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: 1216 - 1166

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

Quoting yoboi:




I get the point....weather and climate is only the same some of the time.....I am starting to catch on to the tactics the warmist use....keep hyping up single weather events.....I guess the heat in 1915 was due to the record levels of C02 or record ice melt.....Nah you all say it's different this time around......

Nope. Weather and climate are somewhat different. Weather always takes place against the backdrop of climate, though.

For the record, I don't think anyone on this thread has claimed that the record warmth in Alaska was caused by CC. However, it is consistent with what we expect to see from AGW.

Hey, if it was simple we wouldn't need climate scientists.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
1213. Patrap
NSIDC

Read scientific analysis on Arctic sea ice conditions. We provide an update during the first week of each month, or more frequently as conditions warrant.

Daily Image Update: Wed., June 19, 2013


Try to see it my way,
do I have to keep on talking till I can't go on?
While you see it your way,
run the risk of knowing that our love may soon be gone.
We can work it out,
we can work it out.
Think of what you're saying,
you can get it wrong and still you think that it's alright.
Think of what I'm saying,
we can work it out and get it straight, or say good night.
We can work it out,
we can work it out.
Life is very short, and there's no time,
for fussing and fighting my friend.
I have always thought, that it's a crime,
so I will ask you, once, again.

Try to see it my way,

only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129441
Quoting yoboi:



so what was the profound effect in 1915????? magic????

There wasn't one, which is rather my point.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
I don't see what Goddard being a racist have to do with his views on climate.

You've managed to say something reasonable and logical.
It should be pointed out when it happens.

He could be the biggest racist in the world and that wouldn't change the science of climate. That being said, Steven Goddard has very little in the way of knowledge in the climate science field and has no credibility - due to the idiotic, nonsense-based things he says about climate and science in general, not race.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3296
Remember, Morano is Italian for moran
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3600
Quoting Naga5000:


Do high records equate to higher global temps? Think about it: Let's take a data set with a high record like (50, 55, 60, 58, 86, 54, 59) with a mean temperature of 60.28. Now look at a data set with warmer overall temperatures, but no record high: (65, 72, 75, 66, 59, 55, 67) with a mean temperature of 65.57.

What does this show us? Think critically.

With a normal distribution and all parts of distribution being affected the same way by rising temperatures, we should see the mean increase, the number of record lows decrease, and the number of record highs increase.

It is merely a function of statistics for a period of record to have most of its records near the beginning of the period. This is where they start. They quickly get broken as the period increases, but in a stable climate, the highs-to-lows ratio will be near 1. Over time, the number of records per year would diminish, because the tails of the distribution keep getting pushed farther and farther from the mean.

The actual mean temperature is more important to analyzing the warming than looking at records, and when looking at records the highs-to-lows ratio would be most applicable. Someone should set up a random number generator that follows a normal distribution and simulate two climate regimes... stable and with a slow upward trend. Then you can visualize how the records change with time.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3296
Quoting yoboi:
Marc Morano has great information about AGW.......
I'd really love to see the dictionary you use to define the terms "great" and "information"...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13743
Quoting yoboi:


I understand the mean temp.....but when you have people sounding the alarm bells and shouting with there mega horns about the current alaska heat wave and in the same sentence talking about the artic ice melt.....it's a tactic being used to promote fear with a "weather event"......it's no different than me asking what the C02 level was in 1915.....what I did was a counter move using a level playing field......if you want to continue to hype up a single weather event i can do the same........

Wrong. The melting in the Arctic will have a profound effect on Northern Hemisphere weather, unlike your pointless fretting about 1915. We are already seeing this, so it's not "a model" or a prediction. It's reality.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting yoboi:



I have.. most of the heat records are from the early 1900's......I often hear C02 causes higher temps....it's just not adding up......

Perhaps math isn't your strong suit? If it was, you'd realize why your statement makes no sense.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting yoboi:
Marc Morano has great information about AGW.......


Sure he does:
"Marc Morano, who has no climate science expertise, runs the anti-climate-science website ClimateDepot.com for the anti-regulation Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which lists him as Director of Communications."
Source
Member Since: June 13, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
Quoting yoboi:



I have.. most of the heat records are from the early 1900's......I often hear C02 causes higher temps....it's just not adding up......


Do high records equate to higher global temps? Think about it: Let's take a data set with a high record like (50, 55, 60, 58, 86, 54, 59) with a mean temperature of 60.28. Now look at a data set with warmer overall temperatures, but no record high: (65, 72, 75, 66, 59, 55, 67) with a mean temperature of 65.57.

What does this show us? Think critically.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
1200. yoboi
Quoting Naga5000:


Why don't you look it up? Still having that problem discerning individual weather and climate? Individual events and trends over time?



I have.. most of the heat records are from the early 1900's......I often hear C02 causes higher temps....it's just not adding up......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2527
Quoting yoboi:



what was the "reliable" C02 level in 1915??????

Why don't you look it up? That's what I do when I want a particular piece of data. It works very well.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting barbamz:
Long interview today on Spiegel English:

Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.

About Hans von Storch:
Link
Link

Allow me to reply to Storch with actual data rather than rhetoric:


The "slowdown" is propaganda. Why so many simply accept it as true when the facts say otherwise is a mystery.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting yoboi:



what was the "reliable" C02 level in 1915??????


Why don't you look it up? Still having that problem discerning individual weather and climate? Individual events and trends over time?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
1196. yoboi
Quoting Naga5000:


Do you know what reliable means? The 100 degree temp is official, but not necessarily reliable. A quick google search reveals that the temp in Fort Yukon that day was 7 - 9 degrees hotter than the measured temps near Fort Yukon. That day there was convection that could have limited surface heating, although Fort Yukon tends to be more convection free then the surrounding areas.

I think you need to check back on the statistical definition of reliability. Either way, this instance does nothing to confirm or dispute global warming, it is only another event of extreme weather which adds to the repository of extreme weather event data.



what was the "reliable" C02 level in 1915??????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2527
My goodness the GOM is already 29-30 celsius with some spots over 31 celsius?





...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Apparently, some states even have two all time record highs. Dr. Jeff Masters said yesterday:

the unofficial 98° measured at Bentalit Lodge on Monday, June 17, ties the record for the hottest reliably measured temperature in state history.

While NOAA says the official highest temperature recorded in Alaska is the 100° measured in Fort Yukon back in 1915.


Do you know what reliable means? The 100 degree temp is official, but not necessarily reliable. A quick google search reveals that the temp in Fort Yukon that day was 7 - 9 degrees hotter than the measured temps near Fort Yukon. That day there was convection that could have limited surface heating, although Fort Yukon tends to be more convection free then the surrounding areas.

I think you need to check back on the statistical definition of reliability. Either way, this instance does nothing to confirm or dispute global warming, it is only another event of extreme weather which adds to the repository of extreme weather event data.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
1193. barbamz
Long interview today on Spiegel English:

Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?
Climate experts have long predicted that temperatures would rise in parallel with greenhouse gas emissions. But, for 15 years, they haven't. In a SPIEGEL interview, meteorologist Hans von Storch discusses how this "puzzle" might force scientists to alter what could be "fundamentally wrong" models.

About Hans von Storch:
Link
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Interesting, indeed. Did you ever stop to think that every location, with temperature data records, will have an all time record high? Did you know that each will also have an all time record low?


Apparently, some states even have two all time record highs. Dr. Jeff Masters said yesterday:

the unofficial 98° measured at Bentalit Lodge on Monday, June 17, ties the record for the hottest reliably measured temperature in state history.

While NOAA says the official highest temperature recorded in Alaska is the 100° measured in Fort Yukon back in 1915.
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting JohnLonergan:


The every 150 yrs is bogus, all right, here is all plot of ice core data ........... However, it is obvious that a simple average doesn't work here.

Kaitlin Keegan, the PhD student cited in the NASA post, wrote about her ice core analysis Here. In the comments, she is questioned about the 150 year figure by, among others, Terry Moran, whose name I've seen over on the Arctic Ice Forum. It isn't clear what explanation she gave him, but this comment appears later:

"on July 25, 2012 at 8:55 pm | ReplyDave Bell
The Alley and Anandakrishnan paper (Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: Implications for Holocene summer temperatures central Greenland, ANNALS OF GLACIOLOGY, VOL 21, 1995 pg:64-70) says that the average melt frequency over the last 10kyrs is 1 every 153yrs. However, it points out that these events have become less frequent with time, decreasing from an average of 1 every 82yrs (between 5500-8500yrs BP) to 1 every 250yrs (between 1000-4000yrs BP). They attribute it to orbitally induced decreasing local summer insolation values, although they can%u2019t rule out reduced summer temperature variability.

I%u2019m curious if this has been observed in any other Greenland ice cores with sufficient length? And how safely can you infer widespread surface melting from a summit site?"

That last question was never answered on that post. There are links in the comments to articles on Fox News and other blogs, because of course the denialists had a field day with the 150 year figure.

Edited to add: there was quite a discussion at SkepticalScience too. Link. They had the same reaction as you all did.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So we know what weather is normal, even though we've been keeping records for only 180 years? Sure we have ice core records for temperature and CO2, but can anyone accurately tell me how many hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires there were in 1432?


