From the Heartland: Farmers (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 12:20 AM GMT on June 23, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

From the Heartland: Farmers (2)

This entry starts from the comment from the previous entry by XuLonn

“Farmers, the military - many groups with a practical interest due to dependency on climate and weather are actively adapting to AGW/CC.

I'm curious about farmers and ranchers, who tend to be politically very conservative, especially in the south, and certainly in Indiana and the Midwest where I was raised.

Do they accept AGW/CC and adapt, or do they deny it and adapt anyway?”

For the past two or three years I have often been in the company of farmers along the Front Range of Colorado. Many of these farmers are from families who have been farming this land for a century or more. Others are owners of small farms that have started to provide local organic vegetables and meat to the line of cities and towns that follow Interstate 25. This region is not a easy place to farm: water is not reliable and depends on the snowfall and snowmelt in the high Rockies, it is 5000 feet above sea level and the sunlight is harsh, there are extreme fluctuations of temperature, the air is exceedingly dry, and hail is likely.

Many of the farmers I talk to tell me that weather is completely unpredictable beyond a week or two. They are used to dealing with harsh conditions and their consequences. Combining these two facts they don’t get too pressed about climate change; perhaps, it does not seem so different from the past. Plus there are larger threats from water-use policy, development, and land-use changes. I do note, anecdotally, that the farm that grows vast amounts of sweet corn a few miles down the road seems to play the weather and climate pretty well. They plant early or late with alarming skill and occasionally get a late harvest planted in July – not an easy achievement in Colorado.

On This American Life recently there was a show Hot In My Backyard. One segment featured the State Climatologist of Colorado, Nolan Doesken. All of the state climatologists I know have farmers as a primary clientele. Much of the segment on This American Life was on how to discuss climate change with farmers. For years in his annual presentation at the Colorado Farm Show, Doesken did not explicitly mention climate change.

2012 was a year of amazing wildfires in Colorado. 2012 was dry and hot in the late winter and spring and the fires started early. Increasingly, there is high vulnerability at the wildland-urban interface. In 2012 there was loss of life, record loss of houses, loss of forest and damage of watersheds. June 11, 2013 was one of those days that had the feeling of the proverbial end times, with fires breaking out all over the state. One in the Black Forest destroyed 511 houses (breaking 2012's record) and killed two people. In the This American Life radio segment, Nolan Doesken talked about how the 2012 fires changed the way he would talk about climate change. His own observations and reports from firefighters about how the nature (ferocity and speed of increase) and the season (not just summer) of the fires were changing convinced Doesken that we were already living the world that the climate models were describing. “He (Doesken) realized, if the climate models are right, he was seeing the future. Seeing where Colorado was headed-- droughts and dead crops and fires-- and it was horrible.” Doesken did mention climate change in the 2013 Colorado Farm Show. The fires of 2012 brought it all together in a way that made it clear.

The best work that I know of about farmer’s opinions on climate change comes from Iowa State University professor, J. Gordon Arbuckle. In a 2013 paper in Climatic Change, Arbuckle and colleagues reported that 68% of farmers he surveyed in Iowa believed that the climate was changing. 28% were uncertain and only 5% believed that the climate was not changing. With regard to attribution, 10% felt that climate change was caused by humans, 23% felt it was natural, and about 35% felt it was caused by both human and natural causes. (Summary Article and Press Coverage )

These numbers are consistent with numbers from other polls, which show relatively large percentages of those in the farming community in both groups of whether or not climate change is occurring. The numbers that I have looked at show that the group that believes climate change is occurring is generally larger than the group that does not. The group that attributes climate change primarily to humans is always a minority, but that group combined with those who believe there is a human component in association with non-human fluctuations is usually 50% or larger.

I end this piece pointing out that both Nolan Doesken and J. Gordon Arbuckle work out of extension services at state universities. Polling results show that extension services are the source of information about climate change most trusted by farmers. Looking at the numbers of farmers who are concerned about climate change, there are obviously many farmers who are also able to be good messengers. This piece, Farmer’s Voices too Often Missing in Climate Reporting, highlights the need to engage these voices more actively in the public discussion. In the next entry I will talk about some of the ideas suggested by these polls.

r

Some good references:

Climate and Farming

Farming Success in an Uncertain Future (Cornell)

USDA Warns Farmers about Climate Change (and announces plans to set up climate change centers)

Reinventing Farming for a Changing Climate (NPR)

Farm Level Adjustments to Climate Change (USDA)

Climate Change More Expensive to Farmers than Climate Bill

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: 151 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

151. RevElvis
3:50 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
No-drama Obama unveils series of modest, sensible steps on climate change

Obama’s supporters, his critics, and the media all want the same thing from his climate speech today: drama. They want grand gestures, some sort of conversion narrative centered on Obama’s will to fight the climate fight. They want a "trade" for Keystone or a climate tax declaration or something about fracking, anything to fire up audiences and get clicks. Everyone has the same incentive nowadays, the green groups, the right-wing groups, the political media, they all want and need attention. In a fractured information environment, attention is money, and it’s measured in clicks. Drama gets clicks.

