More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 4:32 AM GMT on July 12, 2013

Share this Blog
20
+

More From the Heartland: Farmers (3)

In the entry before President Obama’s speech, I wrote about farmers and climate change. I referred to a survey of farmer’s opinions on climate change performed by Iowa State University professor, J. Gordon Arbuckle and colleagues. 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 )

In this blog I want to explore the results of the poll of the farmer’s some more.

Arbuckle’s work is in the standard protocol of social science studies focused on the acceptance and use of science-based knowledge by society. It utilizes the basic framework of how the responses to climate change are organized, specifically, mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps, coupled with enhancement of processes that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, such as storage of carbon dioxide in forests and soils. Adaptation is modification of how we do and build things in response to climate change.

First a little about social science research – In the past 5 years I have worked with several social scientists. The practice of social science has strict protocols. Interview-based research, such as discussed here, poses questions to be explored and answered by input from a set of interviewees. As in natural science, it is required that the research questions can be tested and evaluated. Not only does this require careful design of the research questions, but it also requires design, review and testing of the questions to be asked in the interview. The design of a robust experiment to disentangle questions where there is a strong element of human preference and decision is exceedingly difficult. This includes picking the group of people who are asked to respond to the interview.

The design of Arbuckle’s research had two research questions: “(1) do Iowa farmers support actions aimed at climate change adaptation and mitigation; and, (2) are beliefs and concerns about climate change associated with support for or opposition to those activities."

The interview questions that were designed to unravel the issues of the two research questions focused first on precipitation. As I wrote in the earlier blog, there is already a perceived change in precipitation, especially in the springtime during planting. There is too much water. It is worth noting that this part of the country is a part of the country that has seen less warming than the regions surrounding it – the Midwest warming hole (excellent paper by Kunkel et al. and Rood blog with unfilled promises). Therefore climate change is felt more in this region by changes in precipitation than by warming.

The interview questions were anchored around protecting the land, draining the land, and whether or not there should be mitigation to counter the climate change that is causing the increased precipitation. There was strong support for protecting the land through conservation practices. The support for draining the land was less strong, with more people uncertain about this option. An interesting aside, much of the Midwest corn land has extensive drainage infrastructure, which made what was historically a too wet environment into viable and excellent corn and soybean land. There was far less support for mitigation. However, looking at the mitigation numbers it was about equally split between opposing mitigation, uncertain about mitigation and supporting mitigation. Those opposing was about 3 percentage points higher than those supporting. This suggests that many recognize the changing climate and believe that more resiliency should be built into their land and practices – that is, they are interested in adaptation. They are less convinced of mitigation, which makes sense from many perspectives – but I assert because it is far less easy to see the benefit of mitigation whether or not there is acceptance that greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause of the warming planet.

Arbuckle’s research then uses a set of questions to investigate farmer’s perception of vulnerability to farming due to climate change and extreme weather. As in the mitigation question those unsure, concerned and unconcerned were split, but in this case the largest group was always in the concerned group with numbers of about 40 percent to 20 percent. About a third of the farmers were uncertain in each category. The largest difference was in the group concerned about the impact of more extreme weather, with 45 percent expressing concern. The farmers were split on whether or not we would find technological or other methods to address climate change.

When all of these questions were put together and analyzed a set of conclusions, some surprising, emerge. Farmers interested in more protection of the land in anticipation of climate change had a high level of concern of increased risk and were older. Farmers interested in improved drainage had a high level of concern, large farms, higher education and felt that climate change was not a major issue because farmers would develop innovative solutions. Interestingly, support for taking adaptive measures did not correlate with whether or not the farmers perceived climate change was attributable to humans. Finally farmers interested in mitigation felt that the climate change was real and had an important contribution from humans, a high level of concern and did not feel that we would innovate our way to solutions.

One of the more robust conclusions from this research is that perceptions of vulnerability due to weather and increased vulnerability due to changes in precipitation and severe weather were a major motivation to take steps to prepare for climate change. This was true whether or not farmers “believed” in climate change. This recognition of vulnerability and increased risk is consistent with my (our) experience in the Great Lakes Integrated Sciences and Applications Center – people engage when they perceive vulnerability. Surprisingly, older farmers were more concerned than younger farmers about adaptation. With regard to mitigation, those who accepted a human contribution to the changing climate were more supportive of mitigation – makes sense. And worth a mention the combination of those who think that climate change has a human component or is primarily caused by humans is almost 45 percent, and that’s not as low as one might take away from the political and public record.

r

Some good references:

One Gardner’s Struggle

Gardeners Expect Warmer Nights

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: 493 - 443

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Yoboi, blaming everything on taxes is too simple. It's not the taxes, it's the fact that income for everyone in this country except the top earners has been going down! I haven't noticed prices going down, have you?

You need to do some reading to understand this issue, because the people who keep telling you taxes are too high are trying to keep you from looking at the real problem - which is that no one in power (business or politics) is working to make the economy any better for people like you and me. The ranting about taxes is just a distraction - and you are the person they are trying to distract.

