhanded" that survive and make new trees.

      This sounds plausible, but it only works when different species of oaks and beeches in an area synchronize their cycle, which would require some external trigger.

      It shouldn't be hard to find more information on this; probably under ecology literature.

      Do you have any pointers?

    10. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      The boom years are known as "mast" years--not sure what the bust years are called.

      "Half-mast" years?

    11. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking the theory in the link is right. Our pecan trees had a bumper crop last year. And, perhaps not coincidentally, we also had a drought. This year, the drought is over, but the trees didn't make many nuts. I assume that at least part of this is because the trees expended quite a bit of energy and nutrients the prior year, and so are not able to produce well this year. Also, pecans are a type of hickory, another nut mentioned in the article.

      So... what was the acorn crop like last year? Was it huge? It would be interesting to see if the acorn pattern is following drought patterns. Not all areas suffered the same. I seriously doubt the trees have evolved some sort of rodenticide programming. There are plenty of other factors governing squirrel populations, such as predation.

    12. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you dont know about one of the strangest things in nature : wherever they are located in the world, all bamboos trees flower at the same time ... yet no one can explain it ... linked with solar magnetic cycles ?

    13. Re:Actually its a normal occurence by smithmc · · Score: 1

      Every so many years the Oak Trees cut off production of acorns. It has been documented and studied somewhat.

      It happens whenever the Oaks go to war against the Maples to protect their sunlight monopoly. Or, at least it did, until the Maples formed that pesky union and demanded equal rights...

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  55. OK, natural science geek here by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I chose trees as my area of natural science geekdom, because I couldn't stand those snotty birders who take a glance at a streak through the trees that an ordinary mortal couldn't narrow down to "bird" then say something like, "Ah, a Stimpson's downy breasted tit." Trees stand still long enough to put an identification to an objective test.

    Oak species often display yearly variations in acorn production. This may be helpful in that you want surplus acorns from the point of view of squirrels; producing lots of acorns every year means you get lots of squirrels. Producing a bumper crop every three or four years and a small crop otherwise maximizes the number of surplus acorns you make.

    I've heard some say that White Oaks (with smoothly rounded leaf lobes) have three to four year cycles and Red Oaks (with pointy veins that stick out past the end of the leaf lobes) are acyclic. I've also heard the opposite, that White Oaks produce acorns every year and Red Oaks have longer cycles of five or even six years. My own experience is that the White Oaks I know produce bumper crops ever several years, and the Red Oaks seem to produce reliably every year. However, individual trees often vary considerably from the normal habit of their species. In my experience the yearly variations in the Red Oaks I know are small, and the acorns produced are always extremely bitter, however some Red Oaks seem to produce acorns like White Oaks: sweet, and in bumper crops.

    That said, the Red Oaks in my yard have for the last fourteen years produced healthy crops of extremely bitter acorns every year. I've lived in this house fifteen years and every year, like clockwork, there has been a night in early November where I've woken up to a continual refrain of "pok-pok-pok-tumble", as the oaks shed the bulk of their acorns in one day.

    It didn't happen this year. This article made me go out an look, and the tree is completely bare and there is very little acorn debris around the tree or the gutters.

    Weird.

    Still, the Northern Red Oak species is reported by some as having long annual crop cycles, and nobody really knows what might trigger a good or bad year. It stands to reason that trees in an area ought to have some kind of climatic trigger for coordinating their production variations. Otherwise, the winner would be a tree that produces lots of acorns every year.

    This could be a situation where a meme gains steam because somebody reports a mysterious lack of acorns, and then others (like me) run out and look at their tree and say, "good lord, there aren't any acorns." Chance are if we'd been paying attention, we'd have noticed that there is occasionally a year in which the trees don't produce many acorns.

    It's still a weird feeling, though, to read this story and realize that my trees produced hardly any acorns this year.

    If this is real, it may be trees responding to a common climatic cue, a cue which is not necessarily a sign of a widespread disaster (unless you are a squirrel). I'd hypothesize that they ought to have some kind of cue that helps keep the squirrel population in check.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:OK, natural science geek here by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Awesome. Only on slashdot can you find treegeeks discussing the production habits of white vs red oaks. Thanks for the insight.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:OK, natural science geek here by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      The oak populations could also synchronize their multi-year cycles through chemical means, something that's airborne or maybe a marker on pollen. Just a thought.

  56. it was me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i ate them all. sorry.

  57. Squirrels with PICs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Right up the road from this story...as it says, no acorns this year from any of our large oaks. Last year we had so many that we had to use a snow shovel to remove them. I always assumed that fluctuation between years was simply the oaks' method of overwhelming the squirrels and such...produce many, many acorns some years, so the squirrels can't keep up and more survive, and not so much other years to keep the squirrel population down in preparation of the "boom" years.

    In any case, all I know is that the squirrels around here (Silver Spring, MD) are so hungry that a) >noclean yogurt containers and such are being eating out of the recycling bins, and they are now eating the Rubbermaid trash cans...not the trash...the cans.

  58. There Are Plenty Here In McLean, VA by bc90021 · · Score: 1

    Since Arlington is only 15 minutes from here, I have to wonder what they're doing down there... there are plenty of acorns here in McLean, VA. For that matter, the squirrels have been highly active in this area, and I see them burying acorns all the time. Maybe they've stolen them all from Arlington?

    1. Re:There Are Plenty Here In McLean, VA by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

      I read somehwere that squirrels only find about 25% of the acorns they hide ...

      --
      Go go Gadget Nailgun!
  59. Coming out of an ice age by Vamman · · Score: 1, Informative

    Most people don't realize this but we are actually still in an ice age. The planet goes through natural cycles of cold and hot. Our cold climate is warming, perhaps from anthropogenic disturbances but also perhaps from natural climate change. Sure the globe might be warming faster from CO2 but it will warm regardless we just might have accelerated things a bit. In terms of the grand scheme this was going to happen. The Devonian era or the era of 'man' has seen at least 80 known ice ages according to our fossil record. We've spent alot of time freezing our asses off but we've also spent alot of time baking them in the heat. When all of the ice is "gone" the planet will effectively reboot and start the process all over again. Once the oceans warm up to the point condensation will kick in, extreme storms, and then a massive cooling period. Dino's seen an asteroid kick start the global cooling process during the Triassic period (correct me if I'm wrong on that) and man likely will see global warming accelerate this process unless some other event totally blocks out the sun in the intern such as an asteroid, even a nuclear war, or a major tectonic occurrence could force the cooling period. The 'naturalists' will be stuck inside their box right up until their extinction occurs.

    1. Re:Coming out of an ice age by Ambitwistor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most people don't realize this but we are actually still in an ice age. The planet goes through natural cycles of cold and hot. Our cold climate is warming, perhaps from anthropogenic disturbances but also perhaps from natural climate change.

      Before industrial fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the Holocene has been in a very stable period, neither warming nor cooling, which is actually kind of unusual. Normally it would have been cooled slightly by now.

      Sure the globe might be warming faster from CO2 but it will warm regardless we just might have accelerated things a bit.

      Why should it warm regardless? As I said, if you go by past interglacials it should probably be cooling. If you go by this interglacial's earlier history, it shouldn't be warming or cooling much. Unless you're proposing that the whole ice age cycle was due to end this time around anyway. What evidence do you have for that? I've never seen that in any of the geological literature.

      When all of the ice is "gone" the planet will effectively reboot and start the process all over again. Once the oceans warm up to the point condensation will kick in, extreme storms, and then a massive cooling period.

      Again, what is the basis for that? The last time we left an extended greenhouse for an extended ice age (~50 million years ago?), it wasn't because the oceans were too warm or all the ice was gone. (It had been warm with no ice for millions of years before that.) It was more likely due to weathering from the Himalayas drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere when the Indian subcontinent collided with Asia.

      The 'naturalists' will be stuck inside their box right up until their extinction occurs.

      If you're really so worried about future global cooling, you should be arguing for us to save our greenhouse gases for later when we need them, rather than use them all up now when we don't.

