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: 216 - 166

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

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NOAA LOOKS AT UAH TEMPERATURE SERIES

Conclusions Part I.

%u2022 UAH has a signi%uFB01cant bias that reduces the midtropospheric trend

%u2022 The UAH merging procedure is biased

%u2022 UAH should increase ~0.04 K/decade

%u2022 There is evidence that tropical differences are related to the treatment of diurnal drift


A Bias in the Midtropospheric Channel Warm Target Factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit

Stephen Po-Chedley and Qiang Fu
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Abstract
The University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have constructed long-term temperature records for deep atmospheric layers using satellite Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) observations. However, these groups disagree on the magnitude of global temperature trends since 1979, including the trend for the midtropospheric layer (TMT). This study evaluates the selection of the MSU TMT warm target factor for the NOAA-9 satellite using five homogenized radiosonde products as references. The analysis reveals that the UAH TMT product has a positive bias of 0.051 0.031 in the warm target factor that artificially reduces the global TMT trend by 0.042 K decade%u22121 for 1979%u20132009. Accounting for this bias increases the global UAH TMT trend from 0.038 to 0.080 K decade%u22121, effectively eliminating the trend difference between UAH and RSS and decreasing the trend difference between UAH and NOAA by 47%. This warm target factor bias directly affects the UAH lower tropospheric (TLT) product and tropospheric temperature trends derived from a combination of TMT and lower stratospheric (TLS) channels.

Keywords: Microwave observations, Remote sensing, Satellite observations, Trends

Received: September 2, 2011; Accepted: November 28, 2011

FWIW, The UAH dataset is the product of "Drs." Spencer and Christy that Willard Anthony Watts and his cohort rely on. These are just two of the more recent severe criticisms of their work.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Republican demands Obama apologize for funding climate change research

In a speech on the House floor Tuesday, Representative Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) called on President Barack Obama to apologize to the people of Oklahoma for funding climate change research.

The freshman congressman claimed global temperatures stopped rising a decade ago. He said variations in the Earth's temperature were the result of solar output and ocean cycles.

"Even climate change alarmists admit the number of hurricanes hitting the U.S. and the number of tornado touchdowns have been on a slow decline for over 100 years," Bridenstine said.

"But here is what we absolutely know," he continued. "We know that Oklahoma will have tornadoes when the cold jet stream meets the warm Gulf air, and we also know that this President spends 30 times as much money on global warming research as he does on weather forecasting and warning. For this gross misallocation, the people of Oklahoma are ready to accept the President's apology and I intend to submit legislation to fix this.

A survey of 29,000 scientists published this year found a wide consensus that climate change was both real and driven by human activity. Less than 1 percent denied that humans were the primary cause of climate change.

Continued on RawStory.com

"People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke." - Will Rogers (also known as "Oklahoma's Favorite Son"
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 963
Quoting allahgore:



The trolling occured in 1997!

Nope. That was a wrong prediction from an individual for which there was (pay attention here) ZERO published scientific evidence.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting allahgore:


So Christy and Spencer is the same person? You might think you can wave the magic Elnino hand and say they are the same person but they are two different people. I can not understand why you keep quoting Christy then turn around and say Spencer lied.

So you ignore evidence when it pleases you? I don't see the profit in such an enterprise. LOL
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
My fruit trees and Blueberry bushes are producing this year pretty good, here are a few pics....I won't have to go to the grocery store as much this year...I just step outside and pick a few and make my own jellies jams and preserves...I get to eat them on the Picnic table I made for the wife.... YUMMY...


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting allahgore:


So it's just "exaggeration" let's cook the numbers fool the public, cause fear. I will not buy into this fake science.

You appear to be buying into fake science.

Or you're trolling. ;)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting allahgore:



It's just called a mistake on their side; the other side it's called lying! You really can't make this stuff up!

Of course you can. You just did.

In one case, we have someone speculating about future events...without referring to the scientific literature. His speculation was wrong.

On the denier side we have a guy lying about data from the past...which is easily verifiable...especially when it's his own data that he's lying about.

Failure to see the difference between those two scenarios takes something...um, special.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting allahgore:



It's just called a mistake on their side; the other side it's called lying! You really can't make this stuff up!


We've been over this. It was a news article, not published research.

Quoting allahgore:


So it's just "exaggeration" let's cook the numbers fool the public, cause fear. I will not buy into this fake science.


