Just Temperature Redux: What about the Cherries and Apples?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 01:23 AM GMT on mai 21, 2012

Share this Blog
14
+

Just Temperature Redux: What about the Cherries and Apples?

March and April were very warm in the United States, and especially in March when it was 86 degrees F in Detroit, there was a lot of press attention to the heat (my blog at the time). Following the March heat wave I watched with interest the caster that has weather events and earthquakes on the homepage. There was a period of time when there were record highs and, a couple of hundred miles away, record lows. There were these waves moving (very) warm air north and (very) cool air south (another old Rood blog Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold). This is what weather does, moves heat from the tropics to the poles; it tries to smooth out the distribution of temperature, heat, energy. The climate of the Earth is strongly linked to the Equator to Pole temperature contrast. (I note that, at this writing, a May 20 record high in Holland, MI, of 92 F. In fact, May 20 is pretty much coast-to-coast high.)

So I am watching these highs and lows, expecting someone to write to me and tell me how cold it was in Tennessee, and what do you say to that you alarmist?

The past few months provide us a nice example of climate, and a useful framing for thinking about the future. Scientists are always explaining that just because the globe is, on average, warming, that does not mean that it no longer gets cold. When I have written about this in the past, I always start with the Sun still goes away at the winter pole; it gets cold; the pole is relatively isolated, so there are cold pockets of air up north. (Yes, I am presuming a Northern Hemisphere bias.) So it’s cold up north, and down south it’s hot. If you think about the Earth, the seasons, the distribution of land and ocean, an increase in average global temperature suggests an increase in the average temperature between, say, 30 degrees latitude south and north. Half of the Earth’s area lies in those bounds, and, well, the Sun is always there.

Next if we think about weather and climate, the contrast between the temperature at the equator and the pole is a measure of the amount of mixing that the atmosphere and ocean need to do to work towards a balance. If someplace up north is still getting about as cold as it used to get, because the Sun is down and it is a bit isolated, and there is more and more build up of heat in the tropics, then something has to give. Using climate and weather models as a guide, we see large mixing events in the late winter, perhaps more characteristic of events of, historically, early spring.





Figure 1: From an old, but good, blog: Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold. A schematic picture that represents a wave in temperature. There are hot and cold parts of the wave.

So there are bursts of warm air north in late winter or earlier in the spring. But there are still pockets of cold air and these get pushed south. The variability, hot and cold contrast in this case, actually increases. The bursts of warm air appear as the onset of spring, leaves and flowers come out. And there they sit waiting for the return of the cold air. This year’s warm spring did great damage to the sour cherry crop (Michigan, Wisconsin, New York) and the apple crop all across the upper Midwest. (Iowa, Michigan).

This scenario of a warm period followed by a frost that kills fruit blossoms is not new. I grew up in the South, and just about every year there was some strip of peach-growing land that was damaged by the onset of spring, followed by a frost. What this current case study lets us think about is what does a warming climate bring to table? Earlier warm spells extending farther north. Increased vulnerability as larger areas of land are impacted by the mixing of the increasing temperature contrasts. Increased crop risk as new weather threats encroach on new regions. There are adaptation strategies for these risks, but they come at a cost.

So I want to finish this blog with something of a change of gears. It relies on a paper brought to my attention by Chris Burt. It is a paper in Nature entitled Warming experiments underpredict plant phenological responses to climate change by E. M. Wolkovich (2012) and many others. There are a couple of points I want to make about this paper.

First, the paper is a nice exposition about how biological scientists think about the intersection of their field with climate change. Advancing onset of leafing and flowering is one of the most sensitive indicators of the onset of spring. Though many factors influence when plants start to leaf out and flower, temperature is the predominate factor. The variable that is used as a proxy for climate is mean annual temperature, and variability of the mean annual temperature represents the variability in the onset of spring.

The second point I want to make about the paper is a clarification – perhaps a translation between different scientific fields. As pointed out in Wolkovich et al. (2012), there is substantial observational evidence that spring is coming earlier. This move to earlier times is especially evident in the northern hemisphere and more evident at higher latitudes, say, in Michigan or Canada. When Wolkovich et al. (2012) talk about “warming experiments” they are not talking about experiments with climate models. They are talking about experiments that artificially warm plant communities to investigate their sensitivity to increased temperatures. In this paper, they find that such experiments do not explain the observations of the onset of spring in natural plant communities.

Returning to climate change - Wolkovich et al. (2012) estimate that for each degree C that mean annual temperature increases the onset of leafing and flowering will move forward by 5-6 days. Given temperature trends for the past forty years, this translates to 1.1 to 3.3 days per decade. And returning to the cherries and apples, these types of trees are especially vulnerable to bloom followed by a frost, especially in high latitudes. So if you are an orchard fruit grower, how do you use this information? Do you treat this year as a simple fluke of weather, or do you look to start a replacement program with different types of fruit or different hybrids as the orchard is refurbished? Or do you look to ways to manage the temperature in the orchard, and perhaps a market advantage with earlier fruit?

r



Figure 2: Larger image Ripe by Jennifer Bruce from Absolute Michigan


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: 220 - 170

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog Index

220. cyclonebuster
06:06 PM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Quoting Pipejazz:

Gentlemen, I do not believe they care. 1% of 10 billion people is a lot of cars. They are jaded. To them the rest do not deserve to live. I just hope some of my great-grandchildren get the chance to live and prosper.