The Obama administration wants the opposite. It needs to reassure its environmental base and its international partners that it is working on climate change and intent on meeting its obligations. But high-profile climate drama could muck up the nomination of Gina McCarthy for EPA administrator, arouse the ire of the DC Circuit Court, piss off environmentalists yet again, torpedo the immigration reform effort, or, hell, just give the old white guys in the tricorner hats another excuse to march on the Mall, and aren’t we all a little tired of that?

Obama wants a no-drama climate plan that will quickly be swept from the news cycle by Supreme Court decisions and preparations for Obamacare implementation. He’s aware that the public is still spooked from the economic crash and ongoing weak recovery, in no mood to hear about sweeping, historic anything from the feds right now. That’s why the plan refers to "steady, responsible" action on climate twice in the first two pages. Steady as she goes. No reason to get worked up.

This is vintage Obama. He refuses to wage lofty ideological battles, which frustrates the hell out of people who view those battles as necessary and inevitable. He doesn’t direct a lot of energy at bashing his head into walls. He just puts the available resources to work doing what can be done. It’s not enough — it’s not even as much as he could do — but it would be a big mistake to think it doesn’t matter.



more at Grist.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 961
150. zampaz
3:43 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


Parts of Alaska looks like they will set some new record highs. With the artic ice melt last yr how come Alaska was not as hot? Is it because of the ice extent this yr?

Good question. The answer to this year's extreme seems to lie in the patterns of the Jet Stream.
I like the animation on wikipedia.
A way to get an idea of how the atmosphere over North America is to look at what the clouds are doing in satellite images. You can animate the last 24 hours of IR4 satellite images on your wundermap (which is fun) or use this link Patrap shared:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~fxg1/SAT_US/anim16wv.ht ml
Pockets, or islands of warmer or colder air or even large storm systems can get trapped in the jet stream "rivers" of the atmosphere.
This is believed to be the cause extended extreme flooding events we've seen in India, Canada, Europe, S

Here's a video of one of my pinup girls, Prof. Jennifer Francis. (Intelligent woman are so hot, wish she'd let me watch her do some math!)
Climate Change and Extreme Weather: Prof. Jennifer Francis (2013)


Here's an article about the temps in Alaska that quotes Dr. Masters.
94 in Alaska? Weather extremes tied to jet stream
WASHINGTON (AP) — The jet stream, the river of air high above Earth that generally dictates the weather, usually rushes rapidly from west to east in a mostly straight direction.

Link to full article.


allahgore, I know that you know the climate is changing and we are both concerned with the increasing frequency extreme weather events regardless of the cause of the change. We can work together to help each other prepare our homes, neighborhoods and communities. Some of us will choose to change our lifestyles. Others will not. That's okay, we will still help each other fill sandbags or donate to those who suffer losses. People are sharing on my blog what they are doing to prepare.

There will be no meaningful political solutions.
Too few people stand too much to lose.
Promises will be made and then forgotten.

Thought for today: We forget about tar sands and pump fresh water from Canada and a desalinization plant on the GOM through the Keystone pipeline to deliver fresh water to the high plains.





Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 904
149. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
3:34 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
148. MisterPerfect
3:24 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting RevElvis:
Goodbye, Miami

By century's end, rising sea levels will turn the nation's urban fantasyland into an American Atlantis. But long before the city is completely underwater, chaos will begin

South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won’t just come in from the east – because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. “Imagine Swiss cheese, and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like,” says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily – it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. “Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here,” says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas.


continued at ThinkProgress.org

original article at RollingStone.com



someone was saying earlier about credibility in science articles...

thinkprogress.org certainly is not known for political bias or propaganda.

a pop music magazine also seems like a perfect source for climate science.

the entire city of Miami rests on top of a limestone bedrock. that bedrock is composed of ancient corals, indicating the sea levels in that area were much higher many thousands of years ago. the suggestion that south florida land will once again be turned into a shallow sea supports a cyclical process of sea level rise and fall. however, according to journalists of a pop music magazine, it is the human being that is responsible to keep the earth in a perpetual, unchanged state and promote the non-existence of natural environmental change.
Member Since: November 1, 2006 Posts: 71 Comments: 20140
147. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:19 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:
From the Guardian, the complete text:

Barack Obama's climate action plan


This is a very ambitious and well thought out set of goals. The biggest obstacle to these goals will be those that are still in power and will do anything to see that none of this becomes actionable. The realities of climate change will one day be known to all that can comprehend at least the most basic of the sciences. The goal of the disillusioned obstructionist is to delay any actions until they have reaped their fullest profits. Profits that will come at a great cost to us all.

I am not a fan of executive orders, but some will be needed here in order to accomplish anything. The problems could still persist in that the next administration could easily rescind them.