    2. Re:Coming out of an ice age by Vamman · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about future global temperatures. If they don't change due to anthropogenic stress they will change naturally and thats all there is to it. I'm more worried about things like drinking water and acceptable aquatic habitats not inhabitable by most species on this planet except for northern marine and terrestrial mammals as well as marine fish which are quite likely to adopt and move southward when the ice is "all gone". Issues that are real and facing today's ecosystem rather than talking about something that might impact the ecosystem drastically in a few 100-1000s of years. I'm sure there will be a major catastrophic event such as an asteroid before then.

      Terrestrial animals including humans need to be prepared for shortening of coastlines during this period and more people surviving on coastal maritime islands rather than at the equator (too hot). There will be mass extinction rates but not due this process but due to a cooling process which will soon happen.

      Ice acts a deflector deflecting the sun's rays back into space. When this massive deflector is gone we will see oceans absorbing these rays and warming exponentially. Aquatic species will start to perish which are unable to adopt to these warming temperatures. What then happens when water warms? It evaporates. Condensation builds up. Then we see storms, massive storms. I don't believe the most "recent" period will demonstrate what I said previously but rather look back to pre-historic vertebrates that survived these periods and look at their fossil records. The sheer amount of condensation will block the sun.

      During the Pleistocene period we have seen a relative period of stability but I disagree with your suggestion that we should try to conserve CO2 for when we really need it. I do agree we should be looking at alternatives to CO2 to stop putting carbon and other nurtrients into the environment that are unnecessary. But, these non-renewable resources will soon be gone and we will still be here (what is the next hot topic then?).

      Himalayas likely contributed to the cooling but what about volcanic ash blocking the sun? Would a continental collision not suggest a very active volcanic periods as well?

    3. Re:Coming out of an ice age by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      I'm not worried about future global temperatures. If they don't change due to anthropogenic stress they will change naturally and thats all there is to it.

      No, that's not all there is to it. The rate, magnitude, and sign of anthropogenic climate change is likely very different than natural change. The amount of anthropogenic change likely over the next few centuries is almost certainly much greater and faster than the likely natural change over a similar period.

      I'm more worried about things like drinking water and acceptable aquatic habitats not inhabitable by most species on this planet except for northern marine and terrestrial mammals as well as marine fish which are quite likely to adopt and move southward when the ice is "all gone". Issues that are real and facing today's ecosystem rather than talking about something that might impact the ecosystem drastically in a few 100-1000s of years.

      It's not an either/or issue. Climate change and ecosystem stress are problems, and the former exacerbates the latter.

      I'm sure there will be a major catastrophic event such as an asteroid before then.

      What major catastrophic event happened in the last 1000 years? It may happen, but we can't count on it, and even if we can, why add to it?

      Ice acts a deflector deflecting the sun's rays back into space. When this massive deflector is gone we will see oceans absorbing these rays and warming exponentially.

      Ice albedo feedback is real, although the process is not exponential.

      Condensation builds up. Then we see storms, massive storms. I don't believe the most "recent" period will demonstrate what I said previously but rather look back to pre-historic vertebrates that survived these periods and look at their fossil records. The sheer amount of condensation will block the sun.

      Not according to any climate models of the relationship between temperature and evaporation-precipitation and cloud cover. Nor according to any geological evidence I'm aware of. I think we will see more storms, but I don't think there is any theoretical or experimental evidence that this actually leads to large cloud-induced cooling.

      During the Pleistocene period we have seen a relative period of stability but I disagree with your suggestion that we should try to conserve CO2 for when we really need it.

      Why?

      Himalayas likely contributed to the cooling but what about volcanic ash blocking the sun? Would a continental collision not suggest a very active volcanic periods as well?

      It's possible, but from my recollection of the Cenozoic cooling literature, there isn't enough volcanic ash in the geologic record to create that much cooling. Volcanoes are one of the standard cooling hypotheses in paleoclimate, and if the mainstream hypothesis is not volcanoes (which it isn't), there must be some evidence against them or at least lacking.

  60. It's a plot by confused+one · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's part of a plot developed by the squirrels. They want us to feel sorry for them, feed them, and invite them into our homes. They've become jealous of what the dogs and cats have, and they want in...

    1. Re:It's a plot by value_added · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Most squirrels you see are really rats dressed up in squirrel costumes.

  61. Damn... by GoChickenFat · · Score: 1

    I thought this article would be in reference to the voting fraud outfit - ACORN.

  62. No Acorns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you think Obama got elected?

  63. Most oaks reproduce biennially. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps these folks never noticed that most oaks set seeds only every other year.

    1. Re:Most oaks reproduce biennially. by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      Red Oaks every two years.
      White Oaks every years.

      Red Oaks are not most oaks.

  64. They all came here by alta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about where you guys are at, but we are having exactly the opposite problem. I'm in Mobile, Alabama, and I have heard MANY people comment on the HUGE amount of acorns we are getting this year. My wife and I tried to sit on the deck yesterday and watch the kids play, but every time a kid came buy we would get pelted. I raked the yard and after I was done, I had about 30lbs of acorns I had to get up with a shovel. I have noticed fewer squirrels around though.

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    1. Re:They all came here by junkwerks · · Score: 0

      Ditto in Tuscaloosa. You can bust your ass slipping on them in the grass, like ball bearings on a concrete floor.

    2. Re:They all came here by Dimitrii · · Score: 1

      I am in Mobile as well. Our driveway is nearly solid orange due to crushed acorns. My parents in Montgomery have the same problem. So it is definitely a regional phenomenon.

    3. Re:They all came here by pwizard2 · · Score: 1

      I live further up in Birmingham, and I have lots of partial acorns (only the caps, for some reason) in my backyard, and there are little oak trees sprouting all over the place.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    4. Re:They all came here by steelfood · · Score: 1

      My wife and I tried to sit on the deck yesterday and watch the kids play, but every time a kid came buy we would get pelted.

      Those were the kids at play.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    5. Re:They all came here by sn0wcrash · · Score: 1

      Next year I would try reducing the squirrel based protien in your diet. You should see a marked reduction in the growth of new oak trees in your surrounding area.

    6. Re:They all came here by alta · · Score: 1

      My wife works at a pharmacy, lots of old people telling stories. Not a chain, but the pharmacist IS the owner... Anyway, apparently they get a lot of stories from old ladies about eating rabbits and squirrels. Apparently they are so lean that a diet of them causes protein poisining. They say to live off of them you HAVE to eat the eyes because that's where all the fat is.

      I'm glad possum, coon and gator don't have this problem, I couldn't stand eating EYES!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    7. Re:They all came here by sireasoning · · Score: 1

      We had a bumper crop not only of acorns, but also of hickory nuts. I have 3 full bags of de-husked Mockernuts that I am squirreling away. Earlier in the season I picked up a bunch of large acorns from some chestnut oak trees. Even though they are from the white oak family, the acorns seemed way more bitter than those from my blackjack oaks (red oak family.) It is a shame too, because I had visions of turning them into some nice flour, but my early attempts do not fare very well.

      --
      The significant problems we face cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. -Albert Einstein
    8. Re:They all came here by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      I have noticed fewer squirrels around though.

      Presumably they finished their storage work early since you had a bumper crop so they can just kick back.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  65. Plenty in some places by lorax · · Score: 1

    Outside of Raleigh, NC they had a bumper crop this year. easily 2 to 4 times the normal level. Enough that it came up in casual conversation a number of times.

    In MD, the maple trees produced a lot more seeds than normal this year.

  66. No acorns in NH either by 2gravey · · Score: 2, Informative

    Really weird. We have about 15 oak trees on our lot in Nashua, NH and we had noticed the complete absence of acorns this year as well.

  67. Come to my house by beavis88 · · Score: 2, Informative

    We've got a bumper crop of acorns this year. I've never seen anything like it - my front yard is almost literally paved with acorn bits and pieces now. And we're less than 200 miles from the supposed VA dead zone in the article...

    1. Re:Come to my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      West Coast = Acorns everywhere

    2. Re:Come to my house by Dezran · · Score: 1

      We've got a bumper crop of acorns this year. I've never seen anything like it - my front yard is almost literally paved with acorn bits and pieces now.

      Seconded... There were so many falling on my house at one point, it sounded like a bad hailstorm every time even a slight wind blew.