Cook the numbers? Seriously. The backlash being spouted about this non issue coming from those who consistently base their claims on bad math and misrepresented data is just too absurd. This does nothing to refute the science behind a warming world. Explain to me how his quote about el nino was designed to cause fear and fool the public? Just make stuff up as you go along.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969

The Warming continues unabated with or without you here, there, or anywhere.

allah-gore.



really?


..U think that up alone?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The relationship between trees and human health

The trees died first. One hundred million of them in the eastern and midwestern United States. The culprit: the emerald ash borer, a beetle that entered the U.S. through Detroit in 2002 and quickly spread to Iowa, New York, Virginia and nearly every state between. The bug attacks all 22 species of North American ash and kills nearly every tree it infests.

Then came the humans. In the 15 states infected with the bug starting, an additional 15,000 people died from cardiovascular disease and 6,000 more from lower respiratory disease compared with uninfected areas of the country.

A team of researchers with the U.S. Forest Services looked at data from 1,296 counties, accounted for the influence of other variables -- things like income, race, and education -- and came to a simple conclusion: Having fewer trees around may be bad for your health. Their findings, published recently in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, suggest an associative rather than a direct, causal link between the death of trees and the death of humans.


continued at PBS.ORG
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 963
Quoting Birthmark:

Nope. Sea temperatures are warm enough to cause bottom melting of the glaciers, causing them to disconnect from the sea floor. They then break off, float out to sea, and become sea ice.

(Greatly over-simplified.)


YEP!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So temperatures are warm enough to cause the glaciers to melt, but are also cold enough to refreeze the water?

Nope. Sea temperatures are warm enough to cause bottom melting of the glaciers, causing them to disconnect from the sea floor. They then break off, float out to sea, and become sea ice.

(Greatly over-simplified.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
From HotWhopper:

Flashback to 1957 - CO2 from Industry May be Warming Earth

From The Canberra Times (ACT : 1926 - 1995) Tuesday 25 June 1957

Industry May Be Warming Earth

WASHINGTON, Monday (A.A.P.-Reuter). - United States scientists are planning studies on whether man's pollution of the atmosphere is creating a blanket around the world which is making it warmer.

The U.S. Department of Commerce said yesterday that, during the International Geophysical Year beginning "next month, weather experts in the Antarctic would take " air samples to check a theory that the earth's climate was gradually warming because the amount of carbon dioxide was increasing.

Officials explained, "Man is pouring an awful lot of carbon dioxide into the air by burning fuels. We do not know how much' of it is staying in the atmosphere or how much is.going back into plants - or the ocean, if there is a lot staying in the atmosphere then it is possible that the temperature is increasing.

Carbon dioxide would act as an insulating blanket, stopping the earth from radiating as much heat as it otherwise would into outer space.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:




ask Dr Russ Schnell, a scientist doing atmospheric research at Mauna Loa Observatory....he predicted it....he is wrong it did not happen.....

Then don't listen to what he says.

To extrapolate his statement into a prediction of the science is wrong, and suggests either ignorance or dishonesty on the part of those making such an extrapolation.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting ScottLincoln:

In the original article quoting Dr. Schnell, it even said that it was not a peer reviewed publication. People might remember my bolding of those important qualifiers. Dr. Schnell even provided some of them himself, things like "could" and "may." Gullible, agenda-driven folks have skipped that words (they actually mean something!) and took what they want from it. Schnell provided a nice, quick response to your question and he should be applauded for that. It looks like he could have just chosen his words better. But that was 16 years ago - if he was going to make an actual prediction in the scientific literature it would have been made quite some time ago.

Snip


Victor enema at his blog, Variable Variations posted this recently,The value of peer review for science and the press:

[...]The Value of Peer Review for Science

Peer review gives an article credibility. As such peer review is "just" a filter, it does not guarantee that an article is right. Many peer-reviewed articles contain errors, many ideas outside of the peer-reviewed literature are worthwhile. However, on average the quality of peer-reviewed work is better. Thus peer-reviewed work is more likely worthy of your attention.

If you are a scientist and an idea/study is about something you are knowledgeable about there is no reason to limit yourself exclusively to peer-reviewed articles, but it is smart to prefer them. A scientist will only use peer review to preselect, because you simply cannot read and check everything. Life is short and attention a very limited resource. I also see no problem in citing studies that are not peer-reviewed, whether scientific reports or conference contributions. I do feel that by citing such studies, you give them some of your reputation, you become partially a reviewer and should read them as careful as a reviewer would.

Peer review is far from perfect. It is not intended to and cannot prevent fraud. Some bad papers will get through and some good ones will be rejected. This can be annoying for the scientists involved, but given that peer review is just a filter, it is not that bad for science in general. It is only since the second world war that peer review has become the standard. We also had scientific progress before that time.

[...]Concluding, bad papers in the scientific literature are a minor problem for science as long as their number is limited (and people still take the time to blog about them or write a formal comment). Whereas, a good idea that is not published is a big loss to science.

The main effect of bad papers is outside of science, if they confuse the population about the current state of science. Politicians like immutable truths and sometimes call for water-tight review systems. That is impossible, would add so much overhead that it would slow down scientific progress and make it very difficult to publish unorthodox ideas, which are typically weak in the beginning. As a scientist, I would thus prefer to have a peer review filter that errs on the side of publishing a few articles too much.

Peer Review & Publicity


If you are not knowledgeable and have little time it is best to limit yourself to peer-reviewed studies
.
As journalists are interested in spectacular new ideas, the scientific articles headlining the science sections are already very likely to be found to be (partially) wrong later on. (As an aside, I would advocate journalists not to write about single articles, but about new ideas that are supported by a number of articles, as this reduces the likelihood of reporting erroneous ideas.) Furthermore, as the general public is not in the position to judge the value of a new paper, also scientists should show restrained in seeking publicity for non-reviewed studies.

Because it is a matter of credibility, not only peer review is important. Also the reputation of the scientist and how controversial the matter determine whether the time is ripe for publicity. I do not think that many people would object to the press conferences on the discovery of the Higgs boson, although these results were not published yet. However, the group is highly reputable in this field, the finding is a confirmation of an well-established theory and the experimental set-up has been vetted before building the enormously expensive instruments. Furthermore, the topic is of high public interest. Trying to delay its publication in the mass media while waiting for a peer-reviewed article would have been impossible.[...]

[...]From private to public communication

A modern "problem" is that the distinction between communication between colleagues and the public is becoming less clear. From a private mail to one or multiple colleagues, to a small or large e-mail distribution list, from your personal homepage, to a blog post or a guest post at a well-known blog and from a working group seminar to a conference presentation. Where does publicity start?[...]
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting georgevandenberghe:


Unfortunately stupidity (like the element administratium which transforms from other productive components and
gradually permeates and destroys all organizations) does not exhibit conservation properties and tends to increase
with time.

Unfortunately, all attempts to harness it for good ends in politics. UGH!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


What? I'm not confused at all. The claim was made that sea ice extent in the S. Hem. is greater than normal, because it is not land locked like the Arctic.



Not being landlocked does not explain the anomaly.


I suggest you read this Link , it may help answer your questions.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Fox Noise ?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


What? I'm not confused at all. The claim was made that sea ice extent in the S. Hem. is greater than normal, because it is not land locked like the Arctic.



Not being landlocked does not explain the anomaly.


You are correct. Antarctica sea ice not being land locked does not, in of itself, explain the anomaly of a gain in sea ice area. Other conditions do explain the anomaly well. Several of them have been provided to you. ... Unless you have a convincing theory that would otherwise explain this?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So there was some landmass that is no longer present that is causing the extent of ice in the S. Hem. to be higher than normal?


How far back through Earth's history do you want to go?

I understand what you are asking. There are multiple reasons as to why the Antarctic sea ice can be increasing area beyond the recent historical norms. Wind and ocean current patterns are the main drivers for area and extent. Observations have shown us that the wind and ocean current patterns are showing signs of change over the past few years. Area and extent are not nearly as good an indicator of the ice condition as is total volume. You can gain area and still have a loss in total volume. The same will hold true for extent. You can extend the ice further, but still lose in total volume.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So there was some landmass that is no longer present that is causing the extent of ice in the S. Hem. to be higher than normal?


Yeah! 5,400,000 sq mi of it... Compare to Greenland..

What ice cubes melt first in your glass of water the big ones or the small ones?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Science


Climate Change Indicators in the United States
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting ScottLincoln:

"UN climate delegates unaware global warming stopped 16 years ago"
What an interesting title to a video. How can you be unaware of something that is just not true?

That's like the equivalent of saying "NWS Employee Scott Lincoln unaware that Earth is actually flat." It's like, how does a logical person even try to rebut that? I'd skip rebuttal and just laugh if it wasn't for the fact that people actually believe it, and get other gullible people to believe it, too.


"Wott Pause or Decline

"There is a recent post on Watts Up With That (WUWT) called are we in a pause or a decline (now includes at least April data). [...]

[...]I was going to address one particular thing. The post goes on to say

For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.
For RSS: +0.123 +/-0.131 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1990
For UAH the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For UAH: 0.142 +/- 0.166 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut3 the warming is not significant for over 19 years.
For Hadcrut3: 0.092 +/- 0.112 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1994
For Hadcrut4 the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For Hadcrut4: 0.093 +/- 0.108 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For GISS the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For GISS: 0.103 +/- 0.111 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995
For NOAA the warming is not significant for over 18 years.
For NOAA: 0.085 +/- 0.104 C/decade at the two sigma level from 1995.

Notice that the statement made is “not significant“. This statement is simply wrong.[...]

[...] This analysis does not tell us that the warming is “not significant“, it tells us that it is “not statistically significant“. These are very different things. The term “significant” implies there has been no warming. The term “statistically significant” means that we can’t say, with certainty, what it is. The data, however, suggests that it is most likely close to 0.10C per decade.[...]

[...]That the trend for the last 18/19 years is not statistically significant does not mean that there is a good chance that there’s been no warming. It’s simply a consequence of the requirement that we need to consider sufficiently long time intervals if we wish to accurately determine the trend in the temperature anomaly data."

So as usual a post at WFTUWT consists of falsehoods, cherrypicks, and half truths.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, dear. I see you're still having trouble differentiating between the two poles. Here's something that may help you to understand:



Hope this helps!


What? I'm not confused at all. The claim was made that sea ice extent in the S. Hem. is greater than normal, because it is not land locked like the Arctic.

Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Is it not amazing what the range of sea ice area can be when it is not land locked as it is in the Arctic?


Not being landlocked does not explain the anomaly.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting ScottLincoln:

In the Arctic, there is only one source of sea ice - the freezing of sea water. In the Antarctic, there are two sources of sea ice - the freezing of sea water and the calving of terminating glaciers.

Faced with this new information, one might suggest that you look into what happens to glaciers when the temperature increases in the ablation zone.


So temperatures are warm enough to cause the glaciers to melt, but are also cold enough to refreeze the water?
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Dr. Schnell replied
"Thanks for the link to the BBC interview from 16 years back. I did say 18 but that was just a mirror of the18 months to make a point that might be remembered.

We will have to wait a few more decades to see how the El Nino issue plays out.

Use any of my responses and comments as you see fit.

Cheers,

Russ Schnell"

I was able to receive quick and candid responses from Dr. Schnell concerning this. As he explains it, it was a not a scientific based response that he gave in the interview, but a possible scenario that may yet come to be. I, for what it is worth, tend to agree with Dr. Schnell that El Nino events will likely become more frequent and longer in duration in the future. Using my limited knowledge of the subject I am inclined to think that this will happen as the thermal layers of the ocean become less defined in temperature differences. Sooner or later, the latent heat must go somewhere. What do you think?

In the original article quoting Dr. Schnell, it even said that it was not a peer reviewed publication. People might remember my bolding of those important qualifiers. Dr. Schnell even provided some of them himself, things like "could" and "may." Gullible, agenda-driven folks have skipped that words (they actually mean something!) and took what they want from it. Schnell provided a nice, quick response to your question and he should be applauded for that. It looks like he could have just chosen his words better. But that was 16 years ago - if he was going to make an actual prediction in the scientific literature it would have been made quite some time ago.

As we know ENSO today, it is not exactly a real forcing, but causes apparent changes in temperature which are on the order of climate variability. It is related to the transfer of heat energy to/from the oceans. During El Nino events we see some of this heat leave the oceans and show up in the near-surface atmosphere, and this causes an apparent jump in temperatures that affects different data sets differently. Do people honestly expect that the oceans can just keep taking this heat forever and it will magically just "go away?" Recent data already shows that the oceans and sea ice are taking more heat energy than we expected them to, exceeding our model projections. The larger stores of heat energy are exceeding our projections for accumulation of heat, yet people want to argue with a straight face that a slightly slower rate of atmospheric warming over a short-term is a sign that global warming has slowed or stopped?
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3327
"Fractal "wrongness is the state of being wrong at every conceivable scale of resolution. That is, from a distance, a fractally wrong person's worldview is incorrect; and furthermore, if you zoom in on any small part of that person's worldview, that part is just as wrong as the whole worldview.
Debating with a person who is fractally wrong leads to infinite regress, as every refutation you make of that person's opinions will lead to a rejoinder, full of half-truths, leaps of poor logic, and outright lies, that requires just as much refutation to debunk as the first one. It is as impossible to convince a fractally wrong person of anything as it is to walk around the edge of the Mandelbrot set in finite time.
If you ever get embroiled in a discussion with a fractally wrong person on the Internet %u2014 in mailing lists, newsgroups, or forums %u2014 your best bet is to say your piece once and ignore any replies, thus saving yourself time."


It appears we are being plagued by textbook examples of the phenomenon.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3677
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
I see. So we have scientists that exaggerate unscientifically backed claims to make a point?

Of course, AGW alarmists have already said that facts don't dissuade them from their global goal (of what????):

(see 1:17)


"UN climate delegates unaware global warming stopped 16 years ago"
What an interesting title to a video. How can you be unaware of something that is just not true?

That's like the equivalent of saying "NWS Employee Scott Lincoln unaware that Earth is actually flat." It's like, how does a logical person even try to rebut that? I'd skip rebuttal and just laugh if it wasn't for the fact that people actually believe it, and get other gullible people to believe it, too.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3327
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So there was some landmass that is no longer present that is causing the extent of ice in the S. Hem. to be higher than normal?
Oh, dear. I see you're still having trouble differentiating between the two poles. Here's something that may help you to understand:



Hope this helps!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So there was some landmass that is no longer present that is causing the extent of ice in the S. Hem. to be higher than normal?

In the Arctic, there is only one source of sea ice - the freezing of sea water. In the Antarctic, there are two sources of sea ice - the freezing of sea water and the calving of terminating glaciers.

Faced with this new information, one might suggest that you look into what happens to glaciers when the temperature increases in the ablation zone.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3327
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So there was some landmass that is no longer present that is causing the extent of ice in the S. Hem. to be higher than normal?


If you did some research, you would see the effects of changing wind patterns around the land mass of Antarctica, cause by a warming environment are responsible for the increase in sea ice. Meanwhile, the land (glacial) ice on Antarctica itself is losing volume. The increased Southern Hemisphere sea ice is completely inline with a warming world.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Is it not amazing what the range of sea ice area can be when it is not land locked as it is in the Arctic?

Critical thinking is becoming more critical to us all now and so few seem to be willing to use any critical thinking at all! Common sense is nowhere near as common as one might imagine that it would be. It is almost as if it has become an oxymoron!


So there was some landmass that is no longer present that is causing the extent of ice in the S. Hem. to be higher than normal?
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
I see. So we have scientists that exaggerate unscientifically backed claims to make a point?

Of course, AGW alarmists have already said that facts don't dissuade them from their global goal (of what????):

(see 1:17)



The numerous studies on the data make scientific claims to make a point. Or you can just ignore all that evidence...I believe that is called "deflection".
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3969
I see. So we have scientists that exaggerate unscientifically backed claims to make a point?

Of course, AGW alarmists have already said that facts don't dissuade them from their global goal (of what????):

(see 1:17)

Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting yoboi:



Have you ever tried to debate JB? I am sure he would welcome the debate.
I'd sooner argue bedtime with a spoiled eight-year-old on a sugar high. Where it comes down to climate science, Bastardi is an absolutely clueless buffoon...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:



Did the BBC misquote him??? Kudos rookie for getting to the bottom of it, I tip my hat to you sir.


Dr. Schenll never said to me that he was being misquoted in the article. What he did say, as you can read for yourself, was that the normal duration for El Nino events now is 18 months and he mirrored the "18" to say that in the future the normal El Nino events will be 18 years. Even though he said this in exaggeration, he may yet be proven right. Are you then going to complain that it did not happen in 10 years from when the statement was made, but, rather took an additional 60 or 90 years for it to happen????????? The true jest of his conversation is that he has and is saying that El Nino events will become more frequent and enduring in the future.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting yoboi:



wow he was so close with the prediction *snicker* I guess I should just open up my arms and accept agw....


No, what you should do is to open up your mind and see what the global observations tell you concerning agw. Even if you attribute all of the past 150 years of the global warming to natural variations ( not true, the natural variations do not account for all of the observed warming ), then you still cannot throw out the Laws of Physics, The Laws of Chemistry and The Laws of Thermodynamics that tell us that adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere will cause the global climate to warm. Unless we lose our atmosphere, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will lead to further global warming. How do you manage to not mentally grasp this? Do you do so strictly through your own will power?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
170. yoboi
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Yobi

I contacted Dr. Schnell via email and this is our conversation:

I inquired
"Dr. Schnell,

I hate to bother you with anything as trivial as this will be to you, but a fellow climate blogger has made the claim that you stated that El Nino events would begin to endure for 18 years in duration. Is there any truth to this claim being made by this blogger about you? If so, would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to such a paper?

Thank you,

Dr. Schnell responded
"What I said many years ago in an interview was that with climate warming we might see the possibility that El Nino events could become more prevalent and last longer. I have no idea where teh 18 years crept in."

I replied
"Dr, Schnell,

I wish to thank you for your quick response back to me. I happen to agree with you that El Nino events may become more frequent and enduring, but I am not a scientist.

Allow me to inform you as to where this information about what you were claimed to have said originated from on the blog. This is the link that we were given. - BBC Link

This is where the current discussion on this is taking place - Dr. Rood's Climate Blog – You may even know Dr. Rood?

I wish that you may find the time to make an appearance on the blog yourself. I know that you could add a lot to the discussions on climate change. I hope that will at least consider it.

May I quote your response to me on Dr. Rood’s blog? I will not do so without your permission to proceed.

Thank you, sir"

Dr. Schnell replied
"Thanks for the link to the BBC interview from 16 years back. I did say 18 but that was just a mirror of the18 months to make a point that might be remembered.

We will have to wait a few more decades to see how the El Nino issue plays out.

Use any of my responses and comments as you see fit.

Cheers,

Russ Schnell"

I was able to receive quick and candid responses from Dr. Schnell concerning this. As he explains it, it was a not a scientific based response that he gave in the interview, but a possible scenario that may yet come to be. I, for what it is worth, tend to agree with Dr. Schnell that El Nino events will likely become more frequent and longer in duration in the future. Using my limited knowledge of the subject I am inclined to think that this will happen as the thermal layers of the ocean become less defined in temperature differences. Sooner or later, the latent heat must go somewhere. What do you think?



Did the BBC misquote him??? Kudos rookie for getting to the bottom of it, I tip my hat to you sir.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600
Quoting Xulonn:
Sea ice is on land??

News to me!


News to me most of the sea ice disappears every summer down there perhaps more than on top of the world...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20470
Yobi

I contacted Dr. Schnell via email and this is our conversation:

I inquired
"Dr. Schnell,

I hate to bother you with anything as trivial as this will be to you, but a fellow climate blogger has made the claim that you stated that El Nino events would begin to endure for 18 years in duration. Is there any truth to this claim being made by this blogger about you? If so, would you be kind enough to provide me with a link to such a paper?

Thank you,

Dr. Schnell responded
"What I said many years ago in an interview was that with climate warming we might see the possibility that El Nino events could become more prevalent and last longer. I have no idea where teh 18 years crept in."

I replied
"Dr, Schnell,

I wish to thank you for your quick response back to me. I happen to agree with you that El Nino events may become more frequent and enduring, but I am not a scientist.

Allow me to inform you as to where this information about what you were claimed to have said originated from on the blog. This is the link that we were given. - BBC Link

This is where the current discussion on this is taking place - Dr. Rood's Climate Blog – You may even know Dr. Rood?

I wish that you may find the time to make an appearance on the blog yourself. I know that you could add a lot to the discussions on climate change. I hope that will at least consider it.

May I quote your response to me on Dr. Rood’s blog? I will not do so without your permission to proceed.

Thank you, sir"

Dr. Schnell replied
"Thanks for the link to the BBC interview from 16 years back. I did say 18 but that was just a mirror of the18 months to make a point that might be remembered.

We will have to wait a few more decades to see how the El Nino issue plays out.

Use any of my responses and comments as you see fit.

Cheers,

Russ Schnell"

I was able to receive quick and candid responses from Dr. Schnell concerning this. As he explains it, it was a not a scientific based response that he gave in the interview, but a possible scenario that may yet come to be. I, for what it is worth, tend to agree with Dr. Schnell that El Nino events will likely become more frequent and longer in duration in the future. Using my limited knowledge of the subject I am inclined to think that this will happen as the thermal layers of the ocean become less defined in temperature differences. Sooner or later, the latent heat must go somewhere. What do you think?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Big difference most of that ice is on land... Look at Greenland for an example...
Sea ice is on land??

News to me!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
166. yoboi
Quoting Neapolitan:
For a true Gish Gallop of cherry-picked facts strung together like beads of stupidity on a chain of ignorance, enjoy this from JB:

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/18551



Have you ever tried to debate JB? I am sure he would welcome the debate.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2600

Viewing: 216 - 166

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.