As an additional area of conversation, are any of you familiar with ALEC?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
146. JohnLonergan
2:45 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


This was one of the comments there made by ARU Awake - "The NORTH POLE is MOVING toward Siberia of coarse the US would be warmer and Europe colder." - When did a self induced ignorance become a virtue???


Virtue, They're ignorant and proud of it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3662
145. JohnLonergan
2:43 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
From the Guardian, the complete text:

Barack Obama's climate action plan
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3662
144. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:15 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting biff4ugo:
NASA studying carbon loss from permafrost in Alaska.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZSM8GcmJKg


This was one of the comments there made by ARU Awake - "The NORTH POLE is MOVING toward Siberia of coarse the US would be warmer and Europe colder." - When did a self induced ignorance become a virtue???
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
143. biff4ugo
1:08 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Doh! Never mind... obviously didn't make it to the end of the article. I wish your study had data after 2010 to see current changes.
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 116 Comments: 1604
142. JohnLonergan
12:18 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
About the Lack of Warming…

’s common knowledge among those who follow such things that global temperatures have not gone up very much in the past several years. This has caused many to believe that the recent lack of warming contradicts what climate models say should happen in response to the increasing Tyndall gases. This, in turn, has provoked the counterargument that the Earth is still warming, just on a longer time scale, or that the recent period is too short to yield statistically significant results.

These counterarguments are not compelling. Fundamentally, any change in global temperature, even if it’s just from one year to another, must have a cause. Saying that we need to look at longer time scales denies the need to find the cause of the actual global temperature changes (or lack thereof) at shorter time scales.

Such causes have been sought, and a few papers have proposed various combinations of cloud cover, volcanic aerosols, the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), deep ocean heat uptake, and so forth. A recent paper I like by Foster and Rahmsdorf (discussed here and here) takes a statistical approach to attempt to eliminate the effect of the other known forcing mechanisms, and what’s left over is a fairly steady warming. Others have noted, more casually, that 2011 was the warmest La Niña year on record.

I decided to take a simple approach at looking at the effect of ENSO. Using GISTemp Land/Ocean Index values and Niño 3.4 values, I computed 12-month running averages of Niño 3.4 and compared them to the average GISTemp values at lags of 0, 3, and 6 months. Foster and Rahmsdorf used a diferent ENSO index and found optimal lags between 2 and 5 months. So one would guess that a 3-month lag would fit the data best in my case, and indeed it did.

The normal threshold for El Niño or La Niña, as applied by the Climate Prediction Center, is for five consecutive months of at least 0.5 C above or below normal in a key region of the tropical Pacific. For working with annual data, I decided to call an annual average above 0.5 C an El Niño and an annual average below -0.5 C a La Niña. Then I plotted it up, color-coding each year for whether it was El Niño, La Niña, or neither (neutral). Here’s the result:



We see the latter half of the mid-century flat period, followed by the warming since 1970 and the relatively flat recent few years. We also see a few years that were exceptionally cold and whose timing fits with the known injection of aerosols into the stratosphere by the mighty volcanic eruptions of Agung and Pinatubo. It’s easy to see that both of these eruptions caused global temperatures to drop by about 0.3 C temporarily before recovering as the aerosols settled out of the stratosphere over the following 2-3 years. Finally, we see that, as is well known, La Niña years tend to be globally cold years and El Niño years tend to be globally warm, with a global lag of three months as mentioned earlier. And, we see that in a head-to-head match between El Niño and Pinatubo, Pinatubo wins.

To dig deeper, I’ll zoom in on the period since Agung. This isolates the period of nearly steady warming since 1970 and lets us focus a bit more on what has happened since 1998 or so. Here’s the chart:



Somehow, it no longer appears that global temperatures have leveled off in the past decade. That is because, with the color coding according to the phase of ENSO, the eye is able to compare apples to apples: the upward long-term trend during El Niño years (red triangles) is plain, the upward long-term trend during neutral years (green squares) is plain, and the upward long-term trend during La Niña years (blue diamonds) is plain.

Stare hard enough, though, and you see that they have leveled off. The last ten data points have little or no trend. But we see that the lack of trend is at least partly due to the El Niño year near the beginning of the 10-year period and the two La Niña years near the end.

Let’s get quantitative about this. In this case, with the temperature rise being nearly linear, it helps to add trendlines. I’ve excluded the three Pinatubo years from the regressions. Here’s the result:



GISTemp global temperatures, with trends for El Niño, neutral, and La Niña years computed separately. Pinatubo years are excluded.
There aren’t that many full-blown El Niño events, but they global temperatures during El Niños seem to be following a steady upward trend. There are more La Niña events, and they too those global temperatures also clearly follow a steady upward trend. Finally, the temperatures during the many neutral years also so show no sign of departing from a steady upward trend. There’s enough scatter in the neutral years that if one had considered the period 1977-1987, or the period 1987-1997, one might be tempted to say that the neutral years had little or no warming. But the past decade fits nicely with the long-term upward trend of 0.16 C/decade shown by all three time series. [Clarifications added 4/30/2012. - John N-G]

The spacing between the lines is a good measure of the impact of El Niño and La Niña. All else being equal, an El Niño year will average about 0.2 C warmer globally than a La Niña year. Each new La Niña year will be about as warm as an El Niño year 13 years prior.

