Not Like My Father's: Farmers (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:52 AM GMT on June 10, 2013

Share this Blog
21
+

Not Like My Father’s: Farmers (2)

I want to continue in the personal and spontaneous spirit of the last blog. I heard a lecture recently talking about climate change and farming. The speaker made the comment that the climate was changing fast enough that a family farmer could not count on the weather being the same as his father’s.

Many of the discussions I have heard about farming and climate change start with a discussion of drought and that we expect more frequent and more severe droughts in the future. Flood is also mentioned, but anecdotally at least, we think of flood as more localized than drought. We also hear about warmer and earlier springs and, hence, longer growing seasons. This potential opportunity is muted by concerns that even if there is more precipitation that a warmer climate will cause more water stress for crops. In general, the farmer will have to manage more variable and more extreme weather.

We are already in a time of rapidly changing climate. The first decade of this century was the warmest recorded, and it has been many years since the monthly average of the Earth’s surface was cooler than the 20th century average. For the northern hemisphere, this warming has led to a lengthening of the growing season, as defined by frost-free days. Farmers have already adapted by planting earlier with seed developed to take advantage of these changes or to survive despite them. The last thirty years have also been a time when the rhythm of precipitation has changed. We see more precipitation in intense storms and changes in the seasonal cycle of the availability of fresh water.

I was recently on a telecon with some scientists from the Department of Agriculture. I learned that in recent years, heavy spring rains had been inhibiting spring planting. There have been problems with getting heavy equipment into the field. The amount of time when the soil moisture is right for both holding up the equipment and providing a good seedbed is becoming shorter (news link). The likelihood of seedlings being washed out by intense rains is increasing. Curiously to me, one response to this has been to build still bigger equipment so that more can be planted in the shorter amount of time that is available.

What I described in the previous paragraph is not something that is projected for the future; it is already happening (Impacts of Climate Change on Illinois Agriculture). Farmers and manufacturers see what is happening, and they adapt. This adaptation to perceived changes is real, costly and much more concrete than the abstract threats of more drought and more flood. Another real issue that we already respond to is the warm spell in spring that causes budburst of orchards, followed by a freeze that wipes out a crop.

Events such as the wet spring, budburst and crop loss, flooding out a crop are not new to farmers. What is new is how often such events are happening. It is also new that the places where the events are occurring are changing.

I grew up in the South of the United States, which is a four-season climate. I remember throughout my childhood peach crops that were wiped out by a late frost. In fact, almost every year there was concern in some part of the South of a swath of peaches being wiped out. And that is an interesting fact of climate variability and farming: There is almost always weather-related damage some place. In a country and rich as the United States, other regions of plenty mostly balance out these places of loss. It is this balance of agricultural plenty and loss that leads some to say that when viewed as a global or national market, agriculture is resilient to climate change.

If this collective agriculture is, in fact, resilient to climate change, this assumes either 1) the future climate is, on average, like our father’s climate or 2) we effectively adapt to climate as it changes. A confidence in agricultural resilience assumes that what resilience we have built in the past transfers into the future. Even if agriculture is collectively resilient, locally there is boom and bust.

In the South, precipitation is spread out across all of the seasons. Irrigated farming is the exception, not the rule. Southerners do not worry about water being stored in snow and dribbling out to use as it melted in the spring and the summer. As I have grown older and traveled and moved, I found out that much of the world does not have four seasons with rain spread throughout the year. Much of the world has a wet season and a dry season. Many parts of the world rely on water being stored as snow on high mountains, lasting into spring and melting to be used for agriculture in the warm season.

Scientists call being able to rely on having our father’s climate “stationarity.” If the climate were stationary, then in the future the averages and the extremes would be the same. To describe stationarity, scientists often use figures that describe the statistical distribution of “climate” or perhaps more correctly of temperature and precipitation. We talk about the average temperature increasing. We talk about average precipitation increasing or decreasing, depending on the region. We often talk about the “extremes,” especially extremely hot temperatures increasing. Precipitation extremes might increase either as prolonged drought or as intense rain and snowstorms. The changes in the statistical distribution of parameters that measure climate describe the lack of stationarity.

The normal ways that we talk about extremes do not always convey the way we are feeling climate change. The seasonality, the rhythm, the ebb and flow this is changing and felt in those muddy fields that preclude farm equipment and endanger planting. The change in seasonality is felt in intense winter snowstorms, followed by winter rains and early spring causing water to run through the ditches, rivers and reservoirs and to be unavailable for summer growing. The changes in seasonality are felt in an increasing number of early budbursts followed by the killing frost. This change in seasonality is as much a change in stationarity as any change in the average and mean temperature. In fact, the change of the rhythm of seasons can occur with very little change to the statistical description of averages and extremes. It might not even seem hotter.

How to cope with a climate that is not stationary is a major challenge for agriculture (and engineering). Deep within our planning for the future is the assumption that weather will remain the same – it will be like our father’s and mother’s weather. This is no longer the case.

r

Some good references:

Impacts of Climate Change on Illinois Agriculture

Farming Success in an Uncertain Future (Cornell)

Reinventing Farming for a Changing Climate (NPR)

Farm Level Adjustments to Climate Change (USDA)

Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change and Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Multiple Risks both chapters in Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region (Dietz and Bidwell)

Barnett: Climate Change and Water and Snow Availability

Milly: Stationarity is Dead

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: 666 - 616

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28Blog Index

And some of the heat is going here...GOM is really starting to heat up now..It does not bode well for hurricane season...

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Very well said.

And, it's not like we can simply agree to disagree and then go home to sleep on separate planets.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world.

When we deal with those that will not or can use critical thinking in their inquiries and responses then we are left without a line of communications and a way to reach common grounds. When alternatives are offered as a possible way to adapt to climate change or to remove ourselves from the finite energy resources we are presented with reasons as to why this cannot or should not be done because of one problem or another associated with a said proposal. They act as if a perfect solution must be found before the status quo is interrupted or we risk it all on an alternative. How does one reason with those that refuse to use critical thinking?


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
RE:661

See the heat goes there too..


Quoting JohnLonergan:







Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting zampaz:
Greenland Melt
-z


Scary
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Whilst surfing thru the snark sites I found this tribute to WTFUWT.

"Congratulations to the world's premier anti-science site
TWUT recently passed the 150 billion counter mark as seen by the far right.

Guest Post By Ra Ra Rasputin, the third Mad Monckton Of Park Bench


The world's most viewed site on anti-science garbage has recently passed the 150 billion hits mark so may I be the first to congratulate Willard on managing to get every single person on the planet to view the site, some of them more than once.

Of course, far be it from me to produce another list free from real content but I'm going to do it anyway. Let me know when all you can see are my toenails.

The reason the site has been so successful is simple. But that's enough about the repeat visitors. Here's some ideas I had while eating my soft boiled egg with toasty soldiers this morning:

It posts cherry picked pseudoscience devoid of real references and open to such simple criticism that any simpleton can debunk it
It distorts the science and economics of climate change, and if that doesn't convince, it goes for name calling. And it doesn't give a stuff about polar bears.



It does not take sides. One side is enough.
It does not censor any comments by anyone critical of it, except when it does. Then it also resorts to name calling.
It is about as tolerant of trolls as my hay fever suffering granddaughter is of grass pollen.
It is unfailingly honest, to the point that when mistakes are discovered, they are either totally ignored or whole posts are deleted without acknowledgement of the fact.
It is bang up to date. So many things are posted in a single day that you can't hope to keep up with which one is the most stupid. And occasionally something from 1993 is posted without Willard spotting it.
It never gets off the point, except when Willard thinks he is being funny and Wallace and Gromit are off their heads on cheese again.
No tax payers money goes into it. Not a cent. Instead it is paid for by dodgy charities with multinational oil and tobacco money behind them.
It is totally ramshackle. It looks like someone has knocked it up as a 4th grade project in computing.
Above all, I can read it all day long and no one thinks I am reading Fifty Shades Of Green."

[Note: This is unsolicited garbage by Rasputin. I didn't ask him to write it but since he had a spare couple of minutes while the butler put the olive oil spread on his muffins and couldn't think of anything else to do, I thought it was kindest to humour him and post it when he sent such a sycophantic, gushing and downright brown-nosing piece to me via email - Willard]
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Greenland Melt
-z
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
I spotted this image in the comments at Neven's ASIB:
Commenter Werther writes:

"ASMR2 today has 38 open sea (less than 10% ice) pixels on it’s map. Coming from 6-8 a couple of days ago. The jpg-map pixel is about 80 km2.
To cross-examine, I took to MODIS. I picked this detail:



Some faint, high clouds stretch over the SW quadrant of the detail. Lots of open water. What looks like a floe (that's why I placed the ?; you can hardly call it a floe...) on the 1km resolution appears to be a cluttered collection of debris. Reminds me of Wayne’s description of this FYI rapidly being reduced into its original pancake forms of freezing up last September/October.

It looks like the briny structure of these bits and pieces is easily falling apart in the new, dynamic properties of the CAB.

The role of atmospheric temps hasn’t been very important up to today. As for the top ocean layer, I suspect it is rapidly collecting insolation now. Two days ago on the Forum, I estimated the grinded rubble to be between 65 and 150 cm thick. Now, I think it’s near the low side of that. When the warmth really kicks in, it will be gone in ten days."


That ice looks like the stuff floating around in my drink.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Quoting ScottLincoln:

I guess I've always thought that the world is what we make of it. If it isnt fair, it's because we've made it - and maintained it - that way.


As Johnny Cash put it:

I don't like it but I guess things happen that way.


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Quoting ScottLincoln:

I guess I've always thought that the world is what we make it. If it isnt fair, it's because we've made it - and maintained it - that way.

Someone once asked Richard Feynman (a Nobel physicist) if he was uncomfortable with the paradoxes that quantum physics present. I liked his response.
Paraphrasing his response:
"I haven't thought about it. It is what is is. It doesn't matter whether I like it or not."
-z
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world.

Read the comments section as well - Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and this is what we face everyday.

I guess I've always thought that the world is what we make of it. If it isnt fair, it's because we've made it - and maintained it - that way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



If we are past the tipping point then adapt......it's like cutting a tree once it starts falling it's going to hit the ground.....best thing you can do is make sure you are not in the path of the tree.....

Rather difficult to avoid the falling tree when it happens to be the atmosphere. We will adapt. We will build levees and sea walls and storm shelters and desalinization plants, engineered ecosystems and eventually move towards sustainable energy sources. Not because it's the "right" thing to do, but because desperation will drive us there.
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Climate Desk Live 06/06/13: The Alarming Science Behind Climate Change’s Increasingly Wild Weather

Join us for a joint Climate Desk Live and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) event moderated by Chris Mooney discussing the alarming science behind climate change’s increasingly wild weather featuring senior Weather Channel meteorologist Stu Ostro and top climate researcher Jennifer Francis.

NOTE: You will need to jump forward to the 1:10:00 mark in this recorded web event to get to the start of the program.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



If we are past the tipping point then adapt......it's like cutting a tree once it starts falling it's going to hit the ground.....best thing you can do is make sure you are not in the path of the tree.....


Been there done that don't want to go back...





...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Environmental Justice Groups Sue EPA for Failure to Enforce Clean Air ActLink



Despite several studies suggesting toxic emissions from refineries are underestimated, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continually failed to review and revise emissions factors for health and life-threatening pollutants.

Now, five environmental justice groups are suing the agency for failure to comply with the Clean Air Act. The groups, the Environmental Integrity Project, Air Alliance Houston, Texas Environmental Advocacy Services (TEJAS), Community In-power and Development Association, Inc. (CIDA), and Louisiana Bucket Brigade, assert that EPA failures are leading to undue health and safety risks for the Gulf Area population.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA Administrator is required to review and (if necessary) revise the emissions factors used to estimate emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) from emission sources at least once every three years. However, according to the notice of intent preceding the lawsuit, “EPA has not reviewed emission factors for flares since 1991,” for wastewater treatment systems since 1998, and emission equations for tanks since 2006.

Said TEJAS executive director Juan Parras, “EPA needs to protect public health and the environment, and there are no excuses to further delay long overdue action to revise inaccurate emission factors consistent with scientific studies.”[...]


I didn't see any cite for an actual court filing, does anyone know?


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
649. yoboi
Quoting zampaz:
I'm a scientist, a real peer-reviewed published guy.
I love rational debate, it is healthy and to be encouraged.
With the changes in our Arctic Sea climate change cannot be denied by any who wish to be considered rational. It is my opinion we've already passed the tipping point. We can't repair the arctic or restore the jet stream to a familiar pattern.
I shrug those off those who deny the changes to the ice in the North as kooks or trolls.
The rest of the deniers who admit the climate is changing but argue as to the cause of the change are not necessarily kooks, some are just misinformed or ideologically incapable of acknowledging that fact trumps belief.
If we can focus on what we agree on, what we can do to adapt to changes in the climate; we can establish a common ground to work from. We have common issues we need to address regardless of the root cause.
As we work together to build storm shelters, levees and extinguish massive fires and build massive desalinization plants for fresh water for agriculture and metro use we can look at root causes as to why we're having to do these things. Those who are ideologically incapable of acknowledging AGW can still fill sandbags. The rest of us can minimize our carbon footprint and eventually society will come to a consensus.
If you can get a denier to acknowledge the climate is changing and we need to adapt, that's progress.

Be rational, cite your sources and educate those who are capable of learning who are informed only the well funded machine of misinformation. Be kind and patient with each other and address the issues we have in common. Not all deniers are trolls, ignore those who are and educate the others in a friendly and helpful way. That is the only way to change an ideology entrenched in willful ignorance.
-z



If we are past the tipping point then adapt......it's like cutting a tree once it starts falling it's going to hit the ground.....best thing you can do is make sure you are not in the path of the tree.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world.

Read the comments section as well - Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and this is what we face everyday. I rarely post comments now for the simple reason that I wish to remain cordial with all that will post here. This, for me, is becoming more and more difficult for me to do with those that refuse to use critical thinking or are incapable of it. Most that post here with a trollish behavior come across as if this is all just a game to them. An attempt at one up manship. Does it matter if their indifference to climate change is born from ideology, religious beliefs, political party affiliation or self interests? When we deal with those that will not or can use critical thinking in their inquiries and responses then we are left without a line of communications and a way to reach common grounds. When alternatives are offered as a possible way to adapt to climate change or to remove ourselves from the finite energy resources we are presented with reasons as to why this cannot or should not be done because of one problem or another associated with a said proposal. They act as if a perfect solution must be found before the status quo is interrupted or we risk it all on an alternative. How does one reason with those that refuse to use critical thinking?

I read the comments...sad no?

In Wunderground we're pretty insulated from those not versed in science. However in watching the Chapman conference on communicatting climate change I would suggest we engage our friends in our personal and social networks in climate discussion. Those who cannot think critically are still emotional creatures and can be engaged in the common sense of loss we all feel from catastrophic weather events and how we can adapt to the increasing frequency of weather related catastrophe. Drought affects agriculture and forests for example. Learn and retell the stories of loss.
For example, horses are herd animals, and scenes of horses chasing a trailer as a rancher takes the horses he can during an evacuation is heart wrenching.
Bring the emotional sense of loss home to those who cannot think critically. Most of us easily detach from events far away. Bring it home.
Scientists, represent a threat to spiritual belief in the minds of many, but many scientists have a sense of awe in understanding the complexity of the world around us.
Focus on the tragic human and ecological losses of climate change.
Ask non-thinkers how they "feel" we should respond to threats we share in common.
Over time the cause of change will prove itself. Set an example, reduce your own carbon footprint.
-z
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world.

Read the comments section as well - Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and this is what we face everyday. I rarely post comments now for the simple reason that I wish to remain cordial with all that will post here. This, for me, is becoming more and more difficult for me to do with those that refuse to use critical thinking or are incapable of it. Most that post here with a trollish behavior come across as if this is all just a game to them. An attempt at one up manship. Does it matter if their indifference to climate change is born from ideology, religious beliefs, political party affiliation or self interests? When we deal with those that will not or can use critical thinking in their inquiries and responses then we are left without a line of communications and a way to reach common grounds. When alternatives are offered as a possible way to adapt to climate change or to remove ourselves from the finite energy resources we are presented with reasons as to why this cannot or should not be done because of one problem or another associated with a said proposal. They act as if a perfect solution must be found before the status quo is interrupted or we risk it all on an alternative. How does one reason with those that refuse to use critical thinking?


The last time Co2 was 400ppm was about 3 million years ago... We adapted then perhaps we can adapt back to that again.....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world.

Read the comments section as well - Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and this is what we face everyday. I rarely post comments now for the simple reason that I wish to remain cordial with all that will post here. This, for me, is becoming more and more difficult for me to do with those that refuse to use critical thinking or are incapable of it. Most that post here with a trollish behavior come across as if this is all just a game to them. An attempt at one up manship. Does it matter if their indifference to climate change is born from ideology, religious beliefs, political party affiliation or self interests? When we deal with those that will not or can use critical thinking in their inquiries and responses then we are left without a lines of communications and a way to reach common grounds. When alternatives are offered as a possible way to adapt to climate change or to remove ourselves from the finite energy resources we are presented with reasons as to why this cannot or should not be done because of one problem or another associated with a said proposal. They act as if a perfect solution must be found before the status quo is interrupted or we risk it all on an alternative. How does one reason with those that refuse to use critical thinking?


"I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world."


It used to be perfect before we messed it up....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting zampaz:
I'm a scientist, a real peer-reviewed published guy.
I love rational debate, it is healthy and to be encouraged.
With the changes in our Arctic Sea climate change cannot be denied by any who wish to be considered rational. It is my opinion we've already passed the tipping point. We can't repair the arctic or restore the jet stream to a familiar pattern.
I shrug those off those who deny the changes to the ice in the North as kooks or trolls.
The rest of the deniers who admit the climate is changing but argue as to the cause of the change are not necessarily kooks, some are just misinformed or ideologically incapable of acknowledging that fact trumps belief.
If we can focus on what we agree on, what we can do to adapt to changes in the climate; we can establish a common ground to work from. We have common issues we need to address regardless of the root cause.
As we work together to build storm shelters, levees and extinguish massive fires and build massive desalinization plants for fresh water for agriculture and metro use we can look at root causes as to why we're having to do these things. Those who are ideologically incapable of acknowledging AGW can still fill sandbags. The rest of us can minimize our carbon footprint and eventually society will come to a consensus.
If you can get a denier to acknowledge the climate is changing and we need to adapt, that's progress.

Be rational, cite your sources and educate those who are capable of learning who are informed only the well funded machine of misinformation. Be kind and patient with each other and address the issues we have in common. Not all deniers are trolls, ignore those who are and educate the others in a friendly and helpful way. That is the only way to change an ideology entrenched in willful ignorance.
-z


I agree with your comments and, in a perfect world, this is how it would work. We do not live in a perfect world.

Read the comments section as well - Unfortunately, this is the world we live in and this is what we face everyday. I rarely post comments now for the simple reason that I wish to remain cordial with all that will post here. This, for me, is becoming more and more difficult for me to do with those that refuse to use critical thinking or are incapable of it. Most that post here with a trollish behavior come across as if this is all just a game to them. An attempt at one up manship. Does it matter if their indifference to climate change is born from ideology, religious beliefs, political party affiliation or self interests? When we deal with those that will not or can use critical thinking in their inquiries and responses then we are left without a line of communications and a way to reach common grounds. When alternatives are offered as a possible way to adapt to climate change or to remove ourselves from the finite energy resources we are presented with reasons as to why this cannot or should not be done because of one problem or another associated with a said proposal. They act as if a perfect solution must be found before the status quo is interrupted or we risk it all on an alternative. How does one reason with those that refuse to use critical thinking?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


That's correct..
How do you expect people to trust your "grading" of others' posts when you're been totally wrong at times with your pedantic and unsubstantiated "correct" and "incorrect" posts?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm a scientist, a real peer-reviewed published guy.
I love rational debate, it is healthy and to be encouraged.
With the changes in our Arctic Sea climate change cannot be denied by any who wish to be considered rational. It is my opinion we've already passed the tipping point. We can't repair the arctic or restore the jet stream to a familiar pattern.
I shrug those off those who deny the changes to the ice in the North as kooks or trolls.
The rest of the deniers who admit the climate is changing but argue as to the cause of the change are not necessarily kooks, some are just misinformed or ideologically incapable of acknowledging that fact trumps belief.
If we can focus on what we agree on, what we can do to adapt to changes in the climate; we can establish a common ground to work from. We have common issues we need to address regardless of the root cause.
As we work together to build storm shelters, levees and extinguish massive fires and build massive desalinization plants for fresh water for agriculture and metro use we can look at root causes as to why we're having to do these things. Those who are ideologically incapable of acknowledging AGW can still fill sandbags. The rest of us can minimize our carbon footprint and eventually society will come to a consensus.
If you can get a denier to acknowledge the climate is changing and we need to adapt, that's progress.

Be rational, cite your sources and educate those who are capable of learning who are informed only the well funded machine of misinformation. Be kind and patient with each other and address the issues we have in common. Not all deniers are trolls, ignore those who are and educate the others in a friendly and helpful way. That is the only way to change an ideology entrenched in willful ignorance.
-z
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
Quoting Birthmark:

That's because there is stone-cold evidence that Spencer lied, whereas, there is zero evidence that Russell lied.
With reference to Spencers b.s. on Watts' website: and the use of mid-tropospere data in the tropics only and implying that it was related to global temps:

He certainly didn't mention it. A bunch of commenters seem to think it is global. It's kind of a moron-farm over there.

Moron-farm is a great phrase, e.g., the cultivation of morons.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:
The Global Warming Policy Foundation,
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lord Lawson's climate-change think tank, risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public

That would be pretty awesome.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting JohnLonergan:
Signs of Trouble and Progress as Bonn Climate Talks Wrap Up

Too little progress, though I guess any progress is better than none. Still, it smacks of fiddling while Home burns to me.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
The Global Warming Policy Foundation,
Lord Lawson's climate-change think tank, risks being dismantled after complaint it persistently misled public

Lord Lawson’s climate-change think tank faces being dismantled or even
wound down after a formal complaint that it has persistently misled the public prompted the statutory regulator to probe into the group.

Since Lord Lawson launched the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) in November 2009 it has “persistently disseminated inaccurate and misleading information about climate change as part of its campaign against climate policies in the UK and overseas,” the complaint alleges.

The use of factually inaccurate material without a legitimate basis in science is an abuse of the foundation’s charitable status, which is all the more reprehensible because the public is more trusting of pronouncements made by charities, according to the complaint, filed by Bob Ward, head of policy at the Lord Stern’s Grantham Institute and a former communications director at the Royal Society.[...]
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Signs of Trouble and Progress as Bonn Climate Talks Wrap Up

Much like recent extreme weather events in Europe and the United States, this month’s intersessional in Bonn, Germany could be described as volatile. But despite some “stormy” discussions, rays of light could still be seen in some areas.

The low point that seems to be generating the most attention is Russia preventing a key UNFCCC working body from making any progress. Russia, along with Ukraine and Belarus, blocked the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), which works on both substantive and administrative implementation issues, from moving forward on its agenda. Russia appeared to still be upset about the process during a last-minute decision at COP 18 in Doha, when the rules for the next commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol were quickly gaveled through over their objection. Refusing to let the body take up its work unless it included an agenda item on procedural issues for the climate talks as a whole, Russia rejected numerous attempts at compromise.

The blockage in the SBI discussions created noticeable ripples of nervousness throughout the negotiating hall. But in spite of the intermittent gloominess, there were also clear rays of light. What emerged most palpably was an insistence by nearly all the countries here that these kinds of tangles must be avoided, and that they are committed to moving forward on the key issues facing the UNFCCC negotiations and, not incidentally, the world.

Read more »
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Dramatic Loss in Snowfall for Los Angeles-Area Mountains Predicted

June 14, 2013 — By midcentury, snowfall on Los Angeles-area mountains will be 30 to 40 percent less than it was at the end of the 20th century, according to a UCLA study released today and led by UCLA climate expert Alex Hall.

The projected snow loss, a result of climate change, could get even worse by the end of the 21st century, depending on how the world reacts. Sustained action to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions could keep annual average snowfall levels steady after mid-century, but if emissions continue unabated, the study predicts that snowfall in Southern California mountains will be two-thirds less by the year 2100 than it was in the years leading up to 2000.
"Climate change has become inevitable, and we're going to lose a substantial amount of snow by midcentury," said Hall, a professor in UCLA's Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences and UCLA's Institute of the Environment and Sustainability. "But our choices matter. By the end of the century, there will be stark differences in how much snowfall remains, depending on whether we begin to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions."
"This science is clear and compelling: Los Angeles must begin today to prepare for climate change," said Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. "We invested in this study and created the AdaptLA framework to craft innovative solutions and preserve our quality of life for the next generation of Angelenos."
Less snowfall in general and a complete loss of snow at some lower elevations doesn't just have implications for snow enthusiasts who enjoy skiing and sledding in the local mountains; it also could mean sizeable economic losses for snow-dependent businesses and communities. Less snow could also mean changes in the seasonal timing of local water resources, greater difficulty controlling floods, and damage to mountain and river ecosystems.
The impact to actual snow on the ground may be even greater because the researchers quantified snowfall but not snow melt, said Hall, whose previous research found the region will warm 4 to 5 degrees by midcentury. By then, researchers estimate, the snowpack could melt an average of 16 days sooner than it did in 2000. "We won't reach the 32-degree threshold for snow as often, so a greater percentage of precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, particularly at lower elevations," Hall said. "Increased flooding is possible from the more frequent rains, and springtime runoff from melting snowpack will happen sooner."[...]

Emphasis added
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Western Drought Intensifies, Leads to Deadly Wildfires

A record-breaking heat wave intensified drought conditions in much of the West during the past week, with 72 percent of the land area in the 10 Western states now in drought conditions, according to the latest update to the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The western part of Oklahoma has been left high and dry by a lack of rainfall.
Credit: Cimarron County NRCS office
The worst impacts of the drought are concentrated in the Southwest: New Mexico, Texas, Southern Colorado and the western parts of Kansas, Oklahoma and Nebraska all contain land that is under extreme or exceptional drought. The hot weather — Denver had its earliest 100-degree day on June 12 — served to exacerbate existing drought conditions and helped fuel deadly wildfires in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Oregon. In California, 2013 has been the driest year on record to date, and the lack of rainfall is making the state more vulnerable to wildfires.

“The overall pattern of hot and dry conditions, combined with year-to-date below normal precipitation, led to continued deterioration of pasture and rangeland conditions across Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico,” said David Simeral of the Western Regional Climate Center, in a statement accompanying the Drought Monitor.

According to the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA), 100 percent of the range and pasture land in New Mexico is in poor or very poor condition.

The ongoing problem of drought was a major focus of the spring State of the Climate report, which was released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration this week. This year, the period from March to May has been the second-driest on record in New Mexico, where water supply concerns are escalating.[...]
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Warming bad for life in freshwater lakes and riversLink

On both sides of the Atlantic scientists studying lakes have discovered they are warming – and this is bad news both for water quality and the fish.

London, 14 June - The Alpine lakes of Austria are warming up. By 2050, their surface waters could be up to 3°C warmer, according to new research in the journal Hydrobiologia.

Martin Dokulil of the Institute for Limnology at the University of Innsbruck studied data from nine lakes larger than 10km2. The largest, Bodensee or Lake Constance, touches Austria’s border with Germany and Switzerland to the west; 800 kms to the east, Neusiedler See borders Germany and Hungary.

The nine lakes range from 254 to 1.8 metres maximum depth and they are vital to Austria’s tourist industry: they play powerful roles in the Alpine ecosystem and they are of course reservoirs of water.

But the Alpine valleys are warming: between 1980 and 1999 the region warmed at three times the global average and by 2050 the median temperatures for the region could have risen by 3.5°C. The challenge has been to anticipate the impact of global warming on the lakes.

“The predicted changes in surface water temperatures will affect the thermal characteristics of the lakes,” says Dr Dokulil. “Warmer water temperatures could lead to enhanced nutrient loads and affect water quality by promoting algal blooms and impairing the biological functions of aquatic organisms.

“Significant increases in summer temperatures will affect the carbon cycling in the lakes, with potential consequences on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the Earth’s climate.”

Next, the fish

The Austrian research so far is concerned only with freshwater temperatures. Peter Moyle, a biologist at the University of California Davis, has been more concerned with the freshwater fish that make their homes in, or migrate to, California’s rivers and lakes.

He and colleagues report in the journal PLOS One – the Public Library of Science – that if current climate trends continue, then 82 per cent of California’s native fish could be extinct, and their native homes colonized by invasive species. The scientists looked at 121 native species and found that four fifths of them were likely to be driven to extinction or at least to very low numbers. These include prized sporting fish such as the Klamath River summer steelhead and other trout, the Central Valley Chinook salmon, the Central Coast coho salmon and many others that depend on cold water.

“These fish are part of the endemic flora and fauna that makes California such a special place,” said Prof Moyle. “As we lose these fishes, we lose their environments and are much poorer for it.” - Climate News Network

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653
Quoting ILwthrfan:
Wow, I just checked out Alaska's forecast for today and then Monday for next week after Nea's post. Kinda crazy.


Friday 6/14 widespread 70's and 80's



Monday 6/17 widespready 80's and a few 90's.




This is the sort of stuff you get with Arctic Amplification.... Lot's of cold then Lot's of hot....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wow, I just checked out Alaska's forecast for today and then Monday for next week after Nea's post. Kinda crazy.


Friday 6/14 widespread 70's and 80's



Monday 6/17 widespread 80's and a few 90's.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

If he sticks to the science, he'll be fine. If he scrapes the bottomless chum bucket of denialism --as I expect-- then things will be a bit rougher for him. There are enough people here who know what they are about to expose such nonsense in short order. (I'll help them out if necessary...or vice versa.)

But he won't show. There's no upside for him.


Of course it'll never happen. But still, there's something weirdly fascinating about the idea of arguing from paleoclimatology with a young-Earth creationist.

I haven't knowingly encountered one of those in years, there aren't many of them in geology.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



Try and show some respect with him.....he is a very well respected person....who knows he might be looking at this blog right now as we speak.......


I hope he is he might learn something..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

If he sticks to the science, he'll be fine. If he scrapes the bottomless chum bucket of denialism --as I expect-- then things will be a bit rougher for him. There are enough people here who know what they are about to expose such nonsense in short order. (I'll help them out if necessary...or vice versa.)

But he won't show. There's no upside for him.


I would have to tutor him for years...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

I would be utterly delighted to see Spencer turn up here. It would provide me no end of entertainment to see him sputter and spit after being caught time and again in shenanigans.

I'm not even a climatologist and I can catch him.

He's that bad. lol


He is unteachable...Some students just don't get it..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



Try and show some respect with him.....he is a very well respected person....who knows he might be looking at this blog right now as we speak.......

If he sticks to the science, he'll be fine. If he scrapes the bottomless chum bucket of denialism --as I expect-- then things will be a bit rougher for him. There are enough people here who know what they are about to expose such nonsense in short order. (I'll help them out if necessary...or vice versa.)

But he won't show. There's no upside for him.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
626. yoboi
Quoting Birthmark:

I'm going to pulverize all schoolyard protocol and right out of the gate triple-dog-dare him. He'd have a better time freezing his tongue to a flagpole.



Try and show some respect with him.....he is a very well respected person....who knows he might be looking at this blog right now as we speak.......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
625. yoboi
Quoting FLwolverine:
If you go back and look at my post about the Ninth Circuit case, you will see why no court ever wants this case in front of them. Their job is to apply the law to the facts, and in cases like this they would have lots of facts but no law to follow.

From the litigants' point of view, a case trying to prove a causal relationship between oil company actions, AGW, and damage to particular property, would take years and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars to try.

As for further info, all I have access to are the court opinions - no hearing transcripts or briefs or deposition transcripts. I did notice some articles online, so you might get more information there. Google the names of the parties to the case.


thanks....if i run across something i will let you know......very interesting case....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


I e-mailed him with an invite......i hope that he pays a visit.......

I'm going to pulverize all schoolyard protocol and right out of the gate triple-dog-dare him. He'd have a better time freezing his tongue to a flagpole.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
623. yoboi
Quoting Birthmark:

I would be utterly delighted to see Spencer turn up here. It would provide me no end of entertainment to see him sputter and spit after being caught time and again in shenanigans.

I'm not even a climatologist and I can catch him.

He's that bad. lol


I e-mailed him with an invite......i hope that he pays a visit.......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting schistkicker:


I think I'm most upset that the trolls here are just so... lazy and insipid. They don't put any effort into their disruption. At least on evolutionary biology blogs, you'll get the trolls putting out paragraphs of poor argument, references to papers they don't understand, or quotemines to point out. Here, it's just drivel-- space-wasting, time-marking drivel. There's no there there. A site like this really deserves a better quality of troll.

I know, right? I don't see how it can even be fun for them. They're phoning it in.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting yoboi:


If this is true this is just wrong.....I would welcome the case to go before the courts.....any more information that you can provide with this case?????
If you go back and look at my post about the Ninth Circuit case, you will see why no court ever wants this case in front of them. Their job is to apply the law to the facts, and in cases like this they would have lots of facts but no law to follow.

From the litigants' point of view, a case trying to prove a causal relationship between oil company actions, AGW, and damage to particular property, would take years and hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of dollars to try.

As for further info, all I have access to are the court opinions - no hearing transcripts or briefs or deposition transcripts. I did notice some articles online, so you might get more information there. Google the names of the parties to the case.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2438
Quoting yoboi:



I just don't see where spencer is cherry picking anything.......

Therein lies the problem.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting yoboi:



I agree....Spencer is spreading fear among the alarmist....if you have the time go visit his website and absorb the great knowledge that is avaliable there. I think I will e-mail Dr spencer and invite him to this blog to get the record straight......

I would be utterly delighted to see Spencer turn up here. It would provide me no end of entertainment to see him sputter and spit after being caught time and again in shenanigans.

I'm not even a climatologist and I can catch him.

He's that bad. lol
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

I hear ya. But trolls are trolls. Who really cares what type??? ;) And why write an entire paragraph about your feelings of these trolls? By doing so, you are falling into the trap of exactly what they want: attention. A friendly suggestion: ignore them outright. :-)

Nat


For some, it's actually a job, and quite well paid, from what I read. Though, I think the paid ones are more likely to infest the comments sections of news stories on climate change on sites like the UK Telegraph.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate Denial Crock of the Week
with Peter Sinclair
NASA: New View of Antarctic Melt has “Profound Implications”

Interview with Dr.Eric Rignot

New study from JPL has big implications for ice dynamics at the South Pole. I interviewed study author Eric Rignot in December at the AGU conference in San Francisco, above. You’ll hear him discuss IMBIE, the Ice Mass Balance Inter-Comparison Exercise an earlier, 2012 effort.
Interesting to compare perspective from the interview, and the press release below.

NASA:
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3653

Viewing: 666 - 616

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28Blog 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.

RickyRood's Recent Photos

Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.
Clouds in the lee of the Rockies at sunset.