Check out this article from Frontline (PBS) and then do some more reading. Use your mind so people can't take advantage of you. Link
Excerpts -
#1: Wages are down - Middle class incomes have shrunk 8.5 percent since 2000, after enjoying mostly steady growth during the previous decade. In 2011, the average income for the middle 60 percent of households stood at $53,042, down from $58,009 at the start of the millennium.

#2: Less income for the middle class - Partly as a result of lower pay, the middle class’s share of the nation’s total income has been falling. In 1980, the middle 60 percent of households accounted for 51.7 of the country’s income. By 2011, they were less than half. Meanwhile, the top fifth of households saw their slice of the national income grow 16 percent, to 51.1 percent from 44.1 percent.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
Quoting 487. zampaz:
My point is that money has nothing to do with the physical universe.
Money has value because as a species we all agree to believe it has value. There isn't enough gold on the planet to account for the amount of money there is so we don't use a real substance as a currency standard anymore.
Things which don't exist in nature but exist in the minds of mankind fascinate me.
While money, corporate entities, and supernatural beings don't exist in nature they are very real in terms of the impact they have on our species.


When you think about it, even gold has no intrinsic value.

I always thought that products need to be made with self-pride and self-gratification. Nothing else is needed.

Self-pride alone is a powerful motivator towards producing better and better products.

Trade out of gratitude or just to trade objects depending on what you need or what a fellow human needs.

Why money? What it is? What are we even doing?

Need a house because you're moving out of your parents house and going on your own with a partner? A group of knowledgeable people build it for you or with you, depending on your skills. You can trade what you have or they build it for you out of gratitude because you have accumulated honor over the years.

Anyway, I'm day-dreaming here, lol.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
If one Honestly believes that the Status Quo will change as to the use of Fossil Fuels globally,..well, I admire that greatly, but your seriously, seriously underestimating the Power and control those Forces garner, Globally.



And to be sure, that's not my USMC assessment.

That will come in time,..in a personal entry here.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125572


Quoting 487. zampaz:

Fun with numbers.
When I see a number like 60 trillion, 6x10^13 or 6E13
I think;
This is more than the 5E12 days since the universe began.
A US penny weighs 2.5 grams....
60 trillion works out to 1.5E16 grams of pennies.
The universe would have to produce 2g/min of pennies since time began to make 60 trillion dollars.
In 1887 a loaf of bread used to cost a few cents.
My point is that money has nothing to do with the physical universe.
Money has value because as a species we all agree to believe it has value. There isn't enough gold on the planet to account for the amount of money there is so we don't use a real substance as a currency standard anymore.
Things which don't exist in nature but exist in the minds of mankind fascinate me.
While money, corporate entities, and supernatural beings don't exist in nature they are very real in terms of the impact they have on our species.




A spear cost a caveman nothing to build but he knew he had to build it in order to survive....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 486. bappit:

As long as hydrocarbons are cheap, there is no incentive to switch to alternative sources or change our habits. And we have hydrocarbons out the ying yang, for now. (We may soon have a lot more in the air, too, with the permafrost thawing.) Of course, the easy oil has peaked as predicted. It just gets nastier here on out.


Bye Bye summertime Arctic Ice I tried to tell the people how to prevent the catastrophe but no one understands...Sorry....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 476. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree, Scott! That is a very accurate analogy. I like it better than my Titanic analogy! .... even if you do mind, I am going to steal your analogy! ... I may even claim as my own. I will tell you when to delete the evidence of your post that my mind did not produce the analogy. I would pay you for it, but take a look at my piggy bank in #474 :)

Have at it.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2874
Quoting 471. cyclonebuster:


Then there goes the summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass....At a cost of 60 trillion...

Fun with numbers.
When I see a number like 60 trillion, 6x10^13 or 6E13
I think;
This is more than the 5E12 days since the universe began.
A US penny weighs 2.5 grams....
60 trillion works out to 1.5E16 grams of pennies.
The universe would have to produce 2g/min of pennies since time began to make 60 trillion dollars.
In 1887 a loaf of bread used to cost a few cents.
My point is that money has nothing to do with the physical universe.
Money has value because as a species we all agree to believe it has value. There isn't enough gold on the planet to account for the amount of money there is so we don't use a real substance as a currency standard anymore.
Things which don't exist in nature but exist in the minds of mankind fascinate me.
While money, corporate entities, and supernatural beings don't exist in nature they are very real in terms of the impact they have on our species.


Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 485. Naga5000:
Also, here is a great interactive infographic on gas prices across the world, and relative costs to the consumer.

Link

The point being, is the U.S. has it easy as far as taxes, prices of energy, and relative economic cost. It will not last, and it is fueling the problem of oil addiction.

As long as hydrocarbons are cheap, there is no incentive to switch to alternative sources or change our habits. And we have hydrocarbons out the ying yang, for now. (We may soon have a lot more in the air, too, with the permafrost thawing.) Of course, the easy oil has peaked as predicted. It just gets nastier here on out.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5558
Also, here is a great interactive infographic on gas prices across the world, and relative costs to the consumer.