So we see a couple of recent La Niñas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niño will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niña.

As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3662
141. biff4ugo
12:14 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
NASA studying carbon loss from permafrost in Alaska.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZSM8GcmJKg
Member Since: December 28, 2006 Posts: 116 Comments: 1604
140. Birthmark
12:11 PM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


The net forcing actually does a pretty poor job replicating the early-20th Century Warming, as do most CMIP5 models. It suggests that there are more factors that they need to consider than what are in the models. It may also suggest a more potent solar effect than what models suggest, given that solar ramped up big time in the early-20th Century. Or it may be a different factor, such as the PDO. Regardless, the models and the net forcing above do a very poor job replicating the early-20th Century warming for whatever reason.



In that cartoon Tisdale takes one period that is a marvel of cherry picking. What would his results for the GISS have been had he started one data point to the left and ended one data point to the left? LOL

In any event the long term GISS trend from 1880 to the present is 0.065ºC/dec ±0.008ºC. So the models probably are consistent with that when we take into account the confidence interval of the models.

But isn't that a bit of an own goal even if Tisdale was correct? I mean, wouldn't that mean that it's pretty likely that the models are underestimating future warmth?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
139. Snowlover123
11:53 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting Xandra:

When all the forcings are combined in Figure 6, the net forcing shows good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940. This is thought to be due to a warming bias introduced by US ships measuring engine intake temperature.


Figure 6: Blue line is net radiative forcing (GISS). Red line is global temperature anomaly (GISS).

So we see that climate isn't controlled by a single factor - there are a number of influences that can change the planet's radiative balance. However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.


The net forcing actually does a pretty poor job replicating the early-20th Century Warming, as do most CMIP5 models. It suggests that there are more factors that they need to consider than what are in the models. It may also suggest a more potent solar effect than what models suggest, given that solar ramped up big time in the early-20th Century. Or it may be a different factor, such as the PDO. Regardless, the models and the net forcing above do a very poor job replicating the early-20th Century warming for whatever reason.


Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
138. JohnLonergan
10:57 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Media Overlooking 90% of Global Warming

As we have previously discussed, the overall warming or heat accumulation of the planet has continued, and if anything accelerated over the past 10–15 years (Figure 1).



Figure 1: Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter OHC increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Misleading 'Pause' Articles
However, over the past week or two there has been a spate of articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, The New Republic, and Der Spiegel, all of which get many details right (including noting the warming of the oceans), but that all begin from the premise that “global warming” has slowed.

However, over the past week or two there has been a spate of articles from the New York Times, Washington Post, The New Republic, and Der Spiegel, all of which get many details right (including noting the warming of the oceans), but that all begin from the premise that “global warming” has slowed.

It would be more accurate to say that global surface air warming has slowed, but the overall warming of the Earth’s climate has sped up. Only about 2% of the planet’s overall warming heats the atmosphere, so if we focus only on surface air temperatures, we miss 98% of the overall warming of the globe.



Figure 2: A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet.

Read more...
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3662
136. RevElvis
2:41 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Scientists: Key Parts of State Dept Keystone Review Are 'Without Merit'

WASHINGTON—Dozens of leading scientists in the fields of climate change, public health and ecology have told the State Department that the findings of its draft assessment of the impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline are "without merit in many critical areas."

In unusually blunt advice, they urged the Obama administration to reject the pipeline as not being in the U.S. national interest.

"How is importing the world's highest carbon content crude consistent with national policy goals?" they asked. "Now is the time to make a serious commitment to place the United States on a lower carbon trajectory. If not now, when? If not here, where?"

Many of the 29 signatories, like retired NASA scientist James Hansen and Penn State professor of meteorology Michael Mann, are already well known for their opposition to the pipeline. Fourteen of the signatories were among a group of 18 leading climate scientists who wrote President Obama in January urging him not to approve the pipeline.



continued at InsideClimateNews.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 961
134. RevElvis
2:33 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Military Report: America Has 'Misguided' Fixation With Domestic Drilling

The report, released quietly this month, says climate change is a bigger national security threat than the country's dependence on foreign oil.

WASHINGTON - A new report from the U.S. Center for Naval Analyses and the London-based Royal United Services Institute, two of the NATO alliance's front-line strategy centers, recommends putting more effort into fighting global warming than securing reliable supplies of fossil fuels.

The authors call the habitual American fixation on winning energy independence through expanded North American production of oil and natural gas "misguided." They say the "only sustainable solution" to the problem of energy insecurity is not through more drilling, but through energy efficiency and renewable fuels, like biofuels to replace oil.