  68. Oaks dying in Wichita Falls, Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I had four big oak trees in my yard, at least 40 years old, and two of them died this year and one last year. We've had a wetter and overall cooler past five years of weather in this region. I had a tree guy look at my oaks and he said that there is a fungus called Ceratocystis Fagacearum (Oak Wilt) killing off oak trees in our area and there's nothing really can be done to stop it. It's a tree disease that is normally only around the eastern USA, but the cooler and wetter climate change we've had the past half decade has fostered the spread of the disease westward.

  69. Even a blind squirrel finds... by rlwhite · · Score: 1

    ...
    Oh, nuts.

  70. No Acorns South of Kansas City by Zelet · · Score: 1

    My neighbors acorn tree dropped a ton of acorns last year but not a single one this year. I know the plural of anecdote isn't data - but it's still very strange.

    --
    ...And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Martin Niemoeller (1892-1984)
  71. At first I honestly thought he meant this ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    At first I honestly thought he meant the Acorn Computer. Yeah, I'm that much of a geek.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  72. Russian Squirrel Pack Kills Dog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very odd, posted by the BBC three years ago today:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4489792.stm

    They mention a lack of pine cones in the region may have been a contributing factor.

  73. Weren't we all talking about bees earlier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there was a drop in the bee population, shouldn't we expect a correlative drop in seed production due to lack of fertilization?

    Sounds to me like some degree of cause and effect. Glad to hear that many other areas are not showing a decrease in acorn production.

  74. So long and thanks for all the nuts by fivethreeo · · Score: 2, Funny

    n/t

  75. Warm weather last January by Electric+Eye · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think a lot of these problems stem back to the ridiculously warm weather we had late last January. It was in the 60s and 70's for nearly a week. Fucked up a lot of my plants and killed many of them once it returned to normal cold a week or so later. I've talked to several people who've had similar problems this year with various plants likely due to that warm spell.

  76. Not Across the country by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 1

    Try in one area NE. Here in W. KY i have a couple of large Oaks and ive got a yard full of acorns. Squirrels are fat and happy. So this across the country is Bullshiat....just like this global warming is man made is BS.

    --
    . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
  77. Not everywhere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This year, I actually had the largest acorns that I've seen in my life cover my yard. I collected a large rubbermaid container's worth for the squirrels this winter.
    There was an acorn shell that measured over an inch and a half in diameter! My car has dents in the roof and hood!

  78. maybe its a hoax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As hey! suggests upthread... people will go out and look now. As anecdotes roll in (due to natural variation) it will seem like a lot of people are seeing this same thing. After getting people worked up the OP can come back and reveal it has a hoax and try to link it to the global warming "hoax".

  79. C'mon Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Next we're going to read about some lost walrus. Lets boost the tech content here instead.

  80. This all is idotic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > And it takes only one acorn to make a tree...

    No. It takes several. Most know the biblical routine, but I'd say that acorn that would be enough to make a new tree will be eagerly devoured by an squirrel, which will nonetheless starve. Unless it germinates inside its dead body, that is... maybe I should write sci-fi... 8-/

    And I can't believe there still is denial of:

    a) human influence on weather and
    b) evolution.

  81. No acorns for you! by rlp · · Score: 1

    I went camping in SE Ohio about a month ago. While on a hike I noticed the trail was covered with a large quantity of acorns. Must be a regional difference.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
    1. Re:No acorns for you! by RenderSeven · · Score: 2, Informative
      Im awash in acorns, never seen so many in my life. Some places in the lawn are 2 and 3 deep and I cant even walk near some of the big oaks. And the squirrels dont even bother with my bird feeder.

      Not sure then how Rod Simmons is claiming New England has no acorns. Well, yes the answer to that is in TFA... he did all his research by reading newsgroups and BB's. I couldnt imagine a worse way to gather objective data, since no one would post normal or excessive acorn production, he doesnt compare newsgroup chatter to prior years with 'normal' acorn production, does no validation of claims, and still cherry-picks the results. Rod Simmons is an *idiot*.

  82. Someone needs to go outside and play by Deputy+Doodah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's no mystery.
    There's a bumper crop of acorns on my property this year and last year there were almost none.

    Why? Last year we had a late freeze followed by a drought.
    The volume of mast crop always varies, but during bad years there's very little production. The people screaming and hollering about it need to go outside more.

    So this educated fool has a "theory" about wet and dry cycles, does he? Any rube farmer or hunter out there can tell you that the mast crop is directly related to wet and dry cycles. Any botanist who doesn't know that already shouldn't be able to call himself one.

    I guess it's much less fun to understand the workings of nature than it is to lay the blame on a favorite political cause.

  83. Acorns in Newfoundland, Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in St. John's, NL, Canada, and there's an oak behind my house that produced a perfectly normal amount of acorns this year.

  84. Squirrels: by ciderVisor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Squirrels are just rats with good PR.

    --
    Squirrel!
    1. Re:Squirrels: by Electric+Eye · · Score: 1

      After all the damage squirrels have done to my property the past few years, I know refer to them as tree rats. I "relocated" 12 of them last year and 3 more are adding themselves to my shit list this fall.

    2. Re:Squirrels: by OhMickey · · Score: 1

      There is unrest in the forest,
      There is trouble with the trees,
      For the squirrels want more nuts
      And the oaks ignore their pleas.


      The trouble with the squirrels,
      (And they're quite convinced they're right)
      They say the oaks are just too lofty
      And they grab up all the nuts.
      But the oaks can't help their feelings
      If they like the way they're made.
      And they wonder why the squirrels
      Can't be happy in their acorn free zone.


      There is trouble in the forest,
      And the creatures all have fled,
      As the squirrels scream "Oppression!"
      And the oaks just shake their heads


      So the squirrels formed a union
      And demanded equal rights.
      "The oaks are just too greedy;
      We will make them give us nuts."
      Now there's no more oak oppression,
      For they passed a noble law,
      And the trees are all kept equal
      By hatchet, axe, and saw.

    3. Re:Squirrels: by Deputy+Doodah · · Score: 1

      They taste much better too.

  85. Texas Acorns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plenty of acorns in Houston. One would think IKE to have been a problem but perhaps it helped out.

  86. Normally no acorns after a mast year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oak Tree Behaviour 101:

        Periodically, often in response to an unusually warm and wet period, oak trees will have a mast year. In the mast year acorn production is immensely increased; reports often say exponentially increased, but in my anecdotal experience I'd say about triple normal acorn production. It's normal for the mast year to affect a region rather than individual trees (though you sometimes see it in isolated specimens too) and that's the primary reason to believe this is triggered by weather.

    Effects on predators of acorns are reasonably predictable and work to the oak forest's advantage; squirrel populations boom during the mast and then bust the following year when the oaks are recovering from their unusually high energy expenditure and produce little or no acorn yield.

    So; in summary: while it's certainly possible that climate change has triggered this particular event, it's normal for oak trees to have occasionally high regional acorn production fluctuations, and it's normal for the squirrels to be starving and freaking out when acorn production is low or nil. No need to panic.

    Posting as AC because slashdot frequently refuses to let me be myself. Login, not logged in, still forced to post AC.

    1. Re:Normally no acorns after a mast year. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So; in summary: while it's certainly possible that climate change has triggered this particular event, it's normal for oak trees to have occasionally high regional acorn production fluctuations, and it's normal for the squirrels to be starving and freaking out when acorn production is low or nil. No need to panic.

      Tell that to the starving squirrels!

  87. One big (75 foot tall) oak tree in NC by mikefocke · · Score: 2, Informative

    produced 4 large yard trash bags full of acorns just from the 400 sq foot parking pad which is located under its branches and perhaps covers 20% of the total area under its branches. While last year it produced about 5 to 10% of that.

    I figure that this single tree produced between 400 and 800 pounds of acorns this year! Based on having to pick up the bags I shoveled them into from the parking pad.

    The difference was a months long drought the year before and then this year we were consistently above seasonal average rainfalls through the entire year.

    My other oak trees were also putting out acorns in heavy volumes this year in contrast to last.

    When trees are feeling unstressed, they put energy into reproduction. When they are stressed, they focus on self-preservation.

    1. Re:One big (75 foot tall) oak tree in NC by gurps_npc · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The article DIRECTLY contradicts your premise. It states instead that when acorn trees were feeling stressed they pumped out a LOT of acorns so that if they died, their children would continue. Then when trees were doing well, they cut it back down to a reasonable amount.