Link

The point being, is the U.S. has it easy as far as taxes, prices of energy, and relative economic cost. It will not last, and it is fueling the problem of oil addiction.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2682
Quoting 477. yoboi:


I agree.....but like with me and the majority of people in America in the very near future we will not be able to afford any kind of energy.....History does repeat itself... most of us will be forced back to the horse and buggy days....only this time will be different they will tax you and your horse this time around........


Yoboi, this whole harping on taxes and tax rates is absurd. Taxes are at historically low levels.

Here is the median tax rate 1955 - 2013:





Taxes are not high, they are at historically low levels. You are not being over taxed.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2682
Drilling rig on fire, begins to collapse; relief well to be drilled





Link




...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 477. yoboi:


I agree.....but like with me and the majority of people in America in the very near future we will not be able to afford any kind of energy.....History does repeat itself... most of us will be forced back to the horse and buggy days....only this time will be different they will tax you and your horse this time around........

Maybe not. Fee and dividend.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
Quoting 479. Birthmark:

There are basically two choices: Either we harm ourselves slightly to moderately by addressing AGW, or we greatly harm the future by failure to address AGW adequately.

Our choices now will determine how the future judges us.


Immediately and adequately.... Yesterday was to late....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 446. SteveDa1:


The immediate ceasing of the burning of fossil fuels...

But, as you know, it's a lot more complicated than that.

I think real action will only start once we reach a threshold... The same threshold that was reached when we banned the use of CFC's. That is, once it is so obvious that it stares you in the face and you can't ignore it any longer--no matter the costs.

There are basically two choices: Either we harm ourselves slightly to moderately by addressing AGW, or we greatly harm the future by failure to address AGW adequately.

Our choices now will determine how the future judges us.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
Quoting 475. zampaz:

Good for you CB!
All avenues of sustainable energy technology development should be researched.
We need to use our imaginations in obtaining the abundant and free energy available in nature.
Look yoboi, someone is working on solutions...a lot of people are.
There are those who would say; "You'll never get a research grant for that...(for various reasons)" but they overlook a new phenomenon; crowdsourcing.
Like the Dark Snow project that couldn't get a grant to see if soot from fires was affecting albedo (amount of sun reflected from snow/vs absorbed) in Greenland.
We will have our research whether or not the Gov't or institutes pay for it or not.




Thank's Zampaz... Using OTEC combined with Gulfstream kinetic energy and upwelling is the sure cure to the 60 trillion dollar bill we will get if we do not stop the summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass loss... There is no other option...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
477. yoboi
Quoting 474. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Have you seen my piggy bank???



The costs of fossil fuels are just going to keep going up. The costs of bringing oil to market keeps getting more and more expensive and more expensive to the environment.

You can keep saving those dimes now, but they are not going to cover the costs later. You can spend the dimes now and hope it keeps you from having to spend the dollars later.


I agree.....but like with me and the majority of people in America in the very near future we will not be able to afford any kind of energy.....History does repeat itself... most of us will be forced back to the horse and buggy days....only this time will be different they will tax you and your horse this time around........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 473. ScottLincoln:

To be honest, I do not think it is a good analogy. A more accurate analogy:

There's a boat in the ocean, and a person with a drill continues to put more and more small holes in the side, at an ever-increasing rate. Not only is the boat filling with water, the rate of fill is increasing, and the very person drilling the holes is the one who will drown if the boat sinks. People try and convince him that it is the holes in the boat causing it to sink, and he needs to stop drilling them. One person tells him that the boat will stay afloat if he could just attain a goal of only half-capsized. The occupant won't even acknowledge that he's causing the sinking, let alone slow down the rate of drilling new holes, let alone start patching the holes so that the rate of sinking stops. It's probably just the waves sloshing over the side, he says. The water outside has probably just become less dense so the boat doesn't float as high, he says. Or the water in the boat just came from a rainstorm in the night, while he was sleeping.


I agree, Scott! That is a very accurate analogy. I like it better than my Titanic analogy! .... even if you do mind, I am going to steal your analogy! ... I may even claim as my own. I will tell you when to delete the evidence of your post that my mind did not produce the analogy. I would pay you for it, but take a look at my piggy bank in #474 :)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Quoting 454. cyclonebuster:


Really tell that to Dr. David Titley, Dr. Rood,Dr. Willoughby and many others...

BTW OTEC works masterfully I just made it much more efficient that's all..

Good for you CB!
All avenues of sustainable energy technology development should be researched.
We need to use our imaginations in obtaining the abundant and free energy available in nature.
Look yoboi, someone is working on solutions...a lot of people are.
There are those who would say; "You'll never get a research grant for that...(for various reasons)" but they overlook a new phenomenon; crowdsourcing.
Like the Dark Snow project that couldn't get a grant to see if soot from fires was affecting albedo (amount of sun reflected from snow/vs absorbed) in Greenland.
We will have our research whether or not the Gov't or institutes pay for it or not.


Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
Quoting 472. yoboi:



Well the cost of a dime i can not afford so if it goes to dollars really does not mean much to me......local taxes, state taxes, fed taxes, this fee that fee......everything is going up but wages.......the green energy industry is no better than the fossil fuel industry.....they both lie to us it's all about the all mighty dollar......what good is going green when you have people that bought solar panels and then the electric company then regulates how much energy you can use off grid.....that was money wasted......I am all for going to clean energy because the health risk that fossil fuels cause....I am not for double taxation with an energy source....look at the chevy volt my tax paying dollars went into building something that they have to sell below cost.....all the money we are giving to green companies are failing it's a political payout....the same with fossil fuel companies why is the govt giving money to them and they are making record profits.....this whole system is one big scam.......I really don't blame people for not going to work anymore it use to get to me but now I understand them why work and pay all these taxes and fees.....this whole country is gone to a point of no return.....


Have you seen my piggy bank???



The costs of fossil fuels are just going to keep going up. The costs of bringing oil to market keeps getting more and more expensive and more expensive to the environment.

You can keep saving those dimes now, but they are not going to cover the costs later. You can spend the dimes now and hope it keeps you from having to spend the dollars later.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Quoting 467. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"everyone here is standing in a boat that has a leaking hole but everyone just stares at the hole and keep repeating that the boat is sinking without ever trying to repair the leak"

I like this analogy, except that it is incomplete. Should you wish to complete the analogy then you would have to add that anyone that brings attention to the leak is called a fear monger and that it is actually an opportunity to expand our horizons. Anyone that tries to plug the leak is accused of over reacting and that we need to wait to find out for sure what has caused the leak before anything could be done about it. All the while they offer their own hypothesis, in as many numbers as needed, to divert our attention away from the leak itself. When anyone offers a serious plan towards fixing the leak then they are told that it is too costly and would end up rocking the boat.

To be honest, I do not think it is a good analogy. A more accurate analogy:

There's a boat in the ocean, and a person with a drill continues to put more and more small holes in the side, at an ever-increasing rate. Not only is the boat filling with water, the rate of fill is increasing, and the very person drilling the holes is the one who will drown if the boat sinks. People try and convince him that it is the holes in the boat causing it to sink, and he needs to stop drilling them. One person tells him that the boat will stay afloat if he could just attain a goal of only half-capsized. The occupant won't even acknowledge that he's causing the sinking, let alone slow down the rate of drilling new holes, let alone start patching the holes so that the rate of sinking stops. It's probably just the waves sloshing over the side, he says. The water outside has probably just become less dense so the boat doesn't float as high, he says. Or the water in the boat just came from a rainstorm in the night, while he was sleeping.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 2874
472. yoboi
Quoting 467. Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"everyone here is standing in a boat that has a leaking hole but everyone just stares at the hole and keep repeating that the boat is sinking without ever trying to repair the leak"

I like this analogy, except that it is incomplete. Should you wish to complete the analogy then you would have to add that anyone that brings attention to the leak is called a fear monger and that it is actually an opportunity to expand our horizons. Anyone that tries to plug the leak is accused of over reacting and that we need to wait to find out for sure what has caused the leak before anything could be done about it. All the while they offer their own hypothesis, in as many numbers as needed, to divert our attention away from the leak itself. When anyone offers a serious plan towards fixing the leak then they are told that it is too costly and would end up rocking the boat. does this sound like anyone you know, Yoboi?

I agree with you that serious efforts to avert the problems of agw should have commenced 20 years ago in order to try to avert what will be a certainty now and with the promise of becoming much worse in the future. say that in one breath! I think that I may use that as the title of my next short story. When you read the title, you have read half of the story! :) We are not yet making any inroads towards mitigation efforts now for one sole reason. There are strong, vested interests with the political influence that want to assure that the status quo remains in place. While you accuse Neap and others here of just attacking the fossil fuel industry leaders instead of actually doing something is quite simply the wrong way of looking at things. What Neap and others here are doing is exposing the ones in the leaking boat that are claiming that it is nothing more than opportunity, the ones pointing out the leak are just fear mongers and anyone making efforts to repair the leak are really just trying to control everything and stifle future prosperity. The ones that want to keep the "debates" going are these same people. The vested interests in keeping the status quo. These interests have spent untold fortunes to mislead the uninformed just to keep the debates going and mitigation efforts fruitless. They spend fortunes on this only to keep making many more of their own fortunes in the future. All the while they offer enough crumbs to us to keep their scam from collapsing in on them. This will become harder for them to do as their products become too cost ineffective to use and the world consumers become even more angry at them. .... So here we are bickering if its all real when we should be doing something. Simply because the denial industry have convinced enough of the one's in power to bide by their desires.

Your fear of losing a dime, Yoboi, will cost you more in dollars. I have little doubt that the not so distant future will make you realize this.