Despite the steady supplies provided by the current U.S. drilling boom, "the increased domestic production of oil and natural gas is not a panacea for the country's energy security dilemma," they say.

And in blunt language, they criticize American policymakers and legislators for refusing to accept the "robust" scientific evidence that emissions of carbon dioxide are already causing harmful global warming, and for refusing to take actions that, if taken swiftly, could ward off its worst effects.

"Political leaders, including many in the United States, refuse to accept short-term costs to address long-term dangers even though the future costs of responding to disasters after they occur will be far greater," said their report, published this month.


more at InsideClimateNews.org
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 961
133. Naga5000
2:13 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
because I am a liberal, communist, socialist, fascist, atheist, episcopalian, alarmist trying to deprive sincere seekers-of-truth of their constitutional right to be willfully wrong? Or something like that...


I always knew I liked you.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
132. Naga5000
1:45 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting allahgore:



You can always go to a site run by a cartoonist!

You can always keep following Yoboi's trend and not post anything of relevance and just insult users. How's that vendetta against Neapolitan going? Any luck?
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
131. RevElvis
1:38 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Goodbye, Miami

By century's end, rising sea levels will turn the nation's urban fantasyland into an American Atlantis. But long before the city is completely underwater, chaos will begin

South Florida has two big problems. The first is its remarkably flat topography. Half the area that surrounds Miami is less than five feet above sea level. Its highest natural elevation, a limestone ridge that runs from Palm Beach to just south of the city, averages a scant 12 feet. With just three feet of sea-level rise, more than a third of southern Florida will vanish; at six feet, more than half will be gone; if the seas rise 12 feet, South Florida will be little more than an isolated archipelago surrounded by abandoned buildings and crumbling overpasses. And the waters won’t just come in from the east – because the region is so flat, rising seas will come in nearly as fast from the west too, through the Everglades.

Even worse, South Florida sits above a vast and porous limestone plateau. “Imagine Swiss cheese, and you’ll have a pretty good idea what the rock under southern Florida looks like,” says Glenn Landers, a senior engineer at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This means water moves around easily – it seeps into yards at high tide, bubbles up on golf courses, flows through underground caverns, corrodes building foundations from below. “Conventional sea walls and barriers are not effective here,” says Robert Daoust, an ecologist at ARCADIS, a Dutch firm that specializes in engineering solutions to rising seas.


continued at ThinkProgress.org

original article at RollingStone.com

Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 961
128. FLwolverine
12:40 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


Parts of Alaska looks like they will set some new record highs. With the artic ice melt last yr how come Alaska was not as hot? Is it because of the ice extent this yr?
Good question. Bing can probably help you out with that.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2443
125. FLwolverine
12:29 AM GMT on June 25, 2013
Quoting allahgore:


The truth shall set you free!
Well, knowing your general disdain for the truth .......
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2443
123. JohnLonergan
11:16 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Farming Carbon: Study Reveals Potent Carbon-Storage Potential of Human-Made Wetlands

After being drained by the millions of acres to make way for agriculture, wetlands are staging a small comeback these days on farms. Some farmers restore or construct wetlands alongside their fields to trap nitrogen and phosphorus runoff, and research shows these systems can also retain pesticides, antibiotics, and other agricultural pollutants.
Share This:


Important as these storage functions of wetlands are, however, another critical one is being overlooked, says Bill Mitsch, director of the Everglades Wetland Research Park at Florida Gulf Coast University and an emeritus professor at Ohio State University: Wetlands also excel at pulling carbon dioxide out of the air and holding it long-term in soil.
Writing in the July-August issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality, Mitsch and co-author Blanca Bernal report that two 15-year-old constructed marshes in Ohio accumulated soil carbon at an average annual rate of 2150 pounds per acre -- or just over one ton of carbon per acre per year.
The rate was 70% faster than a natural, "control" wetland in the area and 26% faster than the two were adding soil carbon five years ago. And by year 15, each wetland had a soil carbon pool of more than 30,000 pounds per acre, an amount equaling or exceeding the carbon stored by forests and farmlands.

Read more>>

Blanca Bernal, William J. Mitsch. Carbon Sequestration in Two Created Riverine Wetlands in the Midwestern United States. Journal of Environment Quality, 2013; 0 (0): 0 DOI: 10.2134/jeq2012.0229
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3662
122. LowerCal
10:28 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
From The 10 Dumbest Things Ever Said About Global Warming | Politics News | Rolling Stone
....

7. "I thought it must be true until I found out what it cost."

Yes, Sen. Inhofe gets two entries. Speaking to Rachel Maddow in 2012, he admitted that his rejection of climate science began with realizing how expensive mitigation would be. Not only is it flatly nonsensical to deny that a problem exists because you don't like its cure, delaying climate action is actually the more expensive course. The International Energy Agency has estimated that for every year the world delays taking significant action to curb climate change, we'll end up paying an additional $500 billion later on.