      Not saying you are wrong, just that your single example is only enough to question the article, not enough to create a theory.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  88. Crock o' beans! by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I call bullsh*t on this one. There have been so many damn acorns around that the javelina are making a hell of a mess. Oh, wait, did you mean those ballot stuffing morons?

  89. Perfect example of scare mongering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I own an orchard filled with nut and fruit trees so I thought someone who actually knew what they were talking about should reply to the idiotioc article. Nut trees, like Oaks, vary from year to year in their productivity. Weather does play a part in that (there are a number of other factors though). Last year we had a severe drought here in my area of Missouri and there were almost no acorns. The game wardens I talked to were hoping for a large deer harverst during deer season to minimize the number of deer that starved because of it. This year, however, we had more rain and the ground is absolutely covered with acorns and other nuts.
    The guy who wrote the article may be in an area with low nut production this year as may many other people. But, that is not a sign of the end of the world. It has always been that way and it always will.

  90. I blame angry McCain-Palin supporters by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    They think if they steal all the acorns, Obama will lose his charismatic powers.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  91. I think FBI/DHS is behind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the missing acorns have been arrested by the FBI/DHS for alleged voter fraud.

  92. The BUZZ about missing pollenation? by JoshDM · · Score: 1

    Could this be due to the missing bees?

  93. Lots in Atlanta by benro03 · · Score: 2, Informative

    We've had a bumper crop this year of acorns, chestnuts, and pecans. Especially pecans because of the drought the insect population that normally eats them is way down.

    --
    I am Homer of Borg, resistance is - Ooo Donuts!
  94. And what type of obeserver are you? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    We get people who at least seems to have asked others vs a single you. If you were smarter you would understand the irony in your statement. A lone observer complaining about a lone observer.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:And what type of obeserver are you? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Actually, no it's not ironic. At least one other person in the thread noticed a large acorn crop and it apparently has been observed elsewhere.

  95. Lots of acrons here... by rlnorthcutt · · Score: 1

    I live in central Texas, and my in-laws have a place out in the hill country. We have gotten tons of acorns this year... more than normal. The d@$# things have been falling on the metal roof all fall, and it sounds like firecrackers going off all night. Theres so many acorns that some parts of the ground are covered an inch thick! No worries on a global acorn shortage... they still exist.

  96. not so fast there chicken little by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Plenty of acorns from the tree across the street from me. Oh and by the way its been a record cold year too .so dont belive all the BS that your being fed

  97. Re:Let me make up nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not just planetary cycles, we are at solar minimum(the least active time in the Sun's 11 year cycle). It is plain that this would have a great effect on those organisms that receive their energy from directly from the sun. It is obvious that this would have a greater effect in the norther reaches where less of the sun's received by the plants.

  98. One long-term study already done by Elder+Lazarus · · Score: 3, Informative

    "LONG-TERM PATTERNS OF ACORN PRODUCTION FOR FIVE OAK SPECIES IN XERIC FLORIDA UPLANDS"

    Study of acorn production across several species in FL from 1969 to 1996 http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/01-0707

    From the abstract: We identified regular cycles of acorn production ... and found evidence that annual acorn production is affected by the interactions of precipitation, which is highly variable ..., with endogenous reproductive patterns. In contrast, acorn production showed no significant association with minimum winter temperatures.

    --
    I need a rest between naps some days
  99. Shymalaman vs the Squirrels... by CYDVicious · · Score: 1

    Eh, at least it's only oak trees and their turn against squirrels...Just imagine if they decided to create some biological air borne agent against humanity!?

    --
    //Nothing to see here, please move along.
    1. Re:Shymalaman vs the Squirrels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, at least it's only oak trees and their turn against squirrels...Just imagine if they decided to create some biological air borne agent against humanity!?

      In fact, they have .

  100. COUNTY not Country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says they disappeared across the COUNTY, not the entire Country.

  101. they are all in my yard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I can't walk without stepping on them. Oaks and Sycamores are happy in Essex Junction, VT

  102. got bees? by Veni+Vidi+Dormi · · Score: 1

    maybe this has something to do with all of the bee's disappearing? http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/26/business/bees.php

  103. Of course ACORNs are disappearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  104. Squirrels? what about those killer bees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ever happened to all of the killer bees?

    1. Re:Squirrels? what about those killer bees? by grikdog · · Score: 1

      http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=11059&page=6

      Relax, though! Killer bees are the only thing tough enough to save a $60 billion per annum migratory bee pollination industry. Honeybees pollinate California's almond crop, for example. Along with apples, pears, peaches, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, soybeans, alfalfa, pumpkins, etc. etc. As for what killed off all the honeybees, at least in northerly latitudes, think agrichemicals and monoculture lawns.

      Oak trees are wind pollinated, no bees directly involved. Honeybees do gather spring pollens from wind-pollinated tree species, however, simply as a high-calorie food source when nectar flows are scant.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  105. I know where they went... by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

    Every acorn in the entire country is on the one big tree that is over the roof of my house.

    *thunk* Thousands *thunk* of *thunk* them *thunk*. The acorns hitting the roof are going to drive me crazy!

    I've got some really fat squirrels out there.

    Anecdotal, yes, but it does prove that not all the acorns are gone.

    --
    My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
  106. Mast Year by conureman · · Score: 1

    Last year I gathered Valley Oak (Q. lobata) acorns that were practically ankle deep from one tree, but then managed to kill ALL 152 of the seedlings that I was propagating for a project I'm working on. This year, that tree had NONE (dammit). The five-year-old Holm Oak (Q. Ilex) in my yard, OTOH, is having its first mast year. This is normal. Up on the family farm in Oregon, all the hickories seem to be producing normally. If this is widespread on the eastern seaboard, expect some major disasters right up the food chain. A squirrel's prime duty is feeding owls, &c. The deer also depend on acorns to prepare for winter, so this could be a very bad year. TFA seems to indicate an anomalous condition, which (I guess) is likely due to badly timed rain.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  107. This is B.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oaks don't always produce acorns every year..more like every other year. These anecdotal reports are made by ignorant retards. If you want some acorns just come to my house. I have plenty for all the world.

  108. You kidding me? by ckotchey · · Score: 1

    I live in Apalachin, NY - sort of an outskirt of the metropolis of Binghamton, NY. One of my oak trees this year produced more acorns than the 3 oaks in my yard typically produce in a year combined. It was absolutely amazing. We raked up buckets-full of acorns and acorn-related debris (left behind by our now amazingly fat squirrels and chipmunks) several times this fall.
    We're hunkering down for what we predict to be a long winter.

  109. what about this then? by Ch*mp · · Score: 0

    From the age of 5-30, I grew up with an oak tree in our garden. It was perhaps 100-150 years old). Every year I lived there, it had loads of acorns. They fell and rotted, and/or were eaten by squirrels, but none ever germinated.

    Then one year, about 5 years ago, it looked like every single acorn that hit the ground germinated. There were thousands of 1-2 inch oaks growing in and around the shade of the parent tree. It totally freaked me out. I've never seen anything like that before or since. I still wonder what was the cause.

  110. Bees by Pope · · Score: 4, Funny

    The bees took them!

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  111. larvae by conureman · · Score: 1

    The gall-causing thingies are different from the acorn-killing thingies. Excuse my nomenclature, I haven't studied them much, except incidentally, in the field.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  112. Come on up to New York City. by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    I had to use a snow shovel to pick them all up. I never saw so many damn acorns. Bloody mess!

  113. No Pecans Either by Ranger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here in Tulsa, none of the pecan trees in our backyard produced any pecans this year, though we had a bumper crop last year. They were big enough to be edible. I collected about 20 pounds but could have collected a lot more. The park near our house used to be a pecan orchard and it too has no pecans this year. I don't know why. I suspected it was because of the terrible ice storm we had last year damaging the trees, but someone told me that sometimes after a bumper crop they don't produce.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:No Pecans Either by t0rkm3 · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. I think it's more likely that it's a blend of both. I live in Tulsa (Brookside) and I have a very large pecan that suffered only one large break from the storm and it produced a very large crop this year. Out in Coweta we had about 20 pecan trees and a few of them were known to cycle their production, but other than that everything seemed to be pretty durn predictable.