GHGs will force us all to ride bikes one reason will be because we will run out of fuel......
Member Since: ianuarie 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
219. Pipejazz
06:00 PM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:




What the 1% do not seem to realize is that they are destroying the buying power of the people that make their profits for them. What good is a "cheap", new car, if only 1% of the population can afford them?

Automation, robotics and low wages will destroy the middle class. Cost of shipping will destroy globalization. Well, at least this is what I envision.

Gentlemen, I do not believe they care. 1% of 10 billion people is a lot of cars. They are jaded. To them the rest do not deserve to live. I just hope some of my great-grandchildren get the chance to live and prosper.
Member Since: septembrie 2, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 161
218. cyclonebuster
06:00 PM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Nope can't do this that's just more acid rain killing our forests and fish...
Geoengineering for Global Warming: Increasing Aerosols in Atmosphere Would Make Sky Whiter

ScienceDaily (May 31, 2012) %u2014 One idea for fighting global warming is to increase the amount of aerosols in the atmosphere, scattering incoming solar energy away from Earth's surface. But scientists theorize that this solar geoengineering could have a side effect of whitening the sky during the day. New research from Carnegie's Ben Kravitz and Ken Caldeira indicates that blocking 2% of the sun's light would make the sky three-to-five times brighter, as well as whiter.

Their work is published June 1st in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas have been increasing over the past decades, causing Earth to get hotter and hotter. Large volcanic eruptions cool the planet by creating lots of small particles in the stratosphere, but the particles fall out within a couple of years, and the planet heats back up. The idea behind solar geoengineering is to constantly replenish a layer of small particles in the stratosphere, mimicking this volcanic aftermath and scattering sunlight back to space.

Using advanced models, Kravitz and Caldeira -- along with Douglas MacMartin from the California Institute of Technology -- examined changes to sky color and brightness from using sulfate-based aerosols in this way. They found that, depending on the size of the particles, the sky would whiten during the day and sunsets would have afterglows.

Link
Member Since: ianuarie 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
217. cyclonebuster
05:36 PM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


You might be interested in reading this piece about what is happening in Merkel's government. Apparently the minister who was in charge of promoting renewable energy has been dismissed and someone new is being installed.

Link


And at the same time fossil fuel interests are pushing back hard against renewables. Apparently coal is getting hurt by solar pulling down the price of power.

--

Yes, renewable generation in the US is still a green/hippie/liberal thing while much of the right has embraced nuclear and supports sticking with fossil fuels.

It's starting to break down a bit largely because wind has turned out to be a great fiscal boon for many conservative states. It's created jobs, paid good money to farmers and ranchers, and brought in a lot of new tax revenue to towns and states in the conservative Midwest (south to Texas).

Money speaks to these people. We've seen a couple attempts from fossil fuel interests to create legislation to limit wind and those bills have failed in Republican-held legislators. We've got Republican governors calling on Congress to continue support for wind farms.





As we speak any fossil fuel based or nuclear power electrical power production creates heat that is getting trapped by the GHGs we have created. Those GHGs do not care where the heat source is coming from. The Co2 that we are creating by burning fossil fuels is going to be in our atmosphere for hundreds of years so we can look forward to more warming. The best way to purge those GHGs from our atmosphere is this. The solution to pollution is dilution...... These will dilute the GHGs from our life support system we call Earth.

Member Since: ianuarie 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
216. greentortuloni
04:00 PM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Manoey speaks to everyone. Myself included.

That is good news about wind farms though.

I think it all goes back to what everyone was talking about with jobs being lost due to simply not needing them. Renewables in some ways mean that the energy sector isn't needed. It is a push to see who can supply infrastructure... but eventually the industry will mature to mostly maintenance and upgrades.

Still, that is so far away that it stinks the US isn't doing more for high tech green. It could be like when we sold power plants, refineries, generators, PBX', etc to the rest of the world.

I've been following 3D printing in that regard as well. That is really interesting in how the open source stuff is as exciting as computers were back in the early 80s. That could mean a whole new paradigm in manufacturing/distribution. Hopefully I guess. Except fro global warming and religion/power struggles, I think the possible future could be everyday like the 4th of July.

Speriamo, at least.

(Because Nea will come here and stomp on this optimism: Nea, it's friday, I'm working this weekend and I'm already tired. Give me some rest and I will be as gloomy as you wish.)
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
215. BobWallace
03:20 PM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


Yes and no. The economic woes are hitting any government spending. However, there is still a huge push for energy independence and local generation in europe. Ok, at least the parts of europe I am familiar with. I know here in the Alps, solar power is well accepted and most new constuction incorporates panels.

Germany just hit a record. And wind farms are also increasing. Then again, Germany is doing well economically.

I guess the point is that the mentality here is that producing energy locally is perceived as smart financially as well as green. I think in America it is still percieved as a liberal status symbol.


You might be interested in reading this piece about what is happening in Merkel's government. Apparently the minister who was in charge of promoting renewable energy has been dismissed and someone new is being installed.

Link


And at the same time fossil fuel interests are pushing back hard against renewables. Apparently coal is getting hurt by solar pulling down the price of power.

--

Yes, renewable generation in the US is still a green/hippie/liberal thing while much of the right has embraced nuclear and supports sticking with fossil fuels.