Well the cost of a dime i can not afford so if it goes to dollars really does not mean much to me......local taxes, state taxes, fed taxes, this fee that fee......everything is going up but wages.......the green energy industry is no better than the fossil fuel industry.....they both lie to us it's all about the all mighty dollar......what good is going green when you have people that bought solar panels and then the electric company then regulates how much energy you can use off grid.....that was money wasted......I am all for going to clean energy because the health risk that fossil fuels cause....I am not for double taxation with an energy source....look at the chevy volt my tax paying dollars went into building something that they have to sell below cost.....all the money we are giving to green companies are failing it's a political payout....the same with fossil fuel companies why is the govt giving money to them and they are making record profits.....this whole system is one big scam.......I really don't blame people for not going to work anymore it use to get to me but now I understand them why work and pay all these taxes and fees.....this whole country is gone to a point of no return.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 463. yoboi:



keep showing your video showing you pumping a red liquid from an antifreeze bottle into the lake......I am just being honest with you to how people probably viewed that video.....by showing that video you are killing your tunnels......may your tunnels RIP...............


Then there goes the summertime Arctic Ice extent/mass....At a cost of 60 trillion...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Hi Yoboi;
I have a blog where we can talk about preparing:
Preparing for Extreme Weather Events due to Climate Change.

I believe the in the old saying "Follow the money."
There isn't a "Green Energy" industry in America yet...
China is building one.
Compare the "Green Technology" industry power to that of "Big Oil."
I can't tell you the name off the top of my head, other than General Electric, of a wind turbine manufacturer in the US, and not a single electric solar panel manufacturer, but Shell, Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, BP immediately come to mind when I think of oil.
The people/corporations that stand to lose everything if we get off fossil fuels is big oil.
They want to keep people confused...so they make up stories that seem more believable than the truth.
Just like the tobacco industry did.
And they enact laws that won't change a thing that will hurt their businesses.
You and I agree that Carbon taxes will be paid by consumers.
Scientists don't get rich. Business executives do.
Even winning a coveted Nobel prize won't earn anywhere near what a CEO of an oil company makes in a single month.
You and I see what is happening before our very eyes.
This blog concentrates on sharing with each other climate change related events from around the world...and because I am a scientist, I trust the consensus of experts.

But you and I can agree to disagree on the cause of the changes we're seeing and discuss things we can do in our homes, communities and neighborhoods to address flooding, drought, and other things that may affect us.
Because change will have to happen at a local community level, no help for a very long time will come from those who intentionally keep us divided and confused.
Neither of us trust most politicians.
The most important thing we have in common is that we both want to do what is right...and that we want to do something.

Quoting 441. yoboi:



I was just going by Dr Rood recent posts.....It looks like he is talking more and more about adapting and looking at ways to communicate and start acting....seems like the narrative from Dr Rood is it's time for action.....Hey Dr Rood can you share your thoughts???????


I think AGW is a scam to push a failed green technology down my throat with more taxes.....I can see it now paying gas taxes and green taxes at the same time......the poor and working class will suffer the most.....both fossil fuel companies and green companies are in it for the money and both sides push misinformation to the public....they are both evil in my eyes and they both lie......most americans do not care about the climate most are living paycheck to paycheck and are just hanging on to support their family......This country is in major trouble look at detroit going bankrupt plus many cities all across this country going bankrupt also.....the people of this country need to stand up to both political parties and take this country back....it belongs to the people of all races and sexes.....this country is so divided now between races, sexes, political parties, to religon......a nation divided will fail...united we stand.....some serious soul searching is needed in this country....we need to help our fellow human being.....we need to embrace and support each other.....
Member Since: February 2, 2011 Posts: 3 Comments: 871
I can only speculate. In general, there wasn't good satellite coverage until 1980, so the first 20 years of the 1960-1991 baseline period don't necessarily include data directly comparable to modern.

But also, the peripheral Arctic seas weren't seeing extensive melt-out until 1990 or so (ex. Kara, Laptev, East Siberian), so the earlier baseline period may capture the system in a state that's quite different from the current one, and might not be as useful for comparative purposes.

And comparison and trends may be the most useful extracts from these highly modeled datasets. Actual surface measurements from bouys, ground stations, ships are used for ongoing calibration but the density of these measurements isn't nearly as high as in lower latitudes. 
BTW how the satellite-based ice measurements are handled is crucial to the modeled SST - NOAA assumes that any ice above a very low concentration buffers the ocean temperature to near freezing. DMI uses the Norwegian OSI SAF SST model which works at higher resolution and may give somewhat different results.

Quoting 464. LAbonbon:


Any indication as to why the baseline period is going to be moved? Or, if they didn't indicate why, any thoughts on the matter?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 450. Xandra:

From DMI, data/method:

Information about the figures

The SST anomalies have been calculated with respect to a mean, which has been derived from observations from 1985 to 2001.

More here >>
Thank you. I kept getting lost in the Danish language pages for some reason.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1895
Quoting 432. yoboi:


Most gov is usually reactive not proactive.....Is there a plan published with timelines??? The majority of comments I see on here is just talking about how bad it will be.....when will the people of this blog make the transition to trying to solve the problem instead of complaining about the problem?????It's like everyone here is standing in a boat that has a leaking hole but everyone just stares at the hole and keep repeating that the boat is sinking without ever trying to repair the leak.....Neap shouting at the fossil fuel industry and gazing at ice will not make things better....why not turn that negative energy into positive energy and help with plans to adapt....I still think agw is a scam to push a carbon tax but I am willing to give you insight to how most americans think and feel.....I hope people welcome the discussion and I hope both sides can learn from it....If you really want to make a change you are going to have to understand the mindset of how most of us feel and you all need to learn to communicate with them....if not you will lose the battle....


"everyone here is standing in a boat that has a leaking hole but everyone just stares at the hole and keep repeating that the boat is sinking without ever trying to repair the leak"

I like this analogy, except that it is incomplete. Should you wish to complete the analogy then you would have to add that anyone that brings attention to the leak is called a fear monger and that it is actually an opportunity to expand our horizons. Anyone that tries to plug the leak is accused of over reacting and that we need to wait to find out for sure what has caused the leak before anything could be done about it. All the while they offer their own hypothesis, in as many numbers as needed, to divert our attention away from the leak itself. When anyone offers a serious plan towards fixing the leak then they are told that it is too costly and would end up rocking the boat. does this sound like anyone you know, Yoboi?

I agree with you that serious efforts to avert the problems of agw should have commenced 20 years ago in order to try to avert what will be a certainty now and with the promise of becoming much worse in the future. say that in one breath! I think that I may use that as the title of my next short story. When you read the title, you have read half of the story! :) We are not yet making any inroads towards mitigation efforts now for one sole reason. There are strong, vested interests with the political influence that want to assure that the status quo remains in place. While you accuse Neap and others here of just attacking the fossil fuel industry leaders instead of actually doing something is quite simply the wrong way of looking at things. What Neap and others here are doing is exposing the ones in the leaking boat that are claiming that it is nothing more than opportunity, the ones pointing out the leak are just fear mongers and anyone making efforts to repair the leak are really just trying to control everything and stifle future prosperity. The ones that want to keep the "debates" going are these same people. The vested interests in keeping the status quo. These interests have spent untold fortunes to mislead the uninformed just to keep the debates going and mitigation efforts fruitless. They spend fortunes on this only to keep making many more of their own fortunes in the future. All the while they offer enough crumbs to us to keep their scam from collapsing in on them. This will become harder for them to do as their products become too cost ineffective to use and the world consumers become even more angry at them. .... So here we are bickering if its all real when we should be doing something. Simply because the denial industry have convinced enough of the one's in power to bide by their desires.

Your fear of losing a dime, Yoboi, will cost you more in dollars. I have little doubt that the not so distant future will make you realize this.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
North Pole Now a Lake

Instead of snow and ice whirling on the wind, a foot-deep aquamarine lake now sloshes around a webcam stationed at the North Pole. The meltwater lake started forming July 13, following two weeks of warm weather in the high Arctic. In early July, temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) higher than average over much of the Arctic Ocean, according to the National Snow & Ice Data Center.

Meltwater ponds sprout more easily on young, thin ice, which now accounts for more than half of the Arctic's sea ice. The ponds link up across the smooth surface of the ice, creating a network that traps heat from the sun. Thick and wrinkly multi-year ice, which has survived more than one freeze-thaw season, is less likely sport a polka-dot network of ponds because of its rough, uneven surface.

July is the melting month in the Arctic, when sea ice shrinks fastest. An Arctic cyclone, which can rival a hurricane in strength, is forecast for this week, which will further fracture the ice and churn up warm ocean water, hastening the summer melt. The Arctic hit a record low summer ice melt last year on Sept. 16, 2012, the smallest recorded since satellites began tracking the Arctic ice in the 1970s.

North Pole buoy


more at LiveScience.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
Quoting 433. JohnLonergan:


Religion should be funding him, not science.

Agreed.

There's also a world of difference between "scientists who still believe that climate change can also be naturally forced" and believing that "(r)ecent global warming is one of many natural cycles..." Either Dr. Spencer cannot see the difference in the two statements (which is hard to believe), or he doesn't want others to see the difference in the two statements.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5184
Quoting 451. no1der:
I did hear from NOAA/NCEP:
"The baseline is 1961-1990.  We're going to be moving to 1981-2011 shortly, and will add substantial material about the new climatology.  The new climatology will be warmer than the old, so the anomalies won't show as being quite as warm as they currently do.

On the other hand, looking at the Arctic, the anomalies will remain pretty large. The decline of sea ice cover in the last decade has caused a substantial warming in the SST."
NOAA is using a 1961-1990 baseline and shows 8C SST anomaly around Novaya Zemlya (post 429) whereas DMI shows 4C (post 412).  (edit: which thanks to Xandra #450 we now know has a baseline 1985-2001)

Quoting 429. no1der:


Any indication as to why the baseline period is going to be moved? Or, if they didn't indicate why, any thoughts on the matter?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
463. yoboi
Quoting 462. cyclonebuster:


First impressions are usually wrong yoboi....



keep showing your video showing you pumping a red liquid from an antifreeze bottle into the lake......I am just being honest with you to how people probably viewed that video.....by showing that video you are killing your tunnels......may your tunnels RIP...............
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 461. yoboi:



I saw an antifreeze bottle and some antifreeze is red....my first thought was this guy is saying he can save the enviroment and is pumping antifreeze into a lake.......they probably had the same conclusion as me......you need to burn that video and shoot another if you ever want someone to take you serious......


First impressions are usually wrong yoboi....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
461. yoboi
Quoting 458. cyclonebuster:


Red food coloring...



I saw an antifreeze bottle and some antifreeze is red....my first thought was this guy is saying he can save the enviroment and is pumping antifreeze into a lake.......they probably had the same conclusion as me......you need to burn that video and shoot another if you ever want someone to take you serious......
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
As per the article above on the Arctic Ice costing us 60 trillion dollars OTEC is many times cheaper than that and fixes the problem and makes money...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
OTEC can restore the Arctic Ice both ways in this manner anyone interested?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 457. yoboi:



It probably did not help with your video showing you pumping red antifreeze into the water........


Red food coloring...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
457. yoboi
Quoting 456. cyclonebuster:


It was not what they were looking for...They can not comprehend that which they do not understand...



It probably did not help with your video showing you pumping red antifreeze into the water........
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 455. OldLeatherneck:


What happened to your idea in MIT's CoLab contest??


It was not what they were looking for...They can not comprehend that which they do not understand...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting 454. cyclonebuster:


Really tell that to Dr. David Titley, Dr. Rood,Dr. Willoughby and many others...


What happened to your idea in MIT's CoLab contest??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 453. Patrap:
No, it wont work, and well..were tired of hearing it.



Really tell that to Dr. David Titley, Dr. Rood,Dr. Willoughby and many others...

BTW OTEC works masterfully I just made it much more efficient that's all..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
No, it wont work, and well..were tired of hearing it.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125572
Quoting 430. JohnLonergan:
In Hot Water: Ocean Heat Content Continues To Soar

Some 90% of total global warming goes into heating the oceans. NOAA has several charts showing that the oceans are rapidly heating, just as climate scientists predicted. Here’s one:

As the saying goes, what goes down must come up. Ocean heat is going to come back up. That is precisely why climatologists predict a looming climate shift to rapid surface warming, as discussed here.


Time for some upwelling and OTEC power generation wouldn't you say???
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
I did hear from NOAA/NCEP:
"The baseline is 1961-1990.  We're going to be moving to 1981-2011 shortly, and will add substantial material about the new climatology.  The new climatology will be warmer than the old, so the anomalies won't show as being quite as warm as they currently do.

On the other hand, looking at the Arctic, the anomalies will remain pretty large. The decline of sea ice cover in the last decade has caused a substantial warming in the SST."
NOAA is using a 1961-1990 baseline and shows 8C SST anomaly around Novaya Zemlya (post 429) whereas DMI shows 4C (post 412).  (edit: which thanks to Xandra #450 we now know has a baseline 1985-2001)

Quoting 429. no1der:
I don't see it, either. I'll contact DMI for the information.

The baseline for NOAA/NCEP's similar product is also not provided on their site. Inquiry going to them as well.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 422. FLwolverine:

#421 - no1der, what is the baseline for the anomalies shown in the graphic? I looked at the website but didn't see it. Thank you.

From DMI, data/method:

Information about the figures

The SST anomalies have been calculated with respect to a mean, which has been derived from observations from 1985 to 2001.

More here >>
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1225
Quoting 441. yoboi:



I was just going by Dr Rood recent posts.....It looks like he is talking more and more about adapting and looking at ways to communicate and start acting....seems like the narrative from Dr Rood is it's time for action.....Hey Dr Rood can you share your thoughts???????


I think AGW is a scam to push a failed green technology down my throat with more taxes.....I can see it now paying gas taxes and green taxes at the same time......the poor and working class will suffer the most.....both fossil fuel companies and green companies are in it for the money and both sides push misinformation to the public....they are both evil in my eyes and they both lie......most americans do not care about the climate most are living paycheck to paycheck and are just hanging on to support their family......This country is in major trouble look at detroit going bankrupt plus many cities all across this country going bankrupt also.....the people of this country need to stand up to both political parties and take this country back....it belongs to the people of all races and sexes.....this country is so divided now between races, sexes, political parties, to religon......a nation divided will fail...united we stand.....some serious soul searching is needed in this country....we need to help our fellow human being.....we need to embrace and support each other.....


Yes, we as a species must refocus. Way too much me in this world, not enough we. Just to tag off what you stated Yobio is that people that make $34K/yr in the United States are in the top 1% financially in the world. Source: Daily Mail.

It doesn't take a lot of thought to understand as to why economic problems are global now.
Member Since: February 2, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1403
Quoting 447. yoboi:



when do you think we will reach that point???


I'd say in the 2030's or 40's... Once runaway global warming begins due to the rapid melting of the permafrost in the arctic.

I think once the arctic becomes ice-free for at least a couple weeks in the summer, it will begin in earnest due to the fact that all of the sun's rays will heat the arctic ocean.

It seems to already be starting (comment 419 on this page).
Or here.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
447. yoboi
Quoting 446. SteveDa1:


The immediate ceasing of the burning of fossil fuels...

But, as you know, it's a lot more complicated than that.

I think real action will only start once we reach a threshold... The same threshold that was reached when we banned the use of CFC's. That is, once it is so obvious that it stares you in the face and you can't ignore it any longer--no matter the costs.



when do you think we will reach that point???
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 444. yoboi:



I am past the point about debating about it.....what is the plan to solve it????


The immediate ceasing of the burning of fossil fuels...

But, as you know, it's a lot more complicated than that.

I think real action will only start once we reach a threshold... The same threshold that was reached when we banned the use of CFC's. That is, once it is so obvious that it stares you in the face and you can't ignore it any longer--no matter the costs.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297
Dear Secretary Kerry, Join the Pacific Fight Against Climate Change - An open letter from Christopher J. Loeak, President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

Dear Mr Secretary,

For those of us weathering the devastating consequences of climate change, President Obama's recent pledge to revive American leadership on the issue could not be more welcome. The President said that the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to lead the fight against the carbon pollution that has triggered the "global threat of our time." We could not agree more. It's time to turn the President's words into action. This is why I have written to you, Mr Secretary, to invite you to attend the Pacific Islands Forum in September.

As one of only four atoll island countries anywhere in the world, my country, the Marshall Islands, is in the eye of a gathering climate storm. In May, I was forced to declare a state of disaster as our northern islands wilted under the effects of a climate-driven drought. A mere six weeks later, a king tide and rising oceans topped the sea walls in our capital, Majuro, flooding the airport runway and many neighborhoods, including my own. Climate change has arrived in the Marshall Islands. Unless the world changes course now, my fragile country, and many countries like it, will be lost forever.

Lying just six feet above the water some 2,000 miles south-west of Hawai'i, there is no doubt that the Marshall Islands stands at the front line. But our story here is quickly becoming the story of people everywhere. Of course, the United States is not immune.

The U.S. Gulf coast, New York, New Jersey and the Chesapeake Bay are already at the mercy of the rising seas. Scientists have told us that the deadly hurricanes and tornadoes we have seen in recent years will become more intense and frequent as we continue to pollute our atmosphere with planet-warming greenhouse gases. It is little wonder that New York City and Louisiana are embarking on bold new plans to protect their shorelines and critical infrastructure.


Complete Letter at HuffingtonPost.com
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
444. yoboi
Quoting 438. SteveDa1:
Yoboi, you are obviously cynical about AGW but there are ways you can confirm that the planet is warming and that human activity is the root cause of it just by studying what is happening around us.

The arctic is going to be ice-free for the first time in the summer in the near future since at least the last inter-glacial.

Don't you think it is an extremely large coincidence that it is doing so at the same time as we are pumping CO2 in the environment?

You hear on the news of permafrost melts in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia. Communities in these areas are being reshaped. These are the first climate refugees.

Sea levels are rising, threatening islands, deltas and low-lying coastal regions around the world.

I'm not going to provide links, you need to seek the information yourself.

If it was a scam then how would all of this be happening? How would it be happening so quickly?



I am past the point about debating about it.....what is the plan to solve it????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pakistan Now ‘One Of The Most Water-Stressed Countries In The World’ As ‘Demand Exceeds Supply’

Read more at link above...

With fewer than 1,000 cubic meters of water available per person, Pakistan is “one of the most water-stressed countries in the world” according to a new report from the Asian Development Bank (ADB).

The report covers a range of economic concerns for the country, but its conclusion notes that “boosting agricultural productivity and strengthening food security” will require “improving the management, storage, and pricing of water for irrigation.” 80 percent of Pakistan’s farms are currently irrigated, and the report estimates that the right reforms could double their productivity.

But standing in between Pakistan and that goal is a wealth of challenges. As The Atlantic reports, two-thirds of the country’s population is under 30 and has already grown enormously over the last few decades. By 2030, it’s projected to boom from 180 million residents to 256 million. Climate change is also reducing water flow in the Indus River — Pakistan’s main source of fresh water — resulting in a pincer move that’s rapidly depleting the country’s water supplies.

From the ADB’s report:
Water demand exceeds supply, which has caused maximum withdrawal from reservoirs. At present, Pakistan’s storage capacity is limited to a 30-day supply, well below the recommended 1,000 days for countries with a similar climate. Climate change is affecting snowmelt and reducing flows into the Indus River, the main supply source. Increases in storage capacity to manage periods of low snowmelt and low rainfall are required, as well as the rehabilitation of the distribution system to reduce losses.
Member Since: October 17, 2006 Posts: 60 Comments: 1297

Viewing: 493 - 443

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog 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

Mostly Cloudy
46 °F
Mostly Cloudy