      I have a very large red oak that is producing acorns as well. The Bur Oaks in my dad's front yard are still denting cars unlucky enough to park under them.

      I just hope we don't get a late freeze in the spring.. I want big peaches damnit!

  114. No acorns this year? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Really?

    I wish someone had told my oak tree it wasn't producing any acorns this year. Might have saved me the annoyance of sweeping my driveway weekly to get rid of the acorns crunched under my cars' tires every time one is parked.

    Bet my parents would like to know this too - they say they've never seen so many acorns in their yard - a sure sign of a hard winter coming, my mother assures me.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  115. Acorns in CA too... by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    Plenty of acorns on my property. They bug the crap out of me actually because they sprout easily and quickly turn into a root mass -> shrub -> tree in inconvenient places. I wish the squirrels and rats would get them ALL.

    1. Re:Acorns in CA too... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      DO you really want that many more Squirrels and rats? they will be far more inconvenient then digging out sprouting trees.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  116. We Had None by kmhebert · · Score: 1

    Last year we had a tremendous amount, this year none.

    --
    Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.
  117. Tons of acorns by Hawat · · Score: 1

    ...here in Mid-Michigan and lots of fat squirrels.

    1. Re:Tons of acorns by clintp · · Score: 1

      Same here. Bumper crop of both acorns and squirrels in the Metro Detroit area.

      I mean, if the Washington Post can publish the speculations of a botanist based on local anecdotal evidence and internet discussion groups, then we can use the same method to refute it, right?

      --
      Get off my lawn.
  118. cycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's all about cycles..

    We have an average crop of acorns this year here..

    But last year... we had more acorns and hickory nuts than I've seen in 5+ years.. some idiot wanted a variance to cut down an old growth hickory tree cause he was too lazy to sweep the nuts from his sidewalk... and threatened to sue the area if a family member tripped over the large amt of nuts in the future...

  119. Plenty where I am at by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

    ....meanwhile in northern California, I have been cursing at the excess amount of acorns dropping on my roof and hitting my door. There are too many for the squirrels in the immediate area to gather and I nearly slip to my death each morning as I step beyond my porch.

    Perhaps this is some mysterious nature cycle similar to rain; it seems to drought in some areas while it floods in others.

  120. So... by BronsCon · · Score: 1

    Some guy is worried because he can't find his nuts? Am I supposed to care?

    Seriously, though, it's no big deal; just that a lot of people all noticed, at the same time, that we don't have a ton of acorns every year.

    These trees don't produce every year; sometimes their cycles align so that they all produce in the same year and you have an insane amount of acorns, sometimes they align so that few or none of them produce and you have, you guessed it, no acorns.

    Take two sine waves of slightly differing frequencies, overlay them, and watch how they interact. Now, add them together and look at the result.

    I've noticed a steady decline in acorn output in my area over the last few years. Because I also noticed a steady increase in acorn output in the preceding years, I'm able to hypothesize that this is part of a natural cycle and I'm not worried about it. If it continues next year, I'll worry a little. Two years from now, I'll worry a lot if this is still an issue.

    Until then, it's part of a cycle.

    Do people really worry 120 times per second (100 in some parts of the world) that their electricity has gone out? If not, I suspect we don't have to worry that our oak trees have gone out, either. Let's drop it before the price of nuts goes through the fucking roof; some of us have vegetarians to feed and nuts are a cheap source of good protein.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  121. teh big scare by conureman · · Score: 1

    Anyone who isn't scared is not paying attention, IMHO. Mutating fungus scares the shit out of me. If the bee troubles get much worse, I think we can write off a significant percentage of the human population also. BTW there is some new red rust fungus bipping around western Asia that could very well doom the majority of the grain-dependent populations of the world as well. John Christopher wrote a book "No Blade of Grass" that explored that scenario.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  122. Gumbo by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

    If you had ever eaten squirrel and sausage gumbo, you would know that this is a BIG DEAL.

    Seriously, it is a big deal for squirrels and other wildlife depending on them from Ohio to Southern New England and some parts of Virginia, isolated reports from Texas and Arkansas. Could be a statistical fluke, some folks at the forum were reporting back-to back bad years. That could be a fluke, too. If it persists, it probably isn't a fluke.

    What's wrong with identifying climate change as a cause? It happens naturally, too. Late Pleistocene climates were radically different from the present all over North America. If the apparent warming trend continues, it's going to get real different. If, however, they are a simple prelude to the reassertion of Late Pleistocene climate, expect things to get really, really different, and maybe pretty fast link.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  123. Re:They can have all of ours down here in the Sout by DustyShadow · · Score: 1

    I hunt in south Georgia and this year's acorn "crop" on our land has been a lot more plentiful than recent years.

  124. We have a lot here (Maryland, USA) by mark_osmd · · Score: 1

    I'm in central Maryland and I can report there are plenty of acorns here (we have some oak trees at work, they drop acorns all over the sidewalks and parking lot)

  125. Bumper crop here in California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=8413&title=California%27s%20Bumper%20Crop%20of%20Acorns

  126. obligatory by marleyboy · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our squirrel overlords.

    --
    Neutiquam erro
  127. No lack in NC... by macshome · · Score: 1

    This year in the middle of NC we have more acorns than I have ever seen in my life. So many that I had to clear my driveway as it was difficult to drive in and out.

    We've had news stories about how many freaking acorns there are this year in the area.

  128. First the Bees by gijoel · · Score: 1

    And now the Squirrels? Holy crap Doctor, where are you when we need you?

  129. Mods on Crack by conureman · · Score: 1

    You are redundant and parent is funny? pfff..

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  130. My fault, sorry. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry guys. This is my fault. I have two young children, and they find these acorns, stuff them in their pockets and bring them home. We'll bring them back--- we didn't know this would cause a panic.

    But on a serious note-- my anecdotal evidence will counter your anecdotal evidence. I have seen many acorns here in Berkeley, CA and on the California Central Coast. In October we were playing with acorns in Madison, Wisconsin.

    If you want to be taken seriously, do a methodical survey, and compare this year's results against last year's results. I've read that Oak trees will sometimes produce alot of acorns, and will sometimes only produce a few.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  131. Worms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As mentioned by others the Bees are going too.. but one thing I've noticed is the lack of worms. I live in New England and when I was younger you'd always see tons of worms on the street/sidewalks after it rained. I haven't seen a worm in at least 5 years now.

  132. Mod Parent up. by KwKSilver · · Score: 1

    Well said.

    --
    If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
  133. Acorns (subtitle: Global warming bullshit) by johnsonwc · · Score: 1

    I live on the Mississippi gulf coast and the acorns are a pain in the ass. There are so many falling on mydriveway and getting smushed by my suburban (oh horrors, he drives a suburban) that my wife has to sweep and hose it off every other day. And as far as I'm concerned, squirrels are tree rats.

  134. Ah by funehmon · · Score: 1

    All your nuts are belong to us

  135. It's the damn right wingers at it again! by nEoN+nOoDlE · · Score: 1

    Look, you right wing nuts, Obama is the next President so enough with the ACORN stuff! Let's get to the REAL issues, like Global Warming!

    --
    Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
  136. The only thing we found... by aderusha · · Score: 1

    The only trace of the squirrels found was a hastily-scribbled note reading "so long and thanks for all the acorns".

  137. All the acorns are here? by He+Who+Waits · · Score: 1

    I live in the west end of Toronto, and just last week I noted that there seemed to be more than the usual number of acorns underfoot in the blocks surrounding my house.

  138. predation? by conureman · · Score: 1

    It could have been a dip in the consumer population. Normally most of the crop goes away to someone's larder, squirrels, jays, &c. If a Mast year overwhelms the locals, (or a particularly ambitious housepet) then they lay on the ground and germinate. It works out well since an acorn buried by a jay and left uneaten may be in a sunnier spot. There is a moth larva infesting the oaks on our family farm, and other than mast years, the only acorns that make it to the ground are non-viable. The jays, woodpeckers, and squirrels have skills- that is, I see them shake an acorn, and somehow discern what the insides are like. The ones they toss to the ground invariably have a worm or shriveled meat.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  139. I blame the internet -- weird experiences united. by Valdrax · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    The AC is right. In grad school, my wife studied population genetics of coast live oak (quercus agrifolia), and she saw the same boom-and-bust cycles of acorn production. The boom years are known as "mast" years--not sure what the bust years are called.