You would have to ask Grothar that question. :)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4768
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


I wish I could be as funny as Steven Goddard.

If we're going to play the "all time record high" (of course, this is only looking at data from less than 150 years ago...Earth is much older), Alaska's all time high was recorded in 1915. http://www.arh.noaa.gov/docs/AKWXfacts.pdf


Interesting, indeed. Did you ever stop to think that every location, with temperature data records, will have an all time record high? Did you know that each will also have an all time record low?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4768
JohnLonergan your comment #1187 needs to be on Master's blog too. All of it!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Audubon rex

Writing in Forbes James Taylor of Heartland praises his clients efforts to restore CO2 levels to the glory days of Jurassic Park:

" the net effects of carbon externalities are beneficial rather than harmful. Carbon dioxide itself is fertilizer for the biosphere. As we add a little carbon dioxide to the trace amounts already in the atmosphere, crop production increases, trees and grasslands flourish and deserts recede... a warmer planet has always benefited human welfare more"
Though far too modest to harp on the cultural and evolutionary benefits of reflating CO2 to levels last seen in the Eocene, Taylor deserves homage for pointing us back to the Carboniferous future, where his campaign to restore the CO2 status quo promises
a renaissance of environmental art :


Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3600
Word of the Day: Agnotology

Agnotology is the study of ignorance and how it's produced.

For example, examining how misinformation can generate misconceptions about climate change. An interesting paper on this topic is Agnotology as a teaching tool: Learning climate science by studying misinformation by Daniel Bedford

Read on>>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3600
Quoting Birthmark:

The "once every 150 years" thing bothers me since this is only the third instance of such widespread melting iirc. I don't think that that's a very robust statistic.

But the important point is the last statement, which is as correct as it's possible to be.


The every 150 yrs is bogus, all right, here is all plot of ice core data by Alley et al 1995 showing the surface melting events dating to 10,000 yr BP(BP=1950)



Figure 1. Melt against age (upper panel) and July insolation against age (lower panel) for the GISP2 site. Years containing melt features are shown by thin dotted lines. The heavier textured line is the 100-a running mean of melt frequency (number of melt features per 100 years), and the heavy black line is the 1000-a running mean. The lower panel shows deviation of July insolation from modern values in calories/cm2/day, from Berger (1978; 1979); positive values indicate more insolation than today. Data from: Alley, R.B. and S. Anandakrishnan. Variations in melt-layer frequency in the GISP2 ice core: implications for Holocene summer temperatures in central Greenland. Annals of Glaciology 21, 64-70 (1995)

As can be seen from the chart, there have been a significant number of melting events , most of which occurred between 6000yr BP and 10,000 yr BP. The person must have counted about 80 lines in the chart and divided 12000 by 80 and got 150. However, it is obvious that a simple average doesn't work here.

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3600
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Yes, and I have a hard time believe that humans are the main contributing factor behind the warming over the last 10,000 years.


The key word in your statement is "believe".

Belief does not require proof. Belief is what allows the human mind to explore new ideas regardless of whether they fit with reality. It's the source of our creativeness as a species, and one of the attributes that makes our species special.

Belief can also shade our perceptions of reality. Belief can make us see things that aren't truly there, and vice versa (i.e., ignore what is right in front of our noses). It can also bias our opinions into accepting one conclusion over another conclusion, regardless of what our senses tell us.

If we base our conclusions about the natural world on our beliefs - in part or as a whole - we run the risk of ignoring reality.

Whether or not we choose to adjust our beliefs in line with reality is strictly a personal choice. However, if you choose not to, reality will still exist in contrast to your beliefs.

In other words, you will continue through life not truly knowing whether you are right or wrong.

My suggestion to you is to not simply "believe" in your conclusion. Research it, gather all the evidence you can from multiple independent sources, and evaluate the evidence in an objective and non-biased manner. Only then can you measure whether or not your beliefs fall in line with reality. If they don't, you will always have the ability to adjust your conclusion.

That's another great attribute about the human species: Possessing the ability to admit when we're wrong, and modifying our behavior accordingly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

I wonder why anyone takes IQ seriously at all?


Well we as humans love to measure things. We love it so much we all came up with different units to measure the same things. I.Q. is no different. It gives us a tangible metric for superiority/inferiority, and feeling superior or making someone feel inferior, especially a race/gender/class/ethnicity, makes some of us feel amazing. That has to be the saddest thing I have ever written about people...
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
Quoting Naga5000:


This has been a long stemming belief coming from the eugenics days. Some people don't understand or choose to willfully ignore blatant racial bias in most if not all or our standardized testing metrics. I could go on for hours on this, but the general gist is bigots will be bigots, and people who believe in this or any brand of bigotry cannot be taken at their word on anything.

I wonder why anyone takes IQ seriously at all?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
I don't see what Goddard being a racist have to do with his views on climate.

Though, the last time I said something about President Obama, I received a 4 hour timeout. :)


It's odd that someone would acknowledge being Steven Goddards fan boy, as you did in comment #1150, when he posts such racist drivel.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
I don't see what Goddard being a racist have to do with his views on climate.

Though, the last time I said something about President Obama, I received a 4 hour timeout. :)

I think it goes to the credibility of Goddard's research...and should take him off the list of people one would want to buy lunch.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
I don't see what Goddard being a racist have to do with his views on climate.

Though, the last time I said something about President Obama, I received a 4 hour timeout. :)


It shows he ignores what science has to say in regards to uneducated fallacies about race. That does not make for a good analyst of science. Obviously he has some issues when it comes to comprehension.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
I don't see what Goddard being a racist have to do with his views on climate.

Though, the last time I said something about President Obama, I received a 4 hour timeout. :)
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:


You do realize that Steven Goddard is a racist right? Those posts he made last fall claiming that the reason African Americans and Hispanics have lower IQs than white people and that their low IQs were the reason they supported Obama show that clearly.


This has been a long stemming belief coming from the eugenics days. Some people don't understand or choose to willfully ignore blatant racial bias in most if not all or our standardized testing metrics. I could go on for hours on this, but the general gist is bigots will be bigots, and people who believe in this or any brand of bigotry cannot be taken at their word on anything.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
How unprecedented was the Greenland ice melt last year?

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenla nd-melt.html

The "once every 150 years" thing bothers me since this is only the third instance of such widespread melting iirc. I don't think that that's a very robust statistic.

But the important point is the last statement, which is as correct as it's possible to be.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


I wish I could be as funny as Steven Goddard.

If we're going to play the "all time record high" (of course, this is only looking at data from less than 150 years ago...Earth is much older), Alaska's all time high was recorded in 1915. http://www.arh.noaa.gov/docs/AKWXfacts.pdf


You do realize that Steven Goddard is a racist right? Those posts he made last fall claiming that that African Americans and Hispanics have lower IQs than white people and that their low IQs were the reason they supported Obama show that clearly.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So we know what weather is normal, even though we've been keeping records for only 180 years? Sure we have ice core records for temperature and CO2, but can anyone accurately tell me how many hurricanes, tornadoes, and wildfires there were in 1432?

Why would anyone need to tell you that? I don't think you grasp the problem, the logic, or the science terribly well. Have you considered reading the reputable peer-reviewed science? It would clear up a lot of your misconceptions. (It certainly cleared up mine.)
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Chicago was under a mile of ice some 20,000 years ago, now it's not...therefore AGW is real.

Nope. Not even close.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Yes, and I have a hard time believe that humans are the main contributing factor behind the warming over the last 10,000 years.

There really hasn't been warming since the end of the last ice age...until the last few decades. Those last few decades are what humans are responsible for.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


And how much impact will this have on reducing temperatures??

By itself, not much. The fact that I haven't murdered anyone today doesn't have much impact on the global homicide rate...yet I think most people would still view my no-murder policy as a good thing.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


I wish I could be as funny as Steven Goddard.

If we're going to play the "all time record high" (of course, this is only looking at data from less than 150 years ago...Earth is much older), Alaska's all time high was recorded in 1915. http://www.arh.noaa.gov/docs/AKWXfacts.pdf

LOL I think you are as funny as Goddard. You just have a lower output.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


Where is your evidence that these extreme weather events are increasing in frequency?

Start Here: Link

Those papers and basic physics answer your question quite nicely.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting WPBHurricane05:
How unprecedented was the Greenland ice melt last year?

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenla nd-melt.html



Well, there is this...Link

2012


and this year's


""The next five-10 years will reveal whether or not 2012 was a rare event resulting from the natural variability of the NAO or part of an emerging pattern of new extreme high melt years"
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896
How unprecedented was the Greenland ice melt last year?

"Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. "But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome."

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenla nd-melt.html
Member Since: July 31, 2006 Posts: 56 Comments: 8112
Quoting WPBHurricane05:


So what Seattle is doing will pretty much do absolutely nothing.


What Seattle is doing is creating a blueprint to large city carbon neutrality that will have a major impact if other places follow the lead. Its called environmental responsibility, and its something to strive for regardless of views on global warming.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3896

Viewing: 1216 - 1166

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.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
41 °F
Scattered Clouds