Definitions and Some Background: Arctic Oscillation (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 11:12 PM GMT on August 18, 2013

Share this Blog
23
+

Definitions and Some Background: Arctic Oscillation (1)

Every now and then I take an unexpected blogging hiatus because the day job is overwhelming. That’s the last three weeks as the project that I have been working on the past couple of years came to its first major milestone – a workshop on the evaluation of model projections to improve their usability in planning. Plus it is canning season – any good chutney recipes?

During the run up to the workshop, thanks to my expertise in time management, I gave a seminar on the Arctic Oscillation for a National Park Service webinar series “Climate Change in America's National Parks - Post-Sandy Recovery Series I: Storms, Barrier Islands, and Implications for the Atlantic Coastline.” I’m going to spend a few entries going through some the ideas in the presentation. First, however, here is the link to my presentation. It was recorded, but I have not figured out how to post that yet. Also here is a link to the GLISAclimate.org project workspace where I collected together the materials I used in the presentation - Arctic Oscillation: Climate variability in the Great Lakes.

The reason I was asked to give this talk followed from my participation in a planning exercise for Isle Royale National Park. During that planning project the Arctic Oscillation emerged as a topic of special interest. I have written a number of blogs in the past that discussed the Arctic Oscillation, regionally often referred to as the North Atlantic Oscillation, and its role in variability of winter and spring temperatures. We hear about the Arctic Oscillation the most when winters in the eastern half of the United States are cold and snowy. People get excited and start writing that climate change is bogus. I have put just a few of the links to previous blogs at the end.

What is the Arctic Oscillation? Here from the CPC Climate Glossary is the start of the definition of the Arctic Oscillation. “The Arctic Oscillation is a pattern in which atmospheric pressure at polar and middle latitudes fluctuates between negative and positive phases.” I think the definition is a little easier to explain if I focus on the North Atlantic Oscillation and, again from the glossary, “The North Atlantic Oscillation is often considered to be a regional manifestation of the Arctic Oscillation.” In the negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation there is higher than average pressure over the pole and lower than average pressure over the North Atlantic, for example, over Iceland. In the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation there is lower than average pressure over the pole and higher than average pressure over the North Atlantic. Going back to the original focus, the Arctic Oscillation, rather than the pressure differences at sub-polar latitudes being over the North Atlantic, they might be over some other place, like the North Pacific. Here is a schematic figure showing the North Atlantic Oscillation from educational material at Lamont-Doherty.



Figure 1: Positive Phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. from LDEO



Figure 2: Negative Phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation. from LDEO


These changes in the weather pattern have large consequences on the weather in the U.S. When the North Atlantic Oscillation is in its positive phase, the winters in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern U.S. are moist and mild. When the North Atlantic Oscillation is in the negative phase, the winter in the same regions of the U.S. are cold and snowy. Though snowy, the actual amount of water that falls from the sky is less than average.

The discussion of the Arctic Oscillation often focuses on the winter and spring because in the U.S. the discussion of weather and climate often over emphasizes what is happening in the Interstate 95 corridor. (Isn’t it great that I-95 has its own website?). However, the Arctic Oscillation is the dominant mode of variability in the Northern Hemisphere middle latitudes, and this is true all of the year. When we say that something is the “dominant mode,” we mean that if we formally measure the variance and then try to describe the variance by recognizable patterns, then the single largest way to describe the variance is with the Arctic Oscillation.

Meteorologists describe the Arctic Oscillation as an atmospheric phenomenon as opposed to a phenomenon that might represent the coupling between the atmosphere and the ocean. The El Nino – La Nina oscillation involves both the atmosphere and ocean. Since the ocean is important, El Nino and La Nina are at least a little bit predictable. The Arctic Oscillation is notoriously difficult to predict.

The reason the Arctic Oscillation took on as much importance as it did in the Isle Royale National Park project was its impact on ecosystems. In the area around Lake Superior, when the Arctic Oscillation is in the positive phase it tends to be warm and dry. There is very little snow. When the Arctic Oscillation is in the negative phase, there are cold air outbreaks from Canada and the likelihood of large snowstorms is higher. If the atmosphere bounces back and forth between the positive and negative phase, then you can imagine a snowstorm followed by a thaw. This stands to change the ebb and flow of the annual water cycle with winter thaws and perhaps winter floods. There might be a lot of snow in the winter, but there is less snow on the ground going into spring. An example of an ecosystem impact is in the forest – if it is warmer and dryer in the spring at peak growth time, this is a major stress on the forest. Next blog a little more on the Arctic Oscillation and temperature.



r

(I will look for new likes on old blogs!)

Confounding Variability: A short blog from the early times.

Bumps and Wiggles (8)Ocean, Atmosphere, Ice, and Land

La Nina and Missouri River Flooding

Jeff Masters Extreme Arctic Oscillation

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: 1265 - 1215

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

Arctic sea ice recovery – WTF!!!

I know I shouldn’t really be surprised by anything in the climate change debate, but I can’t help but be flabbergasted by the recent discussion about the supposed Arctic sea ice recovery. This started with an article by David Rose in the Mail on Sunday claiming that we’re heading for a period of Global cooling. This was then repeated in the Telegraph. This all appears to be based on the observation that the September Arctic sea ice extent this year (2013) is an increase of 60% on that of last year.

I know this has already been covered by Dana in the Guardian and by Sou over at HotWhopper, but I thought I would add my own two cents worth. Firstly, the claim that the Arctic sea ice has “recovered” because this September’s sea ice extent is a 60% increase on last year is absurb. Last year (2012) was an extreme low, so a 60% increase on that does not bring us back to levels similar to what they were prior to the start of the decline. Furthermore, this is a classic example of regression to the mean. The Arctic summer sea ice extent is not the same year on year. Natural variability means that sometimes it is lower than normal, while at other times it is higher. Consider the figure below. It shows the monthly Arctic sea ice extent anomalies (blue line) and a 12 month running mean. It’s clear that there has been a significant decline since the 1960s but there is still substantial variation. Furthermore, given that the scatter is around the running mean, if you have a particular low anomaly one year, you don’t expect another low the year after. Claiming that a 60% increase on the very low value last September is a “recovery” is absolute nonsense.



More >>
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3278
Quoting 1263. SouthernIllinois:

It's right in Neapolitan's Post, silly. We don't need a lesson in 4th grade U.S. government and social studies do we? ;)
You really think our bought and sold congress really reflects the views of the majority of Americans? I guess I need some of what you're drinking this morning.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
Quoting 1223. Naga5000:
Maybe this will help...Link
Yoboi should read that paper really carefully, he might learn what the earth's temperature would be without that .039% co2, but I doubt it.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3278
Quoting 1259. SouthernIllinois:

You forgot to mention the majority of the population of the United States of America.
Evidence?
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 2369
Arctic sea ice delusions strike the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph


Both UK periodicals focus on short-term noise and ignore the rapid long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral

When it comes to climate science reporting, the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph are only reliable in the sense that you can rely on them to usually get the science wrong. This weekend's Arctic sea ice articles from David Rose of the Mail and Hayley Dixon at the Telegraph unfortunately fit that pattern.

Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it's also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we're not there yet. And while this year's minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year's, that's not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,

"Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012."


Regression toward the Mean

The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There's a principle in statistics known as "regression toward the mean," which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence 'regression towards the mean' told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

The amount of Arctic sea ice left at the end of the annual melt season is mainly determined by two factors – natural variability (weather patterns and ocean cycles), and human-caused global warming. The Arctic has lost 75 percent of its summer sea ice volume over the past three decades primarily due to human-caused global warming, but in any given year the weather can act to either preserve more or melt more sea ice. Last year the weather helped melt more ice, while this year the weather helped preserve more ice.

Last year I created an animated graphic called the 'Arctic Escalator' that predicted the behavior we're now seeing from the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph. Every year when the weather acts to preserve more ice than the previous year, we can rely on climate contrarians to claim that Arctic sea ice is "rebounding" or "recovering" and there's nothing to worry about. Given the likelihood that 2013 would not break the 2012 record, I anticipated that climate contrarians would claim this year as yet another "recovery" year, exactly as the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph have done.



n short, this year's higher sea ice extent is merely due to the fact that last year's minimum extent was record-shattering, and the weather was not as optimal for sea ice loss this summer. However, the long-term trend is one of rapid Arctic sea ice decline, and research has shown this is mostly due to human-caused global warming.

When Will the Arctic be Ice-Free?

Both Rose and Dixon referenced a 2007 BBC article quoting Professor Wieslaw Maslowski saying that the Arctic could be ice free in the summer of 2013. In a 2011 BBC article, he predicted ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 "plus or minus three years." Other climate scientists believe this prediction is too pessimistic, and expect the first ice-free Arctic summers by 2040.

It's certainly difficult to predict exactly when an ice-free Arctic summer will occur. While climate research has shown that the Arctic sea ice decline is mostly human-caused, there may also be a natural component involved. The remaining sea ice may abruptly vanish, or it may hold on for a few decades longer. What we do know is that given its rapid decline, an ice-free Arctic appears to be not a question of if, but when.

Continuing Global Warming

Both articles also claimed that "some scientists" are predicting that we're headed into a period of global cooling. Both named just one scientist making this claim – Professor Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin, whose research shows that slowed global surface warming is only temporary. In fact, Tsonis' co-author Kyle Swanson wrote,

"What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf."

Both articles also wrongly claimed that global warming has "paused" since 1997. In reality, global surface temperatures have warmed over the past 15 years, albeit more slowly than during the previous 15 years. It is possible to cherry pick a shorter time frame over which global surface temperatures haven't warmed, as I illustrated in my other animated 'Escalator' graphic.



However, the opposite is true of the overall warming of the planet – Earth has accumulated more heat over the past 15 years than during the prior 15 years.



Global heat accumulation data (ocean heating in blue; land, atmosphere, and ice heating in red) from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
Recent research strongly suggests that the main difference between these two periods comes down to ocean heat absorption. Over the past decade, heat has been transferred more efficiently to the deep oceans, offsetting much of the human-caused warming at the surface. During the previous few decades, the opposite was true, with heat being transferred less efficiently into the oceans, causing more rapid warming at the surface. This is due to ocean cycles, but cycles are cyclical – meaning it's only a matter of time before another warm cycle occurs, causing accelerating surface warming (as Tsonis' research shows).

It would be foolhardy for anyone to predict future global cooling, and those few who are so foolish are unwilling to put their money where their mouth is, as my colleague John Abraham found out when challenging one to a bet, only to find the other party unwilling to stand behind it.

Rose and Dixon Invent an IPCC 'Crisis Meeting'

Both articles also claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose Fifth Assessment Report is due out in a few weeks, has been forced "to hold a crisis meeting." This claim made both articles even though Ed Hawkins noted,

"I told David Rose on the phone and by email on Thursday about the IPCC process and lack of 'crisis' meeting."

Unfortunately that didn't stop Rose from inventing this meeting, or Dixon from repeating Rose's fictional reporting in the Telegraph.

Yes, Humans are Driving Global Warming

Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

Shoddy Climate Reporting

These two articles at the Mail on Sunday and Telegraph continue the unfortunate trend of shoddy climate reporting in the two periodicals, particularly from David Rose. They suffer from cherry picking short-term data while ignoring the long-term human-caused trends, misrepresenting climate research, repeating long-debunked myths, and inventing IPCC meetings despite being told by climate scientists that these claims are pure fiction.

Based on their history of shoddy reporting, the safest course of action when reading a climate article in the Mail on Sunday or Telegraph is to assume they're misrepresentations or falsehoods until you can verify the facts therein for yourself.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3278
Quoting 1256. PensacolaDoug:


If I linked a petition on this site that was pro Keystone Pipeline, how long would it last before it was pulled for being off-topic or some other lame excuse?
I doubt such a link would be censored. But that's really a moot point, isn't it? The pro-Keystone people don't need a petition; after all, they've got Big Energy's billions behind them, along with the House, the Senate, the EPA, the State Department, and the President of the United States. To name a few...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13525
1257. Patrap
Because this is a uber liberal site with no time for pettiness.

Or Right wing Lobbyists from Fla.


Anything else?

Douggie?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1251. Xandra:
THE TRUTH ABOUT KEYSTONE XL

A BAD DEAL FOR THE UNITED STATES

TransCanada’s pipeline will pump oil through America, but not to America. It will make up to $4 billion in profits for foreign oil companies and drive foreign economies, but do nothing for ours.

That’s the truth about Keystone. At every economic level, it is a bad deal for our country.

You can help us stop Keystone XL. Sign up now.



If I linked a petition on this site that was pro Keystone Pipeline, how long would it last before it was pulled for being off-topic or some other lame excuse?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1254. yoboi:


Here is someone that can teach class....


Link
Yeah, Spencer can teach us all how the earth really is just 4,500 years old, what model dino-saddle Adam and Eve used as they rode through the Garden of Eden astride a brontosaurus, and how Satan devised evolution (evil-ution, see?) to keep people from turning to religion. And then he can give us his thoughts on CO2, because, you know, we're all just really dying to hear him out...

(And, no, I'm neither picking on religion nor ridiculing the faithful. I'm simply--again--pointing out that, while a person certainly has the right to believe in whatever they want to believe, they have to know that abandoning the scientific method in one area definitely casts whatever else they might have to say into doubt.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13525
1254. yoboi
Quoting 1252. Creideiki:


It's not "CO2 hype". It's established science. Since Arrhenius-type established.

Have you ever in your life taken a college-level chemistry class? In my computer engineering curriculum, we had to take chemistry. They covered how and why greenhouse gases work in chemistry.

Please, take a chemistry class.


Here is someone that can teach class....


Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
1253. yoboi
Quoting 1249. BaltimoreBrian:
Price supports are the same per acre for the big farms and small.

I doubt there is even one rice farmer who 'busts his butt in the field' According to the USDA publication Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Rice Farms Rice farms are granted nearly twice as much in subsidies as they earned from crop sales. There were 5,937 rice farmers in the USA. Given the subsidy amount of $14,421,768,026 during 1995-2010, the average subsidy each farmer received was $2,429,133 (and 91 cents). Rice farmers receive the highest average subsidy of any major crop.


Brian why the need to insult me like that???? You don't have a clue to the challenges I face....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1170. yoboi:



Why thank you for the kind words.....since you have been watching me I guess you know I am a farmer....Mostly plant rice and sometimes soybeans...then I harvest crawfish......I think I know alot about climate because I have to predict when and what crop I will plant if I am wrong I lose money....I have never said the climate is not changing just not buying into the C02 hype......the math just does not add up..... 0.039% Co2 is causing all the gloom and doom???? I think not....when the last ice age ended we were not even burning fossil fuels but I know the story it's different this time....the heat is hidden this time like the oceans never existed before.....I do know the burning of fossil fuels causes all sorts of medical issues and I would like to see us go to clean energy.....but I face reality....holding picket signs and yelling thru bullhorns outside the gates of exxon is a waste of time.....If you have a plan that will work please share.....


It's not "CO2 hype". It's established science. Since Arrhenius-type established.

Have you ever in your life taken a college-level chemistry class? In my computer engineering curriculum, we had to take chemistry. They covered how and why greenhouse gases work in chemistry.

Please, take a chemistry class.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1251. Xandra
THE TRUTH ABOUT KEYSTONE XL

A BAD DEAL FOR THE UNITED STATES

TransCanada’s pipeline will pump oil through America, but not to America. It will make up to $4 billion in profits for foreign oil companies and drive foreign economies, but do nothing for ours.

That’s the truth about Keystone. At every economic level, it is a bad deal for our country.

You can help us stop Keystone XL. Sign up now.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Farmers can become major power producers if they would use a few acres of land for solar power production... They could power their own electric farm equipment and sell what they don't use to the public...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Price supports are the same per acre for the big farms and small.

I doubt there is even one rice farmer who 'busts his butt in the field' According to the USDA publication Characteristics and Production Costs of U.S. Rice Farms Rice farms are granted nearly twice as much in subsidies as they earned from crop sales. There were 5,937 rice farmers in the USA. Given the subsidy amount of $14,421,768,026 during 1995-2010, the average subsidy each farmer received was $2,429,133 (and 91 cents). Rice farmers receive the highest average subsidy of any major crop.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8602
1248. yoboi
Quoting 1245. BaltimoreBrian:
Participation in the federal rice program is mandatory. Rice farmers received $14,421,768,026 in subsidies from 1995-2010.


I said yes and the people that own large tracts of land are paid not to farm.....Do you really think that is fair to the guy busting his butt out in the field???
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1246. yoboi:



I am sure one day it will get there....one positive note most water wells we use are going to electric no more burning diesel to run the wells.....they upgraded the electrical lines in rural communties to support running 3 phaze


Sounds good.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1246. yoboi
Quoting 1238. cyclonebuster:


All electric not hybrid...



I am sure one day it will get there....one positive note most water wells we use are going to electric no more burning diesel to run the wells.....they upgraded the electrical lines in rural communties to support running 3 phaze
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Participation in the federal rice program is mandatory. Rice farmers received $14,421,768,026 in subsidies from 1995-2010.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8602
1244. yoboi
Quoting 1243. misanthrope:

No subsidized crop insurance?



I said yes
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1242. yoboi:


Yes

No subsidized crop insurance?

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
1242. yoboi
Quoting 1240. misanthrope:
So you've never gotten farm support payments from the federal government?



Yes
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
1241. yoboi
Quoting 1235. BaltimoreBrian:


That's not what the experiment is about. Do you understand the experiment, and the problems with it? Please describe comprehensively in your own words.


Brian thats what I get out of what roy is trying to prove....he is not finished with his project...I am sure if it does not work he will say so....give him time....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1237. yoboi:


actually the subsidy does not really help out someone that farms...there are people that buy tens of thousands of acres and are paid a subsidy not to farm.....they are the ones fleecing the govt....
So you've never gotten farm support payments from the federal government?

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
1239. yoboi
Quoting 1236. misanthrope:

I think what you said was:

"the oxen might work on a very small operation maybe 50 acres top but if you exceed that the cost would be too high to make any money..."

You saying now it doesn't work?




yeah it would work you would prob make 50 cents to a dollar a day doing that....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1233. yoboi:



actually some of the new tecnology is going to a hybrid.....


All electric not hybrid...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1237. yoboi
Quoting 1234. misanthrope:
Yep, pretty clueless. Farm subsidies and food stamps have been linked for decades, which worked pretty well until the current crop of House Republicans came along. You can blame them when your subsidy check doesn't show up in the mail.



actually the subsidy does not really help out someone that farms...there are people that buy tens of thousands of acres and are paid a subsidy not to farm.....they are the ones fleecing the govt....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1232. yoboi:


Yeah I could go to the technology they are using in viet nam and India....don't know how far making 50 cents to a dollar a day will fair in the USA....

I think what you said was:

"the oxen might work on a very small operation maybe 50 acres top but if you exceed that the cost would be too high to make any money..."

You saying now it doesn't work?


Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting 1228. yoboi:





the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.


That's not what the experiment is about. Do you understand the experiment, and the problems with it? Please describe comprehensively in your own words.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8602
Quoting 1230. yoboi:



combine is used for harvesting.....subsidies ha ha....you can thank obama and the congress for tying the farm bill with the food stamp program.... I support the food stamp program but it should never be linked to the usda farm bill because when they bicker both dems and repubs I suffer....
Yep, pretty clueless. Farm subsidies and food stamps have been linked for decades, which worked pretty well until the current crop of House Republicans came along. You can blame them when your subsidy check doesn't show up in the mail.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
1233. yoboi
Quoting 1231. cyclonebuster:


Why not use electric powered farm equipment....



actually some of the new tecnology is going to a hybrid.....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
1232. yoboi
Quoting 1229. misanthrope:

So you could be making money with the oxen if you just cut back on the acreage that you farm? Why not get a whole bunch of people to farm 50 acres each without using fossil fuel guzzling farm machinery? Sounds like you're just a guy not willing to change his ways.



Yeah I could go to the technology they are using in viet nam and India....don't know how far making 50 cents to a dollar a day will fair in the USA....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1229. misanthrope:

So you could be making money with the oxen if you just cut back on the acreage that you farm? Why not get a whole bunch of people to farm 50 acres each without using fossil fuel guzzling farm machinery? Sounds like you're just a guy not willing to change his ways.



Why not use electric powered farm equipment....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
1230. yoboi
Quoting 1227. misanthrope:

I'm guessing you're not using that combine to fix levees and plow. Sounds to me like you're pretty clueless about your cost structure and it's no small wonder that you're on the verge of bankruptcy. I think you're probably a poster child for why we shouldn't be providing subsidies to failing farmers.




combine is used for harvesting.....subsidies ha ha....you can thank obama and the congress for tying the farm bill with the food stamp program.... I support the food stamp program but it should never be linked to the usda farm bill because when they bicker both dems and repubs I suffer....
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1224. yoboi:


there is more to it that just planting and harvesting....let's say you have 1000 acres with rice you rotate ever other yr first yr you plant 500 acres the other 500 you still have to fix levees and plow, land level water buffalo etc...then crawfish season starts dec/jan- june....if you had 150 workers at 100 a day each and 10 days planting that would not include plowing and harvest.....you have to understand I have a tractor that pulls a 24 foot disc...the oxen might work on a very small operation maybe 50 acres top but if you exceed that the cost would be too high to make any money...

So you could be making money with the oxen if you just cut back on the acreage that you farm? Why not get a whole bunch of people to farm 50 acres each without using fossil fuel guzzling farm machinery? Sounds like you're just a guy not willing to change his ways.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
1228. yoboi
Quoting 1226. Naga5000:


No, I'm saying you do not. Posting Dr. Spencer's science fair project does not refute the science showing CO2's influence on radiative forcing. If you would indulge BaltimoreBrian and myself, please explain in your own words Dr. Spencer's science fair project, what is shows, and what it is attempting to prove/disprove.





the fact that trapped radiation appears to play but a very small part in the actual cases with which we are familiar.
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1224. yoboi:


there is more to it that just planting and harvesting....let's say you have 1000 acres with rice you rotate ever other yr first yr you plant 500 acres the other 500 you still have to fix levees and plow, land level water buffalo etc...then crawfish season starts dec/jan- june....if you had 150 workers at 100 a day each and 10 days planting that would not include plowing and harvest.....you have to understand I have a tractor that pulls a 24 foot disc...the oxen might work on a very small operation maybe 50 acres top but if you exceed that the cost would be too high to make any money...

I'm guessing you're not using that combine to fix levees and plow. Sounds to me like you're pretty clueless about your cost structure and it's no small wonder that you're on the verge of bankruptcy. I think you're probably a poster child for why we shouldn't be providing subsidies to failing farmers.

Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting 1225. yoboi:


Are you trying to say Dr Spencer does not know what he is talking about????


No, I'm saying you do not. Posting Dr. Spencer's science fair project does not refute the science showing CO2's influence on radiative forcing. If you would indulge BaltimoreBrian and myself, please explain in your own words Dr. Spencer's science fair project, what is shows, and what it is attempting to prove/disprove.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1225. yoboi
Quoting 1222. Naga5000:


Dr. Roy Spencer needs to stop doing in house science fair experiments and go read some more recent research. I posted a very informative link that lays it out for you. Your link does zilch to refute it. Anything else?


Are you trying to say Dr Spencer does not know what he is talking about????
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
1224. yoboi
Quoting 1218. misanthrope:

Actually, I asked about costs relative to your existing farming equipment. Given that your combine alone cost you $300k, I'm guessing that using the oxen wouldn't cost you that much more. And really, $150k for labor? How many weeks a year to you spend planting and harvesting?


there is more to it that just planting and harvesting....let's say you have 1000 acres with rice you rotate ever other yr first yr you plant 500 acres the other 500 you still have to fix levees and plow, land level water buffalo etc...then crawfish season starts dec/jan- june....if you had 150 workers at 100 a day each and 10 days planting that would not include plowing and harvest.....you have to understand I have a tractor that pulls a 24 foot disc...the oxen might work on a very small operation maybe 50 acres top but if you exceed that the cost would be too high to make any money...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Maybe this will help...Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1219. yoboi:




Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment, Part II: First Results



Link


Dr. Roy Spencer needs to stop doing in house science fair experiments and go read some more recent research. I posted a very informative link that lays it out for you. Your link does zilch to refute it. Anything else?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting 1219. yoboi:




Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment, Part II: First Results



Link


Please describe for us, in your own words, and comprehensively, the experiment and the problems with it.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8602
Quoting 1217. yoboi:



Quoting 1207. ScottLincoln:

Or, another angle... ask them how much arsenic it takes to kill someone. Or what's the LD50 for ricin?

Hint: it's not a big number, but the effect is big.


scott is the one trying to compare arsenic and ricin to co2...


The analogy he was making was to the small does of those substances that are harmful to humans compared to the increases in CO2 which you try to play off as too small to actually cause significant warming. This one went over your head.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1219. yoboi
Quoting 1216. Naga5000:


We aren't discussing levels harmful to human health, we are discussing CO2's ability to absorb long wave radiation. "There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. " Link

So yes, let's speak of these "apples".




Revisiting Wood’s 1909 Greenhouse Box Experiment, Part II: First Results



Link
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1213. yoboi:


Just in salary about 150,000 then with that many people I might would have to carry workmans comp I know my farm libility insurance would skyrocket.....then to feed that many animals everyday would be a huge cost..I would estimate on a low side 200,000 a yr...

Actually, I asked about costs relative to your existing farming equipment. Given that your combine alone cost you $300k, I'm guessing that using the oxen wouldn't cost you that much more. And really, $150k for labor? How many weeks a year to you spend planting and harvesting?
Member Since: February 17, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
1217. yoboi
Quoting 1216. Naga5000:


We aren't discussing levels harmful to human health, we are discussing CO2's ability to absorb long wave radiation. "There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. " Link

So yes, let's speak of these "apples".



Quoting 1207. ScottLincoln:

Or, another angle... ask them how much arsenic it takes to kill someone. Or what's the LD50 for ricin?

Hint: it's not a big number, but the effect is big.


scott is the one trying to compare arsenic and ricin to co2...
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335
Quoting 1214. yoboi:



Let's compare apples to apples scott.....



Documentation for Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentrations (IDLHs)


Carbon dioxide

CAS number: 124–38–9

NIOSH REL: 5,000 ppm (9,000 mg/m3) TWA,

30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3) STEL

Current OSHA PEL: 5,000 ppm (9,000 mg/m3) TWA

1989 OSHA PEL: 10,000 ppm (18,000 mg/m3) TWA,

30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3) STEL

1993-1994 ACGIH TLV: 5,000 ppm (9,000 mg/m3) TWA,

30,000 ppm (54,000 mg/m3) STEL

Description of Substance: Colorless, odorless gas.

LEL: . . Nonflammable Gas

Original (SCP) IDLH: 50,000 ppm


Link


We aren't discussing levels harmful to human health, we are discussing CO2's ability to absorb long wave radiation. "There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that increasing carbon dioxide causes an enhanced greenhouse effect. Laboratory tests show carbon dioxide absorbs longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm less longwave radiation is escaping to space at carbon dioxide absorptive wavelengths. Surface measurements find more longwave radiation returning back to Earth at these same wavelengths. " Link

So yes, let's speak of these "apples".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
1215. yoboi
Quoting 1205. FLwolverine:
No one but you could have gotten that meaning out of the question in 1171! You are beginning to sound like Humpty Dumpty....

'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them — particularly verbs: they're the proudest — adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs — however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

'Would you tell me please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'

'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'

'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.


I have to give you a plus just for the humor...:)
Member Since: August 25, 2010 Posts: 7 Comments: 2335

Viewing: 1265 - 1215

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

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.