    This is just a normal cycle, and, as usual, the media's reporting of science is atrocious.

    It's a shame, frankly, that this discussion got hijacked early on by a global warming denier, because the story itself is the real story here.

    If you look at the linked discussion group, what you have is a bunch of people posting in a thread about how they see something happening local to them, and the same event happens across the nation. While a few other people chime in with the evidence that it's not happening near them, the conclusion is drawn that this is a "wide spread problem."

    However, this is really just like support groups for bulimics, white power groups, child porn perverts, crazy people who think that fibers are growing under their skin, etc. (if you'll forgive the almost Godwin-invoking list of examples here).

    What you have is a bunch of people who are experiencing something abnormal who, in the absence of the internet, would be forced to normally conclude that what they are experiencing isn't typical and go on about their lives. With advent of the internet, however, these people are able to cobble together into groups to share their experiences and convince each other that what's going on really IS a big deal. In the case of the above groups, they all convince each other that their deviant behavior or insanity is *normal*, and they all reinforce their normally marginal beliefs with references to other people experiencing the same thing.

    You see this also with partisan politics or alternative medicine, where people create entire net *communities* of alternative reality where "mainstream" facts are replaced with an underground information economy of half-truths and self-deceptions. "Homeopathy cured me where modern medicine couldn't!" "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim!" "Bush and Cheney have set up a shadow government to take over if they lose the election!" (ca. 2004) "Aspartame causes toxic formaldehyde buildup!" (And yes, "Global warming is caused by the sun!" I can't resist getting *that* dig in.) Instead of true facts from science and history, you have entire alternative webs of "facts" that allow people to reinforce delusional beliefs.

    The failure of the media here is kind of a side effect of the legitimization of bloggers who often eat up this kind of stuff. This is totally a blogger-type story. Some guy reads something on the internet and says, "zomg! did u here that? i gotta lj bout it!" and then brain-dumps some vapid rumor-mongering about how people are seeing starving squirrels and empty trees across the nation (as if it's the *entire* nation). Add an interview with a token local sciency-type person, and you've ratcheted up the "journalistic credibility" to bona fide newspaper levels -- at least for "science" "journalism," anyway.

    Bah. This is a non-story. The story here is the story itself and how sad it is that this is getting reported.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  140. but, but, but, by overcaffein8d · · Score: 1

    at least the dolphins haven't (yet) disappeared. Then we'd be doomed!

    [so long and thanks for all the squirrels]

    --
    Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
  141. Acorn Prices Exploding by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1
    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  142. I've seen plenty by Control-Z · · Score: 1

    I don't even want to park at a friend's house because she has so many acorns falling from her oak trees.

  143. Off on a tangent. by conureman · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but I'd like to mention: I planted a Holm Oak (Q. Ilex)in my Northern California yard a few years back. It's a Mediterranean evergreen, so it should do well here. I'd read that these had low tannin. Well, this was a mast year, so rather than save them all to propagate, I tried eating one fresh off the tree. SWEET! No leaching tannin like an Indian, I'll be harvesting these like a white man in a supermarket. The Bluejays seem to approve as well.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  144. Perennials by 32771 · · Score: 1

    They seem to not have to worry about surviving like those annuals - wonder why.

    Here is something on oak pollination:
    http://danr.ucop.edu/ihrmp/oak96.htm

    "... Studies of other oak species have shown that the male flowers do not open and release pollen unless humidity drops below 45% for several hours. In 1998, many of the trees flowered during a period of rainy weather and subsequently produced no acorns. Amount of solar radiation received during the pollination period was positively correlated with acorn production in this year. We additionally found evidence that the size of the prior yearâ(TM)s acorn crop influences acorn yields. Trees that produce large numbers of acorns in one year may not have the resources to produce a large crop in the subsequent year."

    Perennials are wonderful when it comes to soil erosion prevention but they just don't have to produce fruit to survive all the time, so they don't - selfish things.

    --
    Je me souviens.
  145. What happened to the ACORNS? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    People?! Really? The Republicans got rid of most of them. What was left just disbursed, after they got their man elected.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  146. +5 Insightful of Human Perception Frailty. by ergo98 · · Score: 1

    Good summary

  147. Good link! by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    I found a free PDF version of the article, if anyone is interested.

    From page 11:
    "Acorn production by the red oak [turkey oak] had the greatest [correlation] with precipitation. Numbers of acorns per ramet were negatively associated with wet season (July) rainfall two years previous and with rainfall during the dry season (October through May) three years previous in each association where this oak occurred. Similarly, the combined acorn crops of [turkey oaks] from all associations correlated negatively with wet season (July) rainfall two years previous ... and with dry season rain three years previous."

    "Acorn production of the white oak [Chapman oak] was positively correlated in at least one association with rainfall during the preceding late dry season (March) and negatively with rainfall during the preceding July. Acorn production by this oak in all associations combined was positively correlated with precipitation during the preceding dry season... Similar to [Chapman oak], the other white oak [sand live oak] showed a negative relationship with the previous year's July rainfall in scrub and a positive correlation with September rainfall one year previous ... when all associations were combined."

    However, the paper found that sandhill oak and myrtle oak has a positive correlation between rainfall and acorn production. Even so, in the article they talk about strong rains this year in Washington, and there is a possibility that that might be related to the problem there. Who knows?

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  148. Squirrel Vindication by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

    Somewhere there's a squirrel who was ridiculed by all the other squirrels for stockpiling acorns last year... but who's laughing now?????

  149. The oak trees send out a hormone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Here's an interesting comment made by empyreal on the story at the Washington Post.

    This phenomenon is not a mystery and it's surprising none of the naturalists interviewed knew what was going on, which I learned on a nature hike in the Catskills recently. The oak trees send out a hormone that allows a coordinated survival mechanism where they all withhold acorn production at the same time, and they do this in order to control the squirrel population. This has been documented in a study in Pennsylvania where students ground up a huge amount of oak leaves from an area that had no acorn production and dispersed the leaves in another area where then the following year the trees did not produce acorns. It's usually the following year where there is a huge bumper crop of acorns way beyond what the now diminished population of squirrels could not possibly consume.

  150. Re:Let me guess...(agreed & corrected) by ncgnu08 · · Score: 0

    I fully agree, so let me correct my "we the people" by narrowing it down to "we the people, with an education, an understanding(however basic) of the science behind the principles, and an ability to understand the science(a decent IQ)." I would point out that while we agree on 99% of this, I don't think one needs to be fully invested to realize that something major is going on here. There are so many problems, in every ecosystem, in every part of the world, that I think we can agree on the existence of a big problem. We can argue, or discuss the causation, however ignoring the problem is not an acceptable answer here. I for one have not read the IPCC report, only summaries, and I have not spent months and months devoted to studying the climate data. I do believe, however, I am educated enough on the matter to see a problem exists, and I believe we(mankind) are causing said problem; or at the very least, worsening it. Also, while I am a proponent of using one's own judgment, not proposing I know more or better than said experts, and would readily defer to those experts on the matter. I think, or would hope, my judgment would allow me to filter out those viewpoints that are not merited on data, and therefore flawed. And that is the crux of my first post: rational people should be able to evaluate the information experts provide and draw their own conclusions. We should be able to determine between those who(whom?) are working to solve/understand the problem in a scientific way, rather than those spouting nonsense based on emotion, religion, or oil company money!

    --
    Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"
  151. You can have ours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are two squirrels that need a new home up here in the pacific northwest, I will warn you ahead of time that they like to build nests under the hood of cars, so it your car goes up in flames, like mine did, don't say I didn't warn you.

  152. Nuts about FL by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Live oak trees in S. FL. have dropped lots of acorns this year. Walk down my neighbors driveway lined with mature live oak trees and hear the crunch of acorns under foot.

    Maybe the sunspot minimum has something to do with this up north. FL live oaks don't drop leaves in the winter BTW.

  153. ... plenty in Brooklyn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are plenty of acorns in Brooklyn.
    I can't imagine a situation where acorn production shuts down globally except for a city so polluted as Brooklyn, NY.