It's starting to break down a bit largely because wind has turned out to be a great fiscal boon for many conservative states. It's created jobs, paid good money to farmers and ranchers, and brought in a lot of new tax revenue to towns and states in the conservative Midwest (south to Texas).

Money speaks to these people. We've seen a couple attempts from fossil fuel interests to create legislation to limit wind and those bills have failed in Republican-held legislators. We've got Republican governors calling on Congress to continue support for wind farms.



Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
214. greentortuloni
07:41 AM GMT on iunie 01, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


At the moment European leaders are backing off their support for renewables. I think it almost all comes from economic problems and once they get back on track they will restore subsidies.

Europe hasn't seemed to have suffered from one of their political tribes adopting the denier cause like we've been through in the US.

In fact, if we look at one of our two major political tribes we see that one has embraced climate change denial along with an overall anti-science and anti-intellectual bias.


Yes and no. The economic woes are hitting any government spending. However, there is still a huge push for energy independence and local generation in europe. Ok, at least the parts of europe I am familiar with. I know here in the Alps, solar power is well accepted and most new constuction incorporates panels.

Germany just hit a record. And wind farms are also increasing. Then again, Germany is doing well economically.

I guess the point is that the mentality here is that producing energy locally is perceived as smart financially as well as green. I think in America it is still percieved as a liberal status symbol.
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
213. OldLeatherneck
11:51 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:


I suspect our guy is a 'softening denier'. He seems to accept the fact that the planet is warming but doesn't want to totally cave to the causes yet.


That's why I'm glad that nobody insulted his intelligience or motives for denying human causation.
The best way to turn somebody off is to call them a fool or something worse, which happens quite often on the blogosphere.

The interchange reminded me of a lengthy conversation I had several years ago with an oil geologist on the topic of AGW. We were having dinner at the ranch of the CEO of a Texas oil company and somehow the conversation moved to Global Warming. This gentleman had a briefcase full of paperwork related to the subject of Gobal Warming. He'd been studying the topic for several years, however, he was not ready to admit to human causation. Unfortunately, I did not have the detailed knowledge and information that I've gained in the past several years to refute some of his claims. He was adamant about the solar influence and the fact that CO2 concentrations were just a "trace". I've only seen the gentleman once since then at a formal affair and it wasn't appropriate to bring up the topic of AGW. It is interesting to note that while 97% of scientists working in the fields related to Climate Change blieve in human causation only 47% of oil; geologists believe in it. I think this is partially institutional bias, tribal loyalty and fear of upsetting the folks who sign their paychecks.
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
212. BobWallace
11:02 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Patrap,

Thanks for posting the videos. If anything, I think an updated model would be very intersting to see. Most reliable projections now indicate that we may have an ice-free summer in the arctic ocean by 2020, if not sooner as opposed to 2100.

It's been interesting to follow the comments on Dr. Master's blog today. Everyone of the regulars on this blog have done a masterful job of refuting our one resolute "denier". However, I don't think he was a troll just trying to obfuscate the discussion. I really believe that he sincereley believes the 'bovine fecal matter' he is regurgitating.

Keep up the good work.


I suspect our guy is a 'softening denier'. He seems to accept the fact that the planet is warming but doesn't want to totally cave to the causes yet.

He threw out his stuff and got data back. He had no data to support his position. I suspect that will sink in.

I'll bet there are a lot of people in his situation. As the evidence piles up it gets harder and harder to be an absolute denier. The two year fossil-fuel funded study of the climate data by Richard Muller, the most credible denier-scientist, which found that what other climate scientists had been saying was true must have knocked the pins out from under some.

More and more I'm seeing soft-deniers agree that the planet is warming but hang on to "man could not be causing it" and "it will be good for us" defenses. I don't think many will be able to cling to those positions long.

(Of course there will be a small number who will always believe/deny. The Flat Earth Society was still going strong only a few years ago. More and more the spokepersons for denial are obviously jokes like Lord Mockton.)

Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
211. OldLeatherneck
10:14 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting Patrap:
The first visualization uses monthly data from their computer simulation, from 1979-2007. The second shows the computer model's portrayal of the state of the ice every September, from 1850-2100.


Patrap,

Thanks for posting the videos. If anything, I think an updated model would be very intersting to see. Most reliable projections now indicate that we may have an ice-free summer in the arctic ocean by 2020, if not sooner as opposed to 2100.

It's been interesting to follow the comments on Dr. Master's blog today. Everyone of the regulars on this blog have done a masterful job of refuting our one resolute "denier". However, I don't think he was a troll just trying to obfuscate the discussion. I really believe that he sincereley believes the 'bovine fecal matter' he is regurgitating.

Keep up the good work.
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
210. Patrap
09:34 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Climate Modeling 101 - Grid Resolution


Member Since: iulie 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
209. Patrap
09:21 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Uploaded by ncarucar on Oct 3, 2011

NCAR scientists Marika Holland and David Bailey used the Community Climate System Model to study the possible future impacts of climate change on sea ice in the Arctic. The visualizations of their research in this video show the percent of ocean water covered by ice, which is called the sea-ice concentration.

The first visualization uses monthly data from their computer simulation, from 1979-2007. The second shows the computer model's portrayal of the state of the ice every September, from 1850-2100.