....
Member Since: July 26, 2006 Posts: 58 Comments: 9303
121. FLwolverine
10:12 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

But yaboi is "just asking questions!" Why are you censoring someone for "just asking questions!?!?!"
because I am a liberal, communist, socialist, fascist, atheist, episcopalian, alarmist trying to deprive sincere seekers-of-truth of their constitutional right to be willfully wrong? Or something like that...
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2443
120. cyclonebuster
10:10 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
OUCH! NOAA upped the temperature scale another .5 Celsius from 31.1 to 31.6.... I can't remember ever seeing it that high and so early in the season...



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20468
119. Patrap
10:02 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Climate change: The next challenge for national security
The question isn't whether we can afford to combat climate change, but rather how can we not?


Sitting in a New York restaurant with several top climate scientists on a beautiful summer evening, it's difficult to remember that, nine months ago, this part of Manhattan was without power for six days as a result of a Hurricane Sandy storm surge. But the climate scientists around the table hadn't forgotten, and they warned of far worse to come as average global temperatures rise - problems so severe as to be flagged profound national security challenges.

Scientists have been wrestling with this problem for a long time. The atmosphere is trapping more heat, largely as a result of human activity, causing a build-up of CO2. Modelling the effects is difficult, they explained, because the additional heat is fed into a dynamic, finely balanced system that resists change - up to a point. Oceans act as heat sinks, forests expand to soak up carbon, glaciers melt, and so forth.

And there are still elements of the system we can't fully model, such as the melting rate of Greenland's disappearing icecap or the heat exchange processes that occur within the deep ocean. There are also adverse feedback mechanisms - such as the increased absorption of solar heat when ice cover shrinks, and the release of methane from long-frozen, decayed vegetation in the permafrost, which can be seen bubbling up in puddles in the Arctic. These have made previous modelling efforts understate the pace and severity of prospective climate change.



But as former Senior Official of the National Science Foundation Bob Correll explained, the conclusion is inescapable: Earth is going to warm substantially, and soon. Perhaps 0.21 to 0.27 degrees Celsius over the next eighty years.

For context, this is more than twice the temperature range change since the most recent Ice Age, when parts of Europe and North America were covered by more than a mile of ice. And the consequences will likely shake the foundations of global civilization as we know it today.

Water shortages will become endemic in some regions previously supplied by glacial streams - affecting some two billion people in Asia. Rainfall patterns will change, drying up large parts of the most fertile agricultural lands, including in Africa. Water scarcity is likely to affect up to half the world's population by 2030. Sea levels will rise by more than a meter, some islands will disappear, and coastal cities - such as New York - which house more than 60 percent of humanity, will be increasingly at risk in storm surges, or even partially submerged.

Storms will be more violent; rainfall more intense, heat waves and drought more destructive. Climate models are able to predict the general areas that will be affected by these changing weather patterns. Africa and the American Southwest will be drier, the Arctic much warmer, with polar ice rapidly disappearing, and northeast Europe - at least temporarily - will be colder. And all of this in a world with a rapidly growing population and increased pressures on natural resources and energy sources. The UN is predicting 50 million environmental refugees by 2030, as regional climate-related stresses exacerbate existing political conflicts.

I've spent most of my life in the national security business as a US Army officer. Seeing the causes and consequences of war, civil conflict, and failed states has become almost second nature, and hearing these climates scientists talk raises profound concerns. The political and economic map of the world simply cannot cope with these stresses, withuot real change in the way nations plan, govern and commit resources. Disaster relief will likely be inadequate, insurance funds will probably fail, and vast dislocations of supplies and services are to be expected. Having a capable army and rescue services won't be enough. The threat of mass casualties, political upheaval, and conflict within and between states will certainly increase.

This doesn’t argue for spending more on weapons. It argues, first, for clear public understanding of scientific assessments, followed by cooperative action on a global scale. It is already too late to prevent substantial impact, but not too late to avert a civilization-altering catastrophe. These preventive measures fall into three categories: first, reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases we release into the atmosphere; second, find ways to remove the gases from the atmosphere in large scale; and third, prepare infrastructure, agriculture and public security for the inevitable challenges ahead. In general, we already know what to do, and have been discussing it for more than two decades. But do we have the will to do it?

Since the dawn of history, humanity has organised to prepare for conflict and struggle. Often only the prospect of life-threatening destruction - or perhaps life-changing conquest - could cause people to unite, plan ahead, and work together for common cause. Today, the challenge of climate change is both these things - life-threatening and life-changing. Humanity is largely responsible for causing it, and only by working together can we succeed in dealing with its impact. Surely, this ranks as a national security challenge of the first order; it could well become the most important shared challenge of the world's security establishments.

It will take leadership of the world's great powers - including both the US and China. But it will also take the voices of the nations most affected - island states such as the Maldives and developing countries in Africa, who can already feel the impact of rising sea levels and altered rainfall patterns. It will take support from wealthy oil producing states that have the disposable income to invest in studies, organisations and technologies to help humanity work through these challenges.

And, of course, it will place great demands on international organisations such as the United Nations and the African Union - not just to respond to the inevitable crises and disasters, but to foster collective investments in infrastructure, water, agriculture, clean energy and energy efficiency which can head off the more threatening scenarios ahead.

The issue isn't whether we can afford to do this; rather, how can we afford not to do it?
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129833
118. BaltimoreBrian
9:03 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Oh, I see. Didn't realize it was out of context; that line alone was quoted in Dr. Masters's previous blog entry by another user, who added, "LOL, I was thinking the same just last week. I may clip that statement for general use. Might even make a good sig-line." And since you voted up that comment, I assumed--perhaps wrongly--that you were indicating assent. If not, my bad.Are you under the impression my response in #60 to zampaz was my "whole weight"? I mean, seriously?

;-)


Anyway a week later, they come back, and said my denier antics were tiresome, and that I had to see....Nea.

Nea?

Nea.

I was terrified of him. Everyone was terrified of Nea. I've seen grown men pull their own heads off rather than see Nea.

Even Steve Goddard was frightened of Nea.

What did he do?

He used....
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8880
116. Xandra
6:29 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting yonzabam:

[...] During the 20th century, there was a 30 year period of anomalous cooling from the 40s to the 70s, despite rising CO2 levels. This has never been adequately explained, although 'global dimming' due to air pollution has been suggested. The resumption of warming in the late 70s coincided with the introduction of clean air laws in N. America and Europe.[...]


From SkS:

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

[...] Over the past century, are there any periods of long term cooling and if so, what is the significance?


Figure 4: Green line is carbon dioxide levels from ice cores obtained at Law Dome, East Antarctica (CDIAC). Blue line is carbon dioxide levels measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii (NOAA). Red line is annual global temperature anomaly (GISS)

Figure 4 compares CO2 to global temperatures over the past century. While CO2 is rising from 1940 to 1970, global temperatures show a cooling trend. This is a 30 year period, longer than can be explained by internal variability from ENSO and solar cycles. If CO2 causes warming, why isn't global temperature rising over this period? To answer this, one needs to recognise that CO2 is not the only driver of climate. There are a number of factors which affect the net energy flow into our climate. Stratospheric aerosols (eg - from volcanic eruptions) reflect sunlight back into space, causing cooling. When solar activity increases, the amount of energy flowing into our climate increases. Figure 5 shows a composite of the various radiative forcings that affect climate.


Figure 5: Separate global climate forcings relative to their 1880 values (GISS).

When all the forcings are combined in Figure 6, the net forcing shows good correlation to global temperature. There is still internal variability superimposed on the temperature record due to short term cycles like ENSO. The main discrepancy is a decade centered around 1940. This is thought to be due to a warming bias introduced by US ships measuring engine intake temperature.


Figure 6: Blue line is net radiative forcing (GISS). Red line is global temperature anomaly (GISS).

So we see that climate isn't controlled by a single factor - there are a number of influences that can change the planet's radiative balance. However, for the last 35 years, the dominant forcing has been CO2.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
115. Patrap
6:05 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Springtime melt in Greenland: Late start, rapid spread
June 21, 2013



Surface melting of the snow and ice of the Greenland Ice Sheet had a slightly late start, but quickly spread over a significant area, extending over more than 20% of the ice sheet in early June and reaching above 2,000 meters (6,500 feet) elevation in some areas. Small melt lakes have begun to form on the ice sheet, as seen by the new USGS/NASA Landsat-8 satellite.


Figure 1. Cumulative surface melt days for mid-May to mid-June in Greenland. Note that the color scale is 0 to 30 days, rather than 0 to 100 days for the daily figure. Data are from the Greenland Daily Surface Melt 25km EASE-Grid 2.0 Climate Data Record. About the data


Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center/Thomas Mote, University of Georgia

After the annual re-calibration of the melt algorithm in mid March (see March 18 post), very little melt was detected until May. A few southern coastal areas began melting in mid-May, followed by inland higher-elevation ice and all remaining coastal areas about June 3, when warmer conditions arrived. Surface melting reached the “Saddle” region of the ice sheet (located where the pale bluish band extends from the east to the west coastal zones in Figure 1) on June 11 and 13. Only the central eastern coast remains relatively melt free.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 428 Comments: 129833
114. ScottLincoln
6:04 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
Geez, Naga, I hope you didn't have anything important planned for this afternoon. Yoboi is reverting to his old tricks - one useless baseless snarky question after another. Time for the ! button, I think.