  154. While we're at it, walnuts by Vexar · · Score: 1
    My walnut tree did nothing this past fall, either. it usually drops its lovely, green-husked, pavement-staining nuts a little earlier in the year.

    As far as I'm concerned, this is no cause for alarm. Now, if all of the sudden, all the bees disappear, well, then you've got something.

  155. you guys are nutz by gearloos · · Score: 1

    This whole story is nutz

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  156. Just the opposite here (East TN and North GA) by theguru · · Score: 1

    My father and I were just commenting over the Thanksgiving holiday that there are more acorns around his house and mine than in recent years.. a LOT more. Our squirrel population is exploding. We've been raking them up and throwing them in sealed garbage cans.

    Maybe they should come to my house and collect them for the sparse areas? :)

    1. Re:Just the opposite here (East TN and North GA) by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Our squirrel population is exploding"

      I's love to see the Youtube video of that!
      "Look there is one now!"
      "Wow, I don't think he should put that many acorns in his mouth"
      KA-POW!
      "There goes another one..."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  157. Not just Oaks by kackle · · Score: 1

    I've lived in the same house (U.S., Midwest) for 24 years. We noticed this year that we hardly had a single acorn when usually they coat the driveway... I personally haven't come across one yet. Along the same lines, we have very few black walnuts too. I'd say less than a few percent of what is normal. So, after a quarter century of these same trees producing the same quantities, this year was a real surprise. Also to note: we have our first-ever gray squirrel hanging around our property. All of our squirrels have been light brown, decade after decade.

  158. "stars are going out" by toby · · Score: 1

    Nice smart-ass tag, but it's practically true, due to light pollution.

    If you can't see the stars, they are effectively 'out'. Sad. Especially since we only need a tiny fraction of the night lighting currently used.

    --
    you had me at #!
  159. Anyone notice fewer walnuts this year? by falken0905 · · Score: 0

    My neighbor's huge old black walnut tree has littered my yard with a -ton- of walnuts every year I've lived here (7 years). Not only have there always been the large black squishy fruits but the squirrels make a real mess cracking them open. This year there have been very very few nuts - I've seen only a dozen or two. The squirrels seem to have moved on to nuttier pastures as I've seen far fewer of the furry little nuisances this year. I wonder if this is somehow related to the acorn shortage? Ponderous.

  160. ~corn by dword+ZZork · · Score: 1

    Though not an expert, I might expect that an acorn is a distant cousin to "traditional" corn, thus deriving the definiton "not-corn," or "a-corn," although their nonexistence in said specific instances might hint at some larger force at work. Clearly, it's all Nicole Kidman's fault.

    --
    "But seriously dude, what is that in the radiator?"
  161. I guess I shouldn't've smashed all those acorns. . by rubah · · Score: 1

    My personal yard oak tree put out plenty of acorns this year. Enough for me to smash and look at the little "cheese" in the middle and take some back to my dorm to throw at my boyfriend's friends.

    Oops.

  162. Related to bees? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could it be related to the missing bees?

  163. Walker, MN by Windows_NT · · Score: 1

    Nope. We got Acorns, and Deer, and squirrels.
    But for some reason i cant find any Oak trees.. THERE ALL GONE!

    --
    Go go Gadget Nailgun!
  164. Plenty in my yard which by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    makes my dog happy... She eats them like candy.

  165. In other news by TOGSolid · · Score: 1

    The President of the Squirrels has announced his government's plan to buyout all the toxic Oak companies in order to stabilize the squirrel economy. When asked how the government would pay for this he responded "We have a national plan to look more cute and cuddly for the tourists to our great nation in order to increase our revenue for the year. This will allow us to buyout all these bad Oaks and ensure that our Acorn supply is not affected."

    As far as the global warming thing, it can never hurt to be more enviromentally conscious, however we can't go completely nuts and shaft ourselves. There's a lot of things happening that not even global warming can just explain off in one shot. We're seeing record ice growth in the arctic right now ( http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ ) but that's not exactly something you're ever going to see in the news. The fact of the matter is no one knows what the hell is going on. Should humans do their best to curtail enviromental damage, absolutely, and I don't think anyone would argue the point, but everything in moderation. If we went with some of the plans some of the global warming hacks (who are about as braindead as the PETA morons) want, we'd cripple our entire civilization and tank what was left of our economy (not that that would take a whole lot of effort at this point).

  166. Hammy & Scrat gone crazy. by Neanderthal+Ninny · · Score: 1

    Hammy from the movie "Over the Hedge", Scrat from the movie "Ice Age" and their friends must have gone crazy and collected all the acorns across the US to their huge stores somewhere.

  167. feed them bacon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I Like Bacon!

  168. No shortage here by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    I don't have oaks at our place but at the oak trees I know I didn't see any shortage and I would have noticed as I collected acorns since my goal is to have some here. Most likely it is isolated anomalies.

  169. The culprit by lacourem · · Score: 1

    Personally,I have a sneaking suspicion this guy is involved http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/squirrel_nuts_1.jpg ..Squirrel Nuts

    --
    when logic fails, bullshit prevails
  170. Bull by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I call BS, since here in Arkansas, we had an abnormally excessive amount of acorns on all oak trees and a likewise ridiculous amount of hickory nuts as well.

  171. Well the whitetail deer is fucked. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, birth weight and multiple births are contingent on a good acorn harvest.

  172. Southwest Virginia by ArkiMage · · Score: 1

    The author of the story should drive a hundred or so miles southwest of their Arlington County. Around here the acorns, hickory nuts, walnuts and other tree fruit were heavily abundant. More and larger fruits than most anyone can remember. Last year and this year were both exceptional drought years in this area too. I'd assume that had something to do with it.

  173. Let's see... by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

    Last year we heard about pollinators (honeybees) mysteriously vanishing and this year there are no acorns (products of pollination). This doesn't explain anything though since most oaks will self-pollinate. It may be a contributing factor, however.

    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  174. I know what it is... by vudufixit · · Score: 1

    Obama won... no more need for ACORN at all. (ducks)

  175. No APPLES this year for me by pyite69 · · Score: 1

    Usually I have a ton of squishy rotten apples in my yard right around Halloween, but this year I didn't have to pick up any.

    I'm not sure if the Utah climate was just weird this year.

    1. Re:No APPLES this year for me by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Did you see bees during the Spring and Summer?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  176. What's a squirrel? by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

    ...I live in Australia, you insensitive clod!
    ;)

  177. McCain-Palin at Fault by nightcats · · Score: 1

    They called ACORN a fraud and a threat to democracy, with the implication that their next stop is Gitmo -- so naturally the acorns went into hiding until next year when a more acorn-friendly administration is in office. You geeks just over-analyze everything.

    --
    Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
  178. Just the Opposite by DougF · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...the solar trend disagrees in rate, timing, and magnitude with the warming since the mid-20th century, although it explains a fair bit of the warming before then.

    If by "Solar Record" you mean the sunspot cycle, it is in direct agreement with the increase in warming trends with the latter half of the 20th Century. The number of sunspots is 70% higher on average in the latter half of the last century compared to the first half, and even through comparable time periods in the 19th Century as well. As well, the number of days without sunspots is markedly lower throughout every cycle in the latter half of the 20th Century. Only this year, 2008, the sunspots are down dramatically, along with global temps. Will this be a prolonged trends? I don't know, and can't speculate, but I will be keeping an eye out for a continuing coincidence between sunspots and temperatures. Scientists are only now discovering the link between the solar wind generation and sunspots, as well as a possible mechanism between the solar wind and energy transference to the troposphere.

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
    1. Re:Just the Opposite by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      If by "Solar Record" you mean the sunspot cycle

      I mean total solar irradiance, which is what actually warms the Earth. If you're a cosmoclimatologist you could also argue solar-modulated cosmic rays, but they too disagree with the observed climate response. You could start by looking at the two papers I mentioned, and there are more.

  179. Maybe he should look in Missouri. by Mr3vil · · Score: 1

    Lots of acorns in the woods on my mother's place. She lives in the Missouri Ozarks. I guess this is opposite of Chicken Little. "NO ACORNS FELL ON MY HEAD! The Environment's doomed!"

  180. Florida by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    Was in northwest florida over thanksgiving (near destin,fl) , and the live-oaks had a ridiculous amount of acorns, so much that your shoes were cakes in acorn mush. Way more than I think I have ever seen, when growing up there.

    --
    meh
  181. Can someone please explain: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how this relates to man-bear-pig?

  182. Zero Acorns != None Produced by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In areas where they are not finding any acorns, perhaps it isn't that none are being produced. Perhaps the boom of squirrel population along with an bust year of low production has produced such extreme competition for any food source that every acorn produced is quickly found & consumed. Maybe even a bit on the green side if the squirrels are desperate enough.

    For all we know, they are consuming the young oak tree shoots too.

  183. Acorn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your acorn are belong to us!

  184. Across the country?? by keepingmyheaddown · · Score: 1

    I don't think so. It's certainly true that acorn production is cyclic but this has been a good acorn year on my property in N California.

  185. No Acorn Problem Here by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    We have tons of acorns. I like the squirrels, and watch their behavior every year as the acorns become available and the squirrels start stashing them away.

    There are so many acorns lying about that the squirrels aren't collecting them all; they're busily at work, but not making a real dent in the number of fallen acorns available. Crushed acorns all over the place.

    Now what I _am_ worried about are the pecans that should have been profuse this year. The two pecan trees we enjoy every second year (usually) are absolutely empty.

  186. Missing Acorns? All in my yard. by turbod · · Score: 1

    I have more acorns than any region on the planet at this time. They are bombing my cars, my house, and I have a cushy layer of them to walk on in my yard.

    My yard has such a bumper crop, that earlier this fall, a owl took up in the yard to kill all the squirrels who dared venture into my bumper crop.

    Go figure...

  187. Climate: dominated by negative feedback cycles by Nathaniel · · Score: 1

    "I've never understood why the group that believes we didn't do it think that means we can continue being oblivious."

    That's because you haven't been listening. They don't think we "can continue being oblivious". They think something more like "our influence on the situation is insignificant" or "you there, with the ego, you're very funny".

    All those ships we put in the ocean, they impact the tides, right? I mean, obviously, they displace water. Some of them displace many tons of water. Eek! High Tide! No shipping for a while! Hey, the tide went down, looks like we fixed it!

    The alarm of climate change is based on the idea that positive feedback mechanisms will cause the climate to spin wildly out of control, that there's some "tipping point", and doom, doom, doom!

    This is inconsistent with everything we know. Climate is dominated by negative feedback mechanisms. If you don't understand what I'm saying here, you don't deserve to participate in the conversation until you've come up to speed.

    As for solar shades and other ideas.... Suppose we somehow managed to pull off something like that, and created a situation in which we have significant impact on climate. Who runs the thing? Politicians? A corporation? Majority vote, like the thermostat in the office? How secure is the system? What about maintenance?

    1. Re:Climate: dominated by negative feedback cycles by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      Climate is dominated by negative feedback mechanisms.

      This is inconsistent with everything we know. Pretty much all theoretical and observational evidence supports climate sensitivities larger than the no-feedback sensitivity, i.e., a positive feedback. See any of the observational or model climate sensitivity estimates in the IPCC report, for example. For paleoclimate evidence, see e.g. Zachos et al. (2001) in Science, the work of Richard Alley, the PalaeoQUMP project, and so on. And there sure as hell is plenty of paleo evidence for the existence of climate thresholds (see MOC collapse, continental ice sheet formation and disintegration, etc.), as well as plenty of theory behind it (going all the way back to, say, Stommel's box model). See Lenton et al. (2008) in PNAS. The question is not whether those thresholds exist, but whether we're close to crossing any of them.

      It's true that the climate system doesn't have a runaway positive feedback: when the response is large enough, the positive feedbacks weaken and the negative feedbacks strengthen. But all evidence is that, in our current climate state or even in fairly different climate states such as glacial periods, the net feedback is positive.

    2. Re:Climate: dominated by negative feedback cycles by Nathaniel · · Score: 1

      "Pretty much all theoretical and observational evidence supports climate sensitivities larger than the no-feedback sensitivity, i.e., a positive feedback."

      But only in the short term. This is like an eddy in the river. Sometimes water does flow uphill, but the general trend is that the river flows downhill and stays within the riverbanks. Over time, the river might shift, but rarely by accident.

      Similarly, the climate changes, ice ages occur, droughts occur, but it tends to stay within certain bands.

      "It's true that the climate system doesn't have a runaway positive feedback: when the response is large enough, the positive feedbacks weaken and the negative feedbacks strengthen."

      Right, so the negative feedbacks are dominant. We all agree that climates change, that's obvious. It's also clear that they can change in ways we won't enjoy. The problem is when people claim to KNOW that there's a tipping point, and that they know where it is, and what causes it. This is just doomsday cultism, plain and simple.

      The big question is "how much impact have we had on the climate?"

      Rational discussion of that question is routinely sidelined.

    3. Re:Climate: dominated by negative feedback cycles by Ambitwistor · · Score: 1

      But only in the short term.

      We have evidence of net positive climate feedback on scales from years to millions of years, ranging from volcanic estimates of climate sensitivity to papers like Royer's Phanerozoic analysis.

      Similarly, the climate changes, ice ages occur, droughts occur, but it tends to stay within certain bands.

      That's true, but "staying within certain bands" is a function of both feedback and forcing, and we're dramatically adding to the forcing. The reasons why interglacial temperatures tend to stabilize at around the same value is because (1) the Milankovitch forcing stabilizes, and (2) the greenhouse gas feedback stabilizes. We're overriding (1) and (2) in the natural cycle by forcing the system with additional CO2.

      Right, so the negative feedbacks are dominant.

      They're only dominant when you get to certain extremes, and don't add additional forcing, as we are.

      As I mentioned previously, the evidence is that positive feedbacks are currently dominant, and have been for much of geological history.

      The problem is when people claim to KNOW that there's a tipping point, and that they know where it is, and what causes it.

      We know there are tipping points because they've happened in the past. We also largely know what causes many of them. (Greenland ice sheet: surface warming. Antarctic ice shelves: surface warming and ocean warming, and in glacial periods possibly mechanical weakness from overgrowth. MOC: surface warming and freshwater flux, shifts in wind patterns.) This gives us a rough idea of where they are. We don't know exactly where they are, but that doesn't mean that we don't need insurance against them. Nor are tipping points the only part of climate change that can have a negative impact.

  188. No problem in the Netherlands by KayakFun · · Score: 1
    We have so many 'acorns' here!

    Explanation: the dutch word for acorn is 'eikel' which also means the tip of a man's p*n*s, and is commonly used to refer to d*ckheads.

  189. they should have visited me by james_shoemaker · · Score: 1

    The !@#$!@#$ things were so thick under my trees I was scooping them up with a snow shovel to stop from sliding around on the ball-bearing like objects.

  190. One irrational comment ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The far-reaching one : mayans where right, something terribly is coming for 2012 ... as most and most people are realizing

    The not-so-irrational one : no one really understands the relationship between solar cycles and the living biota on earth ... saw one strangely correlated graph on Tufte's Vusual Display of Quantitative Information between stock market's movements and solar power's net intensity

    The casual one : with all those strange and (biological effect-wise) untested chemicals released in the environment in the last half-century, it's no small wonder that nature as a whole (which started to be noticed a while ago with the frogs and other amphibians) is beginning to react

    For the Mayan Calendar thingy, one could wonder why so many civilizations started their calendar count between 3500BC and 3500BC ...

  191. Behold a pale squirrel by Alsee · · Score: 1

    Revelation 6:1-8, Sciuridae James Bible

    And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.
    And I saw, and behold a white squirrel: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
    And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see.
    And there went out another squirrel that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
    And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black squirrel; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
    And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
    And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
    And I looked, and behold a pale squirrel: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  192. What about being related to the bees (CCD)? by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Could it bee? What pollinates oaks? Perhaps a CCD-like ailment is happening to the oak pollinators as well. And, perhaps a CCD-related mechanism is responsible. Designer pesticides?! Thanks, Monsanto! (NOT!)

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  193. Blaming everything on global warming is NOT good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's potentially disastrous.

    If you just assume that every bad thing that happens in nature was caused by global warming then you're most likely going to over look any solutions to the problem.

    It's not a safe assumption.