(Visualization by Tim Scheitlin, NCAR)

More about the Community Climate System Model:

http://www2.ucar.edu/magazine/features/ccsm-cesm

Member Since: iulie 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
208. BobWallace
04:12 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
I'm mostly angry at our politicians because renewable energy was an opportunity and msotly they stomped on it.

Please focus your anger on those politicians who worked to block renewables.

Please do not paint everyone with a too-wide brush.

Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
207. Patrap
04:10 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Climate Change: Carbon Dioxide Levels In World's Air Reach 'Troubling Milestone'

WASHINGTON -- The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.

Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.

So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.

"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab in Boulder, Colo. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this and we're still in trouble."

Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the Industrial Age, levels were around 275 parts per million.

For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

It's been at least 800,000 years – probably more – since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.

Until now.

Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.

Globally, the average carbon dioxide level is about 395 parts per million but will pass the 400 mark within a few years, scientists said.

The Arctic is the leading indicator in global warming, both in carbon dioxide in the air and effects, said Pieter Tans, a senior NOAA scientist.

"This is the first time the entire Arctic is that high," he said.

Tans called reaching the 400 number "depressing," and Butler said it was "a troubling milestone."

"It's an important threshold," said Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."

Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.

Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week.

The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.

"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400 ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders – with a few honorable exceptions – are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former Vice President Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."

But political dynamics in the United States mean there's no possibility of significant restrictions on man-made greenhouse gases no matter what the levels are in the air, said Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute.

"These milestones are always worth noting," said economist Myron Ebell at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. "As carbon dioxide levels have continued to increase, global temperatures flattened out, contrary to the models" used by climate scientists and the United Nations.

He contends temperatures have not risen since 1998, which was unusually hot.

Temperature records contradict that claim. Both 2005 and 2010 were warmer than 1998, and the entire decade of 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record, according to NOAA.
Member Since: iulie 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
206. BobWallace
03:59 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


yeabut yeabut yeabut... Europe is doing something (slowly), so i think there is some truth to the difference in cultures. Maybe euro leaders are not so bought off by big oil.. but i think there is a deeper culture difference there as well. I don't think the publicity that works in America would have worked here.

anyway, that is all academic and I doubt I know what I'm talking about. I'm mostly angry at our politicians because renewable energy was an opportunity and msotly they stomped on it.


At the moment European leaders are backing off their support for renewables. I think it almost all comes from economic problems and once they get back on track they will restore subsidies.

Europe hasn't seemed to have suffered from one of their political tribes adopting the denier cause like we've been through in the US.

In fact, if we look at one of our two major political tribes we see that one has embraced climate change denial along with an overall anti-science and anti-intellectual bias.
Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
205. greentortuloni
03:39 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
it takes tribal leaders to change

In my experience with major changes like segregation, women's rights, emergence of gay equality, etc. it was never the case of the existing tribal leaders leading the change.

What happened, I think, was that new 'sub-tribes' emerged and created their own new leaders. Over time those movements convinced others to join or at least support them via the strength of their arguments.

Then when a critical point was reached the older tribal leaders either got out in front of the parade or were brushed aside.

Most often, seems to me, it takes a new generation to create major change. I don't expect the majority of our older leaders to mount an attack on climate change. I think it's going to take an organization of younger people to make it happen.

I suspect we're looking at a critical 3-5 year period in which this group is likely to emerge. We've got to get the economy back into more reasonable shape before people quit worrying more about the tiger in the room than about the tiger over the hill.

During the next 3-5 years I think we're likely to see dramatic melting in the Arctic, an increase in extreme weather events, and other various obvious warmer climate signals. Take some of the economic fears off the 16-30 year-olds and I think it likely they start to show significant concern about the world in which they are going to live.




yeabut yeabut yeabut... Europe is doing something (slowly), so i think there is some truth to the difference in cultures. Maybe euro leaders are not so bought off by big oil.. but i think there is a deeper culture difference there as well. I don't think the publicity that works in America would have worked here.

anyway, that is all academic and I doubt I know what I'm talking about. I'm mostly angry at our politicians because renewable energy was an opportunity and msotly they stomped on it.
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
204. BobWallace
03:30 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
it takes tribal leaders to change

In my experience with major changes like segregation, women's rights, emergence of gay equality, etc. it was never the case of the existing tribal leaders leading the change.

What happened, I think, was that new 'sub-tribes' emerged and created their own new leaders. Over time those movements convinced others to join or at least support them via the strength of their arguments.

Then when a critical point was reached the older tribal leaders either got out in front of the parade or were brushed aside.

Most often, seems to me, it takes a new generation to create major change. I don't expect the majority of our older leaders to mount an attack on climate change. I think it's going to take an organization of younger people to make it happen.

I suspect we're looking at a critical 3-5 year period in which this group is likely to emerge. We've got to get the economy back into more reasonable shape before people quit worrying more about the tiger in the room than about the tiger over the hill.

During the next 3-5 years I think we're likely to see dramatic melting in the Arctic, an increase in extreme weather events, and other various obvious warmer climate signals. Take some of the economic fears off the 16-30 year-olds and I think it likely they start to show significant concern about the world in which they are going to live.


Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
203. OldLeatherneck
03:26 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Dr. Masters just posted an article about record temperatures in Greenland in May on his main blog. Good work Dr. Masters!!!

Sadly, he's already getting snarky comments about addressing climate change on his blog. It's his blog, he can post articles on any topic he chooses!!
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
202. greentortuloni
01:09 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
Let me add, over the last 30 years I've spent a lot of time in South and Southeast Asia as well as a fair amount in Mexico and Central America.

Farming is generally not done in those areas with large machines like we tend to use in the US. Asia's rice is largely grown with 'iron buffaloes', over-sized, steel wheeled, garden tillers operated by someone walking/wading along behind.

Harvesting is largely done by hand. Iron buffaloes with rubber tires haul workers to the field and the crop to the thrasher. Thrashing is done by a washing machine sized device powered often by either electricity or the power takeoff of the buffalo.

All of that could be done either with batteries or with grid hookups.

Vegetables are grown in the same fashion, on a human scale, not with enormous machines.

In the US and a few other parts of the world we eat very large amounts of meat. Feeding the animals which provide our meat takes a large portion of our agricultural output.

As populations rise, fuel costs rise, and available agricultural land decreases it's almost certain that people will bid up the cost of the grains we now use for animal food which will, in turn, drive up the cost of meat. We'll eat less meat which will make more grain available for humans.

We will, I suspect, eat more like Asians and less like Argentinians. And we might farm more like Asians. We can still raise as much, if not more, food per acre by adjusting to eating the grain rather than eating the grain eaters.


I agree with vegitarian view. Forgetting about everything else, there is very little need to eat meat in most places in the world.
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
201. greentortuloni
01:05 PM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Ok, having read the Kahneman article, I think he has a point but he is scraping too little butter over too much toast.

People rely on emotional coherence (i.e. common sense - did I get that right?) for judging truth, the less you understand about complex issues, the more you take your emotional coherence from tribal sources that match your emotional coherence sympathetically. Besides, people are tribal. Therefore to change people, it takes tribal leaders to change.

Certainly that is one aspect. I think there are others:
- hatred of others. Sort of like the theory above multplied by negative one instead of tribal competition, e.g. hate the Jews instead of love Aryan. In this case, hate the scientists / whomever. I think that Big Oil has done a wonderful job of misleading people and buying politicians.
- the importance of freedom and frontiers in American culture.
- defending a lifestyle/ rejection of guilt for something done unintentionally.

Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
200. greentortuloni
07:46 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Wow again. Too much to read for a non-cigarette break.

Briefly, I don't think the future will be like the past. I think we have a lot of technologies that can help us adjust: internet (i.e. let your keyborad do that walking), low carbon transportation (electric bikes are growing at an incredible rate, if I do say so myself), much more local production of crops and so on. A lot of the clean-up/restoration jobs can be done by robots, etc.. I think there is a lot of hope but certainly at the moment we are like the scene in Australia where the cows are headed off the cliff. If the cows aren't turned around soon, none o fhte technology will help us.
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
199. greentortuloni
07:36 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck:
Storytelling our energy future

This explains why some people don’t believe global warming is real, according to Kahneman. He references research showing that Americans who oppose gay marriage also don’t believe in global warming. How can this be?


Link

We've had a lot of discussions recently about what the future holds. We've also had discussions about why the 'denialists' won't listen to reason or accept scientific facts. The above article is a fascinating piece about how we think and accept information. While not offering any solutions it helps to explain the difficulties we are facing when it comes to educating the public and getting political support to mitigate AGW.


Wow. Kahneman referenced on the the Wunderground blog. I feel like some small little loop has just closed in my life. Like finding out yesterday that my very Italian neighbor in Italy is a civil war buff and vacations in Savanah and Charleston whenever he can. Thanks for the link.
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
198. BobWallace
04:29 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Capitalism, however, has several caveats attached to it. The biggest one being Capitalism must continue to expand in order to survive. Stagnant or negative growth hinders Capitalism and restricts wealth.

Is that true? Why can we not have sustainable capitalism in which we produce enough to meet our needs in a sustainable manner and as people work they can accumulate capital so that their capital supports them in their later years?

That might mean putting some limits on the amount of wealth an individual could accumulate and especially on the amount they could leave to their heirs, but that's an adjustment that could be made.

We are close to reaching the population density that Earth can support

Yes and no. Setting aside the potential disruption of climate change a moment, we could probably support 15 to 20 billion if we got very efficient. We waste an enormous amount of food and we will improve our crop yields. Africa, I believe, wastes half of all the food they produce due to inadequate storage and transportation infrastructure. And Africa could easily double or triple their food output with better agricultural practices.

Just because population decreases does not mean that individual wealth will. We will continue to manufacture stuff for less and less cost. If we switch to renewable energy and (mostly) electric-powered transportation we will get our power and transportation for far less than we now pay. As we build more efficient buildings and fill them with more efficient "stuff" the cost of owning will decline.

Clean drinking water, as under valued as it is, is in limited supply. Certainly desalination plants will add to this resource, but that is currently costly.

Much of the drinking water problem is that a lot of people are living where the water isn't. We're almost certainly going to see a lot of climate forced migration. And the cost of desalination is mainly the cost of energy. Energy is almost certain to get cheaper over time.

All the natural elements on Earth are all we have. Whatever gold, sliver, copper, lithium and all of the elements we have are preset and non renewable.

True, but we're doing a pretty decent job of inventing our way around shortages. Take copper for example. We've now learned how to make high conductance wire from nano carbon. Furthermore, we don't "use up" those elements, they aren't destroyed with use. We can recycle, all that gold we used for printed circuit card contacts and dental caps - it's hanging around somewhere.

The profits will run dry when the labor force is no longer needed and wages will not be earned.

We almost certainly will need to invent a new basis for distribution of goods. I don't have an idea what that system might look like, but once we get to the point at which labor has no value then we'll have to do things differently.

Now, factor in a warming climate, with all of its unknowns

This is the joker in the deck.

Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
197. Some1Has2BtheRookie
03:56 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
I think Khaneman makes some good points. On both side of (probably) every issue are people who believe simply because that's what the tribe believes and people who believe based on the facts/evidence they've considered.

I did, however, get distracted by the choice he set up early in his piece...

The first is this: You were born into an exceptional culture of enormous wealth. If you work hard and take advantage of the inherent genius and innovativeness of that culture, you can become wealthy, secure, happy, and comfortable. And if they work hard, your children can have even more wealth than you did.

Here’s the second: Right now, you are living at the absolute historical peak of human wealth. In terms of the energy you consume, the variety of foods and beverages available to you, and the amount of physical labor you don’t have to do every day, you are vastly more wealthy than any generation before you. Your children will be much poorer than you, will have far fewer options about what they can eat and drink and do with their free time, and will have to do a lot more physical labor. Their children will have even harder lives, and so on into the future, as wealth per capita declines for the next several hundred years.

Now: Which story do you think is more true?


I've got to go with the first choice. With caveats.

I think we're heading into a difficult time in which we either quickly transition off of fossil fuels or we risk forcing the second outcome. And even that, I suspect, in not a permanent condition but basically a much longer period of transition/recovery.

I really doubt that wealth per capita will decline over the next several hundred years. Wealth, defined in terms of food/housing/goods is likely to improve. We know how to produce those things at reasonable prices which should decrease over time. We may screw up our coastal cities and traditional farmlands, but we won't lose our knowledge base.

Look at how much we've built/created in the last 100 years. That stuff can be rebuilt in less than 100 years if need be.





You make some good observations, Bob. Given this, I am still inclined to believe the second possibility is more along the lines of what our future generations will face.

Let us take climate change and set it aside for the moment. Capitalism is by far the greatest economic plan mankind has ever devised. There simple is no other economic plan that worked better for mankind. Capitalism, however, has several caveats attached to it. The biggest one being Capitalism must continue to expand in order to survive. Stagnant or negative growth hinders Capitalism and restricts wealth. The only way for Capitalism to continue to grow is there must always be a supply of new consumers. We are close to reaching the population density that Earth can support and therefore there will be a decline in new consumers once we have reached the utmost population density that Earth can support. Once our population peaks, so will Capitalism. Once our population begins to decline, so will Capitalism. We simply cannot count on extraterritorial lifeforms to market to. Capitalism will eventual fail simply because not even Capitalism is perpetual or self sustaining. I am rather pessimistic that we will be able to sell traveling extraterrestrials.

Then we must factor in resources. Clean drinking water, as under valued as it is, is in limited supply. Certainly desalination plants will add to this resource, but that is currently costly. We may discover a cheap and effective way to do this, but we are limited until we do. Make note that we are not doing anything now to conserve the potable water available to us now. One must not forget that we are adding a lot of toxins to water now that may never become potable. You can now add radiation to that seawater mix.

Many other resources will come to short supply. All the natural elements on Earth are all we have. Whatever gold, sliver, copper, lithium and all of the elements we have are preset and non renewable. Certainly there is current talk of mining the moon and asteroids, but that is in the future, costly and presently an unknown factor. When the pantry of elements run dry there may be no way to restock it.

Then let us look at how manual labor is being replaced by computers, robotics and automation. A computer operator that is running CAD can replace a room full of draftsmen and engineers. Redesigns are done with a few mouse clicks instead of a team of draftsmen redrawing the plans. Already we are witnessing the returning "jobs" being performed by robotics and with very few people. Machines are replacing manual labor in the name of profits. The profits will run dry when the labor force is no longer needed and wages will not be earned. All the ways that the labor force is being eliminated are nearly endless. The ability to earn wages that will support a family will become a scarcity in the future.

Now, factor in a warming climate, with all of its unknowns, and things are probably going to get a little rough for our future generations to prosper more than we have. ... Just my thoughts. Perhaps I have not thought it all through thoroughly enough yet.
Member Since: august 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
196. BobWallace
03:37 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Thinking more about this statement -

Most experts that I respect claim that the earths carrying capacity for a sustainable post-carbon future is about 1 Billion people.

Isn't that 1 billion living a middle class US lifestyle? Seems like that's what I remember one researcher saying.
Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
195. OldLeatherneck
02:35 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:
Just to let y'all know, I'm still around. I'm just having such a good time finding what others think is interesting, that I've been content to lurk.

This blog has rocked the last week or so! Intelligent and informative. Thanks!


Welcome back, glad you are content to:

"Lurk 'n Learn"
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
194. Birthmark
12:10 AM GMT on mai 31, 2012
Just to let y'all know, I'm still around. I'm just having such a good time finding what others think is interesting, that I've been content to lurk.

This blog has rocked the last week or so! Intelligent and informative. Thanks!
Member Since: octombrie 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5238
193. OldLeatherneck
10:33 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting BaltimoreBrian:
World CO2 emissions increased 3.2% in 2011 to 31.6 billion tons according to the International Energy Agency.


That is an alarming rate of increase. We were supposed to begin decreasing CO2 emissions by 6.5% in order to achieve climate stability by 2050. We'r going the wrong direction.....that's alarming!!
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
192. BaltimoreBrian
10:07 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
World CO2 emissions increased 3.2% in 2011 to 31.6 billion tons according to the International Energy Agency.
Member Since: august 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8067
191. BobWallace
09:57 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Let me add, over the last 30+ years I've spent a lot of time in South and Southeast Asia as well as a fair amount in Mexico and Central America.

Farming is generally not done in those areas with large machines like we tend to use in the US. Asia's rice is largely grown with 'iron buffaloes', over-sized, steel wheeled, garden tillers operated by someone walking/wading along behind.

Harvesting is largely done by hand. Iron buffaloes with rubber tires haul workers to the field and the crop to the thrasher. Thrashing is done by a washing machine sized device powered often by either electricity or the power takeoff of the buffalo.

All of that could be done either with batteries or with grid hookups.

Vegetables are grown in the same fashion, on a human scale, not with enormous machines.

In the US and a few other parts of the world we eat very large amounts of meat. Feeding the animals which provide our meat takes a large portion of our agricultural output.

As populations rise, fuel costs rise, and available agricultural land decreases it's almost certain that people will bid up the cost of the grains we now use for animal food which will, in turn, drive up the cost of meat. We'll eat less meat which will make more grain available for humans.

We will, I suspect, eat more like Asians and less like Argentinians. And we might farm more like Asians. We can still raise as much, if not more, food per acre by adjusting to eating the grain rather than eating the grain eaters.
Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
190. BobWallace
09:11 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


The eventual wealth per capita will depend largely on what happens with the world's population. Most experts that I respect claim that the earths carrying capacity for a sustainable post-carbon future is about 1 Billion people. Right now we're at 7 billion and climbing. Without liquid fuels to support agri-business (planting, harvesting and transportation) and petrochemical feedstock for fertilizer (NO2 producing) it will be difficult to feed a growing population.

If we learn to measure wealth by the availability of basic food, water, shelter, security and basic infrastructure as opposed to material acquisition (multiple homes, large vehicles and too many toys, etc.) then maybe we can have a healthier and wealthier future.


I think those people are not looking at what we already know how to do.

We can do a lot of our farming with electricity. We're already doing massive industrial jobs such as mining with electricity, even with swappable battery packs.

It might mean installing some high voltage lines to the fields so that we can quickly recharge battery packs. But it's doable.

Nitrogen, ammonia generated with renewable energy.

Transportation is easily electricity. Battery powered trucks to electrified rail.

If you get your mind past a dependency on fossil fuels then a lot of the concerns drop away.

--

I'm not saying the transition will be easy and painless. Just that we can make it.
Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
189. OldLeatherneck
08:47 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
I really doubt that wealth per capita will decline over the next several hundred years. Wealth, defined in terms of food/housing/goods is likely to improve. We know how to produce those things at reasonable prices which should decrease over time. We may screw up our coastal cities and traditional farmlands, but we won't lose our knowledge base.

Look at how much we've built/created in the last 100 years. That stuff can be rebuilt in less than 100 years if need be.





The eventual wealth per capita will depend largely on what happens with the world's population. Most experts that I respect claim that the earths carrying capacity for a sustainable post-carbon future is about 1 Billion people. Right now we're at 7 billion and climbing. Without liquid fuels to support agri-business (planting, harvesting and transportation) and petrochemical feedstock for fertilizer (NO2 producing) it will be difficult to feed a growing population.

If we learn to measure wealth by the availability of basic food, water, shelter, security and basic infrastructure as opposed to material acquisition (multiple homes, large vehicles and too many toys, etc.) then maybe we can have a healthier and wealthier future.
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
188. BobWallace
08:23 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
I think Khaneman makes some good points. On both side of (probably) every issue are people who believe simply because that's what the tribe believes and people who believe based on the facts/evidence they've considered.

I did, however, get distracted by the choice he set up early in his piece...

The first is this: You were born into an exceptional culture of enormous wealth. If you work hard and take advantage of the inherent genius and innovativeness of that culture, you can become wealthy, secure, happy, and comfortable. And if they work hard, your children can have even more wealth than you did.

Here’s the second: Right now, you are living at the absolute historical peak of human wealth. In terms of the energy you consume, the variety of foods and beverages available to you, and the amount of physical labor you don’t have to do every day, you are vastly more wealthy than any generation before you. Your children will be much poorer than you, will have far fewer options about what they can eat and drink and do with their free time, and will have to do a lot more physical labor. Their children will have even harder lives, and so on into the future, as wealth per capita declines for the next several hundred years.

Now: Which story do you think is more true?


I've got to go with the first choice. With caveats.

I think we're heading into a difficult time in which we either quickly transition off of fossil fuels or we risk forcing the second outcome. And even that, I suspect, in not a permanent condition but basically a much longer period of transition/recovery.

I really doubt that wealth per capita will decline over the next several hundred years. Wealth, defined in terms of food/housing/goods is likely to improve. We know how to produce those things at reasonable prices which should decrease over time. We may screw up our coastal cities and traditional farmlands, but we won't lose our knowledge base.

Look at how much we've built/created in the last 100 years. That stuff can be rebuilt in less than 100 years if need be.



Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
187. OldLeatherneck
06:39 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Storytelling our energy future

This explains why some people don’t believe global warming is real, according to Kahneman. He references research showing that Americans who oppose gay marriage also don’t believe in global warming. How can this be?


Link

We've had a lot of discussions recently about what the future holds. We've also had discussions about why the 'denialists' won't listen to reason or accept scientific facts. The above article is a fascinating piece about how we think and accept information. While not offering any solutions it helps to explain the difficulties we are facing when it comes to educating the public and getting political support to mitigate AGW.
Member Since: mai 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
186. Neapolitan
04:21 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
it looks like the US overall does indeed reflect the global temp

Something that bugs me from time to time is how much attention is paid to US temps/extreme weather when the real issue is global.

I'm sure that's because it's where we live (at least most of us) and because US information systems are so available.

That said, I'd love to see global temperature records, etc. more available and discussed. I'm not sure that we're capturing the big picture by looking only at our part of one continent.
Well, obviously, living here, I've great interest in the US climate. Too, over a time span of sufficient duration, the climate in any particular region can serve to illustrate just how much that climate is changing over the long term, so I think it's perfectly valid to carefully watch U.S. temperatures over the years and decades.

Too, as you hinted at, there are huge swaths of the global lacking in either spatial coverage, period of record, or quality of data. For such areas, it's difficult if not impossible to get a precise and accurate climate picture of sufficient granularity to be worth discussing, so, absent that, some of compensate for that data shortfall by over-discussing the U.S.

Having said all that, I agree that anyone who looks at just the U.S. (or any other relatively small region) is definitely not seeing everything. That's why I personally look at--and frequently discuss--weather and climate from other areas. There's Arctic Sea ice, of course, and related information about polar temperatures, anomalies, winds, and the like. There are the excellent NOAA global monthly temperature and precipitation global charts, all based on publicly available data. There are excellent resources for gathering climate data from Australia, Japan, the UK, Canada, and most of Europe. There's Ryan Maue's pretty good CoolWX site. There's Maxiliano Herrera's excellent global weather extreme's site. There's the Weather Extremes blog run by WU's Chris Burt. And so on. So, while I certainly have studied U.S. weather a lot more than I have the weather in any other part of the globe, I don't think I've by any means neglected the non-American places.
Member Since: noiembrie 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
185. BobWallace
02:41 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
it looks like the US overall does indeed reflect the global temp

Something that bugs me from time to time is how much attention is paid to US temps/extreme weather when the real issue is global.

I'm sure that's because it's where we live (at least most of us) and because US information systems are so available.

That said, I'd love to see global temperature records, etc. more available and discussed. I'm not sure that we're capturing the big picture by looking only at our part of one continent.
Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
184. cyclonebuster
12:15 PM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
As Bob Wallace said, it's really too early to tell whether new records for extent and/or area will be set this year (though I'd be willing to put money on volume doing just that). Anyway, speaking of ice: there was a big drop in area yesterday (Day 149): 209K km2. That's the first double century break of the year, and, in fact, is the largest one-day decrease in area since June 29 of last year (when 231K km2 was lost).

So far this May, area has decreased by 2.176 million km2, or more than 77K km2 per day. By contrast over the same time period:

-2011: 1.742 million km2 / 62K km2 per day
-2007: 1.242 million km2 / 44K km2 per day

2012 sea ice area is now 268K km2 less than 2007 was on this date. There's 213K km2 more ice than on this date last year. However, from day 150 through Day 154 last year, an average of more than 9K km2 of ice was added each day. Meaning that, barring some unforeseen circumstance, 2012 SIA should be at a historic low point for the date no later than the first few days of June--especially if the forecasts linked to by Bob come to pass.


Less volume can mean much thinner ice that melts quicker.
Member Since: ianuarie 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
183. Neapolitan
11:49 AM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
What would be interesting would be a graph of "still standing" record highs/lows. A graph starting back in 1880 or wherever continuous records start.

What I would expect to see is the number of record highs bunched toward the current year and record lows spread more to the left/earlier years, with fewer in recent years.

Of course, the data would have to be limited to sites with continuous records from the beginning date.

Up for that one, Neo?


I've actually been laying the groundwork for a longer-term series of graphs. The NCDC database goes back to 1850, but the data back then is very sparse, as you might imagine. Things don't start filling out until the early decades of the 20th century. But even then, I think any graphs would be helpful.

In the small-scale tests I've done based on random samplings, it looks like the US overall does indeed reflect the global temp. That is, during years when the globe is cooler--such as after the Mt. Pintatubo eruption--there are more low records than high ones across the U.S. And vice versa, of course. Anyway, if/when I get the thing done, I'll share some of my artwork... ;-)
Quoting JupiterKen:


Can you show the 2000 - 2011 information also?
If/when I get the graphs done, I'll make sure the 2001-2011 data are included.
Member Since: noiembrie 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
182. greentortuloni
07:47 AM GMT on mai 30, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I am fairly certain that Monckton's pistol is not loaded, but that did not stop the interviewer from keeping his hand on his pistol. LOL What a couple of maroons, as Bugs Bunny would say.

BTW, I wonder if Monckton is going to wear that shirt back to England? What a maroon! Time to dress the clowns!


Actually I think the appropriate terms are "embezzