Climate Case Studies – The 2010 Russian Heat Wave: Risks (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 11:12 PM GMT on October 24, 2011

Share this Blog
15
+

Climate Case Studies – The 2010 Russian Heat Wave: Risks (2)

In the last article I wrote about the March 11, 2011 earthquake in Tohoku, Japan. There are two points I want to bring forward from that entry. The first is to reiterate that our world exists in many systems with fragile balance. The second is that all of these systems are connected. In the last entry I followed one thread of global consequences and risks, including climate risks, following from an earthquake that is localized on the coast of a single island in Japan.

In the past couple of years nature has provided us many examples of case studies to appreciate the risks associated with climate and weather. In this entry, I want to revisit the 2010 Russian heat wave. The heat wave was at its peak in early August 2010. The direct impact of this historic heat wave and drought was many thousands of deaths and massive fires.

Even as early as July 16, 2010 many millions of acres of crops in Russia had been destroyed. By August 16, 2010 the cost of the drought and heat was estimated at 15,000 lives and 15 billion dollars. By August 3, 2010 wheat prices had increased dramatically and were on their way to doubling. In August 2010 Russia imposed a ban on wheat exports.

There has been significant analysis of this series of events. In June 2011 Oxfam produced a report (author George Welton) that looked directly at the consequences of Russia’s grain export ban. Intuition is that the export ban would be to protect the grain supply and cost within Russia. In an absolute sense, this was not realized, and prices of both grain and bread increased in Russia. Because of disproportionate impact on the poor, the rate of poverty increased. Internationally, wheat prices were pushed up. Two of the countries that buy much grain from Russia are Egypt and Pakistan. Within Egypt there was great stress on government, and the government committed to subsidies to try to maintain the low cost of bread. In Pakistan the cost of bread increased on the order of 15%.

The conclusion of the Oxfam report is that the cost of wheat and the damage of the drought and the heat wave both in Russia and outside of Russia would have been less if there had been no ban on exports. At least as early as August 19, 2010 an article in the Financial Times was stating that the markets responded more strongly to historical market behavior than it responded to the reality of the grain supplies. In the Financial Times article it is maintained, for example, that Egypt started buying up wheat early in August, driving up prices, in anticipation of a Russian export ban – consistent with previous behavior. (From the point of view of wheat farmers in, say, Colorado in 2010, impact of the Russian drought and embargo … June Low to August High)

What strikes me is that in the short term, a large impact of weather extremes is on markets. This impact is not directly related to the actual amount of grain deficiency caused by the weather extreme. Rather it is related to humans trying to find advantage or avoid perceived risk in the market. People are anticipating changes in not only wheat supply, but also changes in behavior. They are betting. This stands in contrast to the idea that because a quantity such as wheat operates in a global market that wheat would be relatively immune to such climate extremes. That is deficiencies in one place would be offset by surpluses in other places with the cost minimized by market forces. Perhaps this is true in the longer term, but damage has already occurred to those who are vulnerable.

Let’s continue: The winter of 2010 and the spring of 2011 were characterized by very high food prices. An essay by Sarah Johnstone and Jeffrey Mazo entitled, Global Warming and Arab Spring, draws a convincing line that the pressure on food prices was a contributor to the start of the revolutions of the Arab Spring – the tumultuous uprising against many Arab governments. (also here) To diffuse the arguments that are sure to follow – this was a contributor, along with many other factors that came together to fuel a movement. This is the idea of climate extremes as a threat multiplier.

When we talk about climate change and global warming, we often talk of it in the future. We talk about droughts and floods. But the consequence of droughts and floods include damage to crops and damage to cities. The impacts are local and direct, for some, but beyond the immediate, local impacts are the impacts through markets, budgets, and political systems. As these impacts tumble across the world, the results are unpredictable.

The reality of global warming is that events such as the Russian heat wave occur more frequently. The markets connect events globally. They connect parts of the world with agricultural excesses and deficiencies – but, if droughts and floods are more frequent and more extreme, then markets connect deficiencies with deficiencies. The impact of climate change is more disruption, more instability – a threat multiplier.

r





Figure 1: A woman sits surrounded by the remains of her home in the Russian village of Mokhovoye on July 31, 2010. (From Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty)


Some other interesting references.

Food Security and Russia’s 2010 Drought

Internal Political Ramifications of 2010 Drought and Heat Wave

Changes in Russian Views on Global Warming?

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 288 - 238

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

288. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:17 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting WoodyFL:
Someone killed the blog. It was getting interesting.


New blog.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
287. WoodyFL
3:58 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Someone killed the blog. It was getting interesting.
Member Since: April 24, 2011 Posts: 1 Comments: 601
286. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:30 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting PurpleDrank:
99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth are extinct.


Are we batting for a 1000?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
285. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:29 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
By the way,we have an asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier passing within 200,000 miles of earth! Close call by space standards!


That is correct. Very close, indeed. This is only slightly outside of our moon's orbit.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
284. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:27 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
If we have a rapidly warming Earth,one would think the oceans would rise from all the glacial melt and sea temps getting warmer. I have yet to see for myself any increase in sea level. My observation anyway,50 years of it,take it for what it's worth.


"Rapid" warming, in a geological sense. No one is talking about "rapid" in the sense of a generation. When climate changes faster than species are able to adapt, you will see the extinction of many species. Let us say it would compare to the lobster in a slowly warming pot of water. You do not know you are cooking until, well, you are cooked. ..... Roll that famous lobster boiling footage, cyclonebuster! I believe it is time to do so again.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
283. overwash12
3:23 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
By the way,we have an asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier passing within 200,000 miles of earth! Close call by space standards!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
282. overwash12
3:18 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
If we have a rapidly warming Earth,one would think the oceans would rise from all the glacial melt and sea temps getting warmer. I have yet to see for myself any increase in sea level. My observation anyway,50 years of it,take it for what it's worth.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
281. PurpleDrank
3:13 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
99.9 percent of all species that have existed on Earth are extinct.
Member Since: August 17, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 730
280. Xandra
3:03 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting LagoMar:
Climate will continue to change. It's a big cycle. Glad some have figured out that "Global Warming" is a hoax. Ask folks on the east coast who have never experienced snow in October. Now enjoying it in FEET! We'll be back in the warm cycle in a few years. I'm looking forward to it.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
279. Patrap
2:32 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Preliminary IPCC report predicts increased weather extremes

Posted by: JeffMasters, 9:26 AM CDT on November 03, 2011


There is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of human-caused releases of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, and some types of extreme weather events will increase in the coming decades as huge cost, says a preliminary draft of an international climate report leaked to the Associated Press (AP) this week.

The Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issues reports on the state of the scientific knowledge of climate change every six years, with the next full report due out in 2013. However, the IPCC is working on a special report detailing the evidence that extreme weather events may be increasing due to climate change, and how we might best prepare for the coming increase in these costly and dangerous events. The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters (SREX) is due to be released later this month, after a meeting in Uganda, where diplomats will recommend changes to the preliminary document leaked to AP.

The IPCC requires that all countries agree unanimously on the content of the official reports, so the language of the leaked report may undergo considerable change. In the AP article, University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who was not among the authors, is quoted as saying that the report was written to be %u201Cso bland%u201D that it may not matter to world leaders. With the diplomats free to make changes to the report, I think it is likely that the already bland SREX report will be further watered down.

Despite all the objections one hears about the extreme and dire predictions of the IPCC, the science in these reports is actually very conservative and watered down, due to the requirement that the language must be approved by every country (including oil producing nations such as Saudi Arabia.) So, it should grab our attention that the preliminary draft of the SREX report predicts that some regions of the world might suffer extremes so severe as to leave them "increasingly marginal places to live", heat waves could peak at 5 F hotter by 2050 and 9 F hotter by 2100, and intense single-day rainstorms that happen only once every twenty years now will happen up to once every five years by 2100. I'll have more on the SREX report after its official release.

Jeff Masters
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
278. Neapolitan
2:10 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting WoodyFL:


Thank you for the article. I just found one myself from National Geographic. Really interesting article that brought up points I never thought of. I guess we should not just concentrate on temperatures readings. It appears to be a much more complicated situation. This is a very good article, too! I bet even Neapolitan might find it of interest.





Link

I'd already read that NG article, and many others on the same subject. And of course there is much more than temperature readings; I've written many blog posts and comments about ocean acidification, about the migration and extinction of species, about changing precipitation patterns, about the effect all of this will have on societies, and so on. It's just that temperature records are one very visible and easy-to-understand indicator, so I do spend time on them here on WU.