But yaboi is "just asking questions!" Why are you censoring someone for "just asking questions!?!?!"
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3325
113. yoboi
6:00 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:



Not my job to do your research. None of those sites are academic, scientific, or truthful. They spread lies, conspiracy, and misinformation (easily seen if you even took a minute to read published research) The nonsense they spout is easily contradicted by published scientific evidence as many websites point out easily, like skepticalscience.com

I'm done with you. I quite frankly don't think if you read any of the actual science behind global warming you would understand it or believe it. I think you do little more here that push buttons, use distraction techniques, and promote imaginary propaganda. I don't know why you even come here or are interested in the topic since you simply just ignore everything presented to you. My only logical conclusion is you are a troll, and therefore, should be banned from this blog. Have fun ignoring reality, bud. I hope you don't live near the coast! :)


I do live near the coast in south LA....and I see our coast diappearing and it's not due to sea level rise...it's because all the oil companies cut thousands of canals in the marsh looking for oil and salt water intrusion killed the marsh grass.....just because i don't buy into the AGW agenda does not mean I want a dirty earth.....I think the burning of fossil fuels causes many medical issues everyday.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2593
112. Naga5000
5:53 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting FLwolverine:
Geez, Naga, I hope you didn't have anything important planned for this afternoon. Yoboi is reverting to his old tricks - one useless baseless snarky question after another. Time for the ! button, I think.


It's ignore time for this one. Obviously his behavior is going to be tolerated here.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
111. Naga5000
5:53 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



I don't think this is a game.....Is this your personal opinion about these websites????? Please povide some facts since we are not allowed by you to quote those sites.....



Not my job to do your research. None of those sites are academic, scientific, or truthful. They spread lies, conspiracy, and misinformation (easily seen if you even took a minute to read published research) The nonsense they spout is easily contradicted by published scientific evidence as many websites point out easily, like skepticalscience.com

I'm done with you. I quite frankly don't think if you read any of the actual science behind global warming you would understand it or believe it. I think you do little more here that push buttons, use distraction techniques, and promote imaginary propaganda. I don't know why you even come here or are interested in the topic since you simply just ignore everything presented to you. My only logical conclusion is you are a troll, and therefore, should be banned from this blog. Have fun ignoring reality, bud. I hope you don't live near the coast! :)
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
110. FLwolverine
5:49 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Geez, Naga, I hope you didn't have anything important planned for this afternoon. Yoboi is reverting to his old tricks - one useless baseless snarky question after another. Time for the ! button, I think.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2443
109. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:48 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



when someone post the same weather report multiple times a day....you might consider it an example......I consider it an obsession......


I consider that if you were half as obsessed with the actual science as you are in your disdain for Nea's posts then we could begin to lay the foundation to build towards intellectually driven conversations. You come across as an intelligent person, but you rely too much on your emotions to convey your thoughts.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4772
108. Picatso
5:45 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
@ Birthmark -
~Snicker...
Member Since: June 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 70
107. yoboi
5:44 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:

sunshinehours.wordpress.com, along with WUWT, and countless others. Stop playing games.



I don't think this is a game.....Is this your personal opinion about these websites????? Please povide some facts since we are not allowed by you to quote those sites.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2593
106. Birthmark
5:41 PM GMT on June 24, 2013


FOOD FIGHT!
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
105. Naga5000
5:38 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting yoboi:




Please back-up your claims.......what conspiracy web sites???

sunshinehours.wordpress.com, along with WUWT, and countless others. Stop playing games.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
104. yoboi
5:36 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:

Your "facts" are misrepresented at best, and completely taken out of context at worst. Stay off the conspiracy weather web sites and look into the real science.




Please back-up your claims.......what conspiracy web sites???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2593
103. Naga5000
5:34 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



when someone post the same weather report multiple times a day....you might consider it an example......I consider it an obsession......


Good thing your consideration isn't taken into account.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965
102. yoboi
5:32 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting Birthmark:
As I said, iceage is attempting to disprove the science with cold weather reports.

Neapolitan's reports are consistent with the science and are used, imo, as examples rather than evidence.



when someone post the same weather report multiple times a day....you might consider it an example......I consider it an obsession......
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2593
101. Naga5000
5:31 PM GMT on June 24, 2013
Quoting yoboi:



Sorry I missed a graph that you created by you....Can you please post "your graph" again??? TIA...


You can attack me for not making graphs all you want. It's irrelevant. I am not the one making outrageous claims like:
Quoting yoboi:



What about all the heat records that still hold from the 1800's??????? Did C02 cause that or magic????Climate goes in cycles....you should know that.....
or
Quoting yoboi:



It's all a scam.....just another way to push more taxes on the working man with a carbon tax....I can't understand how you can support carbon credits....it allows people with money to buy there way out of doing something bad.....that's like if you cheat on your spouse.....it's ok i bought cheat credits so it's a wash....using tricky data sets....saying it's trapped heat after your prediction is wrong....thats not science it's BS.....


I agree with the often posted climate science and conclusions made therein. You, on the other hand, point towards conspiracy, claims of data manipulation, and numerous other diversionary tactics based solely on your opinion and nothing more. The burden is on you, otherwise, you are doing nothing but spouting unsubstantiated bull.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3965

Viewing: 151 - 101

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog 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.