It's been my belief, and still is, that the worst problem humanity faces is the rapidly warming climate. There may be nations involved in wars or political infighting that face more immediate individual threats, but for the world as a whole, this is bad. Very bad.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
277. WoodyFL
1:57 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting Xandra:

Joe Romm has written an easy to read/understand post about it.

Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans - Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way


Thank you for the article. I just found one myself from National Geographic. Really interesting article that brought up points I never thought of. I guess we should not just concentrate on temperatures readings. It appears to be a much more complicated situation. This is a very good article, too! I bet even Neapolitan might find it of interest.





Link
Member Since: April 24, 2011 Posts: 1 Comments: 601
276. Xandra
1:45 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting WoodyFL:
I would enjoy reading an article by you about the 'Missing Carbon". I can't remember where, but I remember reading a few articles that scientists were only able to account for about 50% of the carbon emissions. Where is the other 50% going?

Joe Romm has written an easy to read/understand post about it.

Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans - Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
275. Neapolitan
1:43 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting LagoMar:
Neapolitan;

There has been plenty of moisture over the years in October. But it has always been rain. The difference is not the amount of moisture, but the temperature. Even a scientist can figure out that it needs to be colder to snow.

The fact is, it has been colder than average on the US east coast over the last 2 winters. The summers have been warmer than average. But I'm not about to say that what has happened on the US east coast or any one area should be classified as "global."

Globally, it is becoming more and more urban, and you will always have a bump in temperature in urban areas. The more urban sprawl we get, the higher the average temperature will be. You can use "science" and "statistics" to prove absolutely anything you want. Elephants can dangle from a cliff by their tail.

I actually do believe that some day in the future, we will have a dramatic change in our climate which will, indeed cause a worldwide crisis. I've seen no evidence of that occurring yet. All I've seen is a lot of people with a short memory and a flare for drama.

BTW, while I agree that cancer is real, the "cure" truly is a hoax. Doctors seem to kill people off with Chemo quicker than they'd die naturally. But that's an entirely different subject.

As I noted yesterday, in the entire three-day duration of the Great October Snowstorm of 2011, there were nearly 300 snowfall records broken--and only one single cold record. Which is to say, whatever was the driver behind this weekend's crazy snowfall, it obviously wasn't unprecedented cold.

The entire BEST project has validated yet again that the Urban Heat Island effect has had only a negligible--and practically undetectable--effect on overall temperatures. Which is to say, it's getting warmer year by year, and it's not because of cities.

We are experiencing "a dramatic change in our climate which will, indeed cause a worldwide crisis". In all the fossil record going back as far as humans can see, the planet's overall temperature has never changed as drastically as it is right now without major and severe disruptions to the biosphere. Never. Some past extinction-level events have seen temps rise at a rate 10 to 20 times slower than they are right now, yet extinction-level events they were.

Bottom line: the planet is getting warmer, and that's mostly--if not entirely--due to increasing concentrations of CO2 from our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels. Some may debate that previous sentence on political or ideological or financial or religious grounds, but an overwhleming (and increasing) majority of scientists are convinced of its correctness.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
274. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:30 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting LagoMar:
Neapolitan;

There has been plenty of moisture over the years in October. But it has always been rain. The difference is not the amount of moisture, but the temperature. Even a scientist can figure out that it needs to be colder to snow.

The fact is, it has been colder than average on the US east coast over the last 2 winters. The summers have been warmer than average. But I'm not about to say that what has happened on the US east coast or any one area should be classified as "global."

Globally, it is becoming more and more urban, and you will always have a bump in temperature in urban areas. The more urban sprawl we get, the higher the average temperature will be. You can use "science" and "statistics" to prove absolutely anything you want. Elephants can dangle from a cliff by their tail.

I actually do believe that some day in the future, we will have a dramatic change in our climate which will, indeed cause a worldwide crisis. I've seen no evidence of that occurring yet. All I've seen is a lot of people with a short memory and a flare for drama.

BTW, while I agree that cancer is real, the "cure" truly is a hoax. Doctors seem to kill people off with Chemo quicker than they'd die naturally. But that's an entirely different subject.


I believe that Richard Muller had determined that the data shows the rural warming was on par with the urban warming. This was stated in the BEST report. The warming of the "urban island effect" was found to be happening in the rural areas as well. Please, correct me, if I am wrong.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
273. LagoMar
1:16 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Neapolitan;

There has been plenty of moisture over the years in October. But it has always been rain. The difference is not the amount of moisture, but the temperature. Even a scientist can figure out that it needs to be colder to snow.

The fact is, it has been colder than average on the US east coast over the last 2 winters. The summers have been warmer than average. But I'm not about to say that what has happened on the US east coast or any one area should be classified as "global."

Globally, it is becoming more and more urban, and you will always have a bump in temperature in urban areas. The more urban sprawl we get, the higher the average temperature will be. You can use "science" and "statistics" to prove absolutely anything you want. Elephants can dangle from a cliff by their tail.

I actually do believe that some day in the future, we will have a dramatic change in our climate which will, indeed cause a worldwide crisis. I've seen no evidence of that occurring yet. All I've seen is a lot of people with a short memory and a flare for drama.

BTW, while I agree that cancer is real, the "cure" truly is a hoax. Doctors seem to kill people off with Chemo quicker than they'd die naturally. But that's an entirely different subject.
Member Since: October 19, 2011 Posts: 75 Comments: 29
272. WoodyFL
12:57 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
I would enjoy reading an article by you about the 'Missing Carbon". I can't remember where, but I remember reading a few articles that scientists were only able to account for about 50% of the carbon emissions. Where is the other 50% going? I have read many articles that state that while trees and plants do absorb the carbon and grow faster, this could actually be a detrimental effect in the long term, leading to disease of the plants and actually weaken them. Instead of graphs showing warming temperatures (which most people do not understand anyway) it would be an interesting read to see research on the immediate ecological affects of a warming world. I would do it, but I do not know enough about the science of it.
Member Since: April 24, 2011 Posts: 1 Comments: 601
271. Neapolitan
12:22 PM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting Xandra:
Baked Curry: The BEST Way to Hide the Incline




SkS about the Hide the Incline graph from Global Warming Policy Foundation:

..."While the March 2010 anomaly was based on 14,488 stations, April and May were based on only 47 stations, all in the Antarctic"...


The more Curry talks, the more she loses the credibility she once had.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
269. Neapolitan
10:00 AM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting LagoMar:
Climate will continue to change.

This is true; it will continue to get warmer, and warmer, and warmer, just as it's been doing for decades.
Quoting LagoMar:
It's a big cycle.

It's true that there are many natural cycles that induce variation. However, the introduction of massive quantities of CO2 is allowing warming to override those natural variations, which is why heating has been more or less steady for decades.
Quoting LagoMar:
Glad some have figured out that "Global Warming" is a hoax.

This may be true--but none of those who have done so are climate scientists. I'm sure "some have figured out that 'cancer' is a hoax"--but I sure wouldn't want them operating on my brain.
Quoting LagoMar:
Ask folks on the east coast who have never experienced snow in October.

If they're Fox viewers, they're very likely unaware of the direct correlation between a warming atmosphere and its ability to hold more precipitable moisture.
Quoting LagoMar:
Now enjoying it in FEET!

As above. AGW increases precipitation of all kinds--inlcuding, yes, snow.
Quoting LagoMar:
We'll be back in the warm cycle in a few years.

That's like saying, "The economy will be bad in a few years."
Quoting LagoMar:
I'm looking forward to it.

Ignorance is bliss, I suppose. But scientists aren't looking forward to it. Neither is anyone else who's kept abreast of the science. It's going to be bad.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
268. Xandra
9:56 AM GMT on November 03, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Strange. I believe that the even The Global Warming Foundation is in disagreement with Professor Judith Curry - The Global Warming Foundation - About Us - I also could not locate the "graph" that Professor Curry speaks of on The Global Warming Foundation website. Do you have the link?

Yes that’s right. The Global Warming Foundation is in disagreement with Curry. The graph is from Global Warming Policy Foundation and David Whitehouse article.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
266. LagoMar
3:16 AM GMT on November 03, 2011
Climate will continue to change. It's a big cycle. Glad some have figured out that "Global Warming" is a hoax. Ask folks on the east coast who have never experienced snow in October. Now enjoying it in FEET! We'll be back in the warm cycle in a few years. I'm looking forward to it.
Member Since: October 19, 2011 Posts: 75 Comments: 29
265. cyclonebuster
2:30 AM GMT on November 03, 2011
Tunnels prevent this.

<>img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
264. Some1Has2BtheRookie
11:59 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting martinitony:


The Congress spends the money. The Congress managed a surplus in the latter years of the Clinton administration, after the Republicans took control of Congress and the purse strings, and that's a fact , also.


True enough that this happened when the Republicans controlled Congress. This was done under The Balanced Budget Act and guess who signed the act into law. You cannot claim that it was done as a political move to be re-elected. He was already in his second term, at the time.

Guess which administration ended it. ... Facts!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
263. martinitony
9:56 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting Chicklit:

The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. This is a fact.


The Congress spends the money. The Congress managed a surplus in the latter years of the Clinton administration, after the Republicans took control of Congress and the purse strings, and that's a fact , also.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
262. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:04 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting LargoFl:
interesting question, i just watched a history channel program about comets that hit the earth and one of them, hit mexico and the gulf, an impact like that would have made a massive, unheard of heights, tidal wave that would have washed all sea life northward and all around its impact site for hundreds of miles, one possible answer to your question, maybe


That happened around 65,000,000,000 years ago and believed to have been a major contributor to the last mass extinction. This also led to the demise of the dinosaurs. ... Still, that does not rule out that a massive tsunami could not have laid a small layer of marine life along the interior of the east coast. Overwash12 did not say if it was a deep or shallow layered zone of marine shells. He just stated that the shells were found 25 feet below grade. You would have to date this layer to see if coincided with the timing of the meteor strike. Just my thoughts.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
261. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:55 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
If anyone believes the U.S. Gov't had a surplus,they are in denial! I strongly suggest a trip to the shrink.lol


They had a surplus, in the sense that the government was taking in more than it was spending. G.W. Bush even campaigned on this in 2000. He said the surplus is your money - meaning the tax payers - and not theirs - meaning the government. He said that the surplus should go back to the people that know better how to spend their own money. ... Ah, yes. Those were the days. The people had jobs and the government operated on a surplus!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
260. LargoFl
7:53 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting LargoFl:
interesting question, i just watched a history channel program about comets that hit the earth and one of them, hit mexico and the gulf, an impact like that would have made a massive, unheard of heights, tidal wave that would have washed all sea life northward and all around its impact site for hundreds of miles, one possible answer to your question, maybe
sorry didn not finish, there were other comet strikes all over the world,some maybe even stronger, and they do not know, just how many strikes happen in the oceans..but if you check the strikes map on the internet, they are everywhere on earth, the ones found so far..so finding shells far far inland, isnt surprising
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 33473
259. LargoFl
7:50 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
Nea,my point was: Before the permafrost we had unfrozen land where tundra is now. Maybe a shift in the Earth axis,I don't know. But it was certainly warmer up there than it is now. WE had global warming before. My backyard neighbor(who owns a vineyard) dug an irrigation pond that is 25ft. deep. He found whole conch shells,how did they get there? We were covered by 100 to 200 feet of ocean at one time.
interesting question, i just watched a history channel program about comets that hit the earth and one of them, hit mexico and the gulf, an impact like that would have made a massive, unheard of heights, tidal wave that would have washed all sea life northward and all around its impact site for hundreds of miles, one possible answer to your question, maybe
Member Since: August 6, 2011 Posts: 4 Comments: 33473
258. Xandra
6:59 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:
A good day for science, scientists, and Michael Mann:

Climate change scientist Michael Mann fends off sceptic group's raid on emails
Judge revokes permission of sceptic thinktank American Tradition Institute to look at private University of Virginia emails


It's not the war, but it's a darn good battle.

Mike Mann’s Thank You Letter to Supporters


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1244
257. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:52 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting Chicklit:
Some of these discussions remind me of what Copernicus and other informed scientists must have thought once it was determined that the earth is round.


He was probably thinking, "What took you so long to figure that out?! We have been telling you .... for how long now???". Or, something along those lines.

Some much touch the glowing, red iron to determine that it really is hot. .... Some would just say, "So! Has it not been hot before?". ...sigh
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
256. Chicklit
5:50 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
If anyone believes the U.S. Gov't had a surplus,they are in denial! I strongly suggest a trip to the shrink.lol

The budget was balanced during the Clinton administration. This is a fact.
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
255. overwash12
5:31 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting petewxwatcher:


Arthur Laffer has been proven wrong in every case.

In 1982 tax collections went down and by 1983 we had a record deficit.

In 2001 Bush passed and enacted tax cuts when we had a surplus. Two years later we had record deficits and unemployment had almost doubled.

How bout 1993 when Clinton raised taxes? The economy had its greatest boom in a generation.

Deniers believe all kinds of crazy, false nonsense.

Must be all the PurpleDrank they drink. The dude with the drug pusher handle is back.
If anyone believes the U.S. Gov't had a surplus,they are in denial! I strongly suggest a trip to the shrink.lol
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
254. Chicklit
5:28 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Some of these discussions remind me of what Copernicus and other informed scientists must have thought once it was determined that the earth is round.
Member Since: July 11, 2006 Posts: 14 Comments: 11047
253. overwash12
5:18 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Nea,my point was: Before the permafrost we had unfrozen land where tundra is now. Maybe a shift in the Earth axis,I don't know. But it was certainly warmer up there than it is now. WE had global warming before. My backyard neighbor(who owns a vineyard) dug an irrigation pond that is 25ft. deep. He found whole conch shells,how did they get there? We were covered by 100 to 200 feet of ocean at one time.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
252. Some1Has2BtheRookie
4:56 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
Good morning,Rookie! I don't even know who Judith Curry is,maybe she has an axe to grind!LOL


Certainly we can find something to debate? Are we able to debate if these debates are getting anywhere? LOL

Take care, overwash12. I am pleased to see that you are still here! And, no. That is not debatable. ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
251. petewxwatcher
4:29 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting theshepherd:


One should not publish the entirety of one's research from a single Climate Change friendly and fund-seeking publishing such as Oxfam, nor depend solely on Dr Rood's site as any Empirical view of what was indeed worse times in Russia.

Times were been tougher there prior to the hockey stick.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/68b02d34-cfcf-11df-bb9e -00144feab49a.html#axzz1cVfUaTjT

Throughout history Russia has put Russia first.

And throughout history Art Laffler has been proven correct.

No amount of juggling can sugar coat a 30% loss of crops.





Arthur Laffer has been proven wrong in every case.

In 1982 tax collections went down and by 1983 we had a record deficit.

In 2001 Bush passed and enacted tax cuts when we had a surplus. Two years later we had record deficits and unemployment had almost doubled.

How bout 1993 when Clinton raised taxes? The economy had its greatest boom in a generation.

Deniers believe all kinds of crazy, false nonsense.

Must be all the PurpleDrank they drink. The dude with the drug pusher handle is back.
Member Since: March 24, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 392
250. Neapolitan
4:28 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
1) Underground vents(mini -volcanoes) cause high sulfuric acid in the immediate area they disperse. 2) first time ever? permafrost melts and exposes a baby wooly mammoth,this means it froze suddenly! 3) I agree,burning fossils fuels is not good for the environment

1) Yes...but at only a fraction of a single percent of that needed to account for the globe-wide acidification.

2) I wrote "...what's causing permafrost tens of thousands of years old to thaw for the first time ever" Sorry to anyone confused by that; I thought it was pretty clear that I meant those permafrosts are thawing en masse for the first time since they froze thousands of years ago. You know, back when woolly mammoths roamed the terrain.

3) Agreed--but an understatment akin to "being shot in the head at close range by a 12 gauge is not good for you".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
249. overwash12
4:11 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:



Good morning, overwash12!


"If", is the operative word here. There are some that will say the warming has stopped and yet I have not seen any credible evidence of such. Even Professor Judith Curry, from PurpleDrank's post, is contradicted by the very organization she cites as supporting her findings. That does not bode well for Professor Curry. See post# 238

Don't worry though. We will always find topics to debate. We can even debate if Professor Judith Curry is correct in her statements.
Good morning,Rookie! I don't even know who Judith Curry is,maybe she has an axe to grind!LOL
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
248. overwash12
4:09 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting Neapolitan:

It's just another iteration of a banned but still unhealthily-obsessed member. His name is Legion.

If global warming has stopped, we'll have to debate what's causing the deep oceans to heat up; what's causing Arctic Sea ice to disappear and thin; what's causing acidification of the planet's oceans; what's causing most glaciers and ice caps to melt; what's causing the increasing number of extreme weather events; what's causing the record-breaking heat waves; what's causing the record-breaking droughts; what's causing sea levels to rise; what's causing permafrost tens of thousands of years old to thaw for the first time ever; what's causing massive wildfires and dust storms; what's causing species to disappear; what's causing so many species to suddenly migrate after thousands of years in the same location; and on; and on; and on...

In short, if global warming is over with as some uber-denialists claim, we'll have our hands full trying to explain by just what magical and mysterious mechanism are all those things above are happening...
1) Underground vents(mini -volcanoes) cause high sulfuric acid in the immediate area they disperse. 2) first time ever? permafrost melts and exposes a baby wooly mammoth,this means it froze suddenly! 3) I agree,burning fossils fuels is not good for the environment
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1437
246. Patrap
4:04 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Indicators of Climate Change


Uploaded by CarolLin98 on Apr 6, 2011

This vodcast was produced with support from the Ohio Environmental Education Fund, in partnership with Ohio Interfaith Power & Light and the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
244. Patrap
3:56 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Global Climate Change Indicators
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Climatic Data Center


Many lines of scientific evidence show the Earth's climate is changing. This page presents the latest information from several independent measures of observed climate change that illustrate an overwhelmingly compelling story of a planet that is undergoing global warming. It is worth noting that increasing global temperature is only one element of observed global climate change. Precipitation patterns are also changing; storms and other extremes are changing as well.

How do we know the Earth's climate is warming?
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.

These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change. A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.

The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
243. Patrap
3:51 PM GMT on November 02, 2011


ESL by LSU


Southern Regional Climate Center

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125715
242. AlwaysThinkin
3:39 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
From Judith's own mouth about the David Rose quotes (from the comments section on October 30, 2011 at 1:49 PM in response to Neven):
Well, I have a rule about not talking to reporters on the phone, asking for submitted questions and I respond by email. Its a rule I extremely rarely break, and Rose caught me on the phone and I spoke with him. Back to enforcing my rule.

You can read the entry here:
Link
and as a bonus Tamino taking her credibility and running it through a paper shredder several times:
Link
Oh and it turns out this isn't the first time David Rose has purposely misquoted scientists that's his schtick
Link
And guess what he was doing before purposely misquoting scientists? Helping to get the British tangled up in the Iraq war through bad journalism!
Link
Ooooops!
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 301
241. cyclonebuster
3:12 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Tunnels PROVE global warming skeptics wrong.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
240. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:08 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting overwash12:
If global warming has stopped,what will we debate?



Good morning, overwash12!


"If", is the operative word here. There are some that will say the warming has stopped and yet I have not seen any credible evidence of such. Even Professor Judith Curry, from PurpleDrank's post, is contradicted by the very organization she cites as supporting her findings. That does not bode well for Professor Curry. See post# 238

Don't worry though. We will always find topics to debate. We can even debate if Professor Judith Curry is correct in her statements.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
239. Neapolitan
3:01 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Well, it appears that we have a class act in town. We needed someone that is lacking in social skills and believes that they add to the conversation with derogatory remarks towards other bloggers. .... sigh Yep! That ought to solve everything.

It's just another iteration of a banned but still unhealthily-obsessed member. His name is Legion.
Quoting overwash12:
If global warming has stopped,what will we debate?

If global warming has stopped, we'll have to debate what's causing the deep oceans to heat up; what's causing Arctic Sea ice to disappear and thin; what's causing acidification of the planet's oceans; what's causing most glaciers and ice caps to melt; what's causing the increasing number of extreme weather events; what's causing the record-breaking heat waves; what's causing the record-breaking droughts; what's causing sea levels to rise; what's causing permafrost tens of thousands of years old to thaw for the first time ever; what's causing massive wildfires and dust storms; what's causing species to disappear; what's causing so many species to suddenly migrate after thousands of years in the same location; and on; and on; and on...

In short, if global warming is over with as some uber-denialists claim, we'll have our hands full trying to explain by just what magical and mysterious mechanism are all those things above are happening...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13306
238. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:01 PM GMT on November 02, 2011
Quoting PurpleDrank:
GLOBAL WARMING IS OVER, SAYS EXPERT

Wednesday November 2,2011

By Julie Carpenter

New research also seems to back up Prof Curry rather than Prof Muller.

A report published by the Global Warming Foundation, which is based on BEST’s findings, includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past 10 years and it is absolutely flat, suggesting that temperatures have remained constant.


Strange. I believe that the even The Global Warming Foundation is in disagreement with Professor Judith Curry - The Global Warming Foundation - About Us - I also could not locate the "graph" that Professor Curry speaks of on The Global Warming Foundation website. Do you have the link?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728

Viewing: 288 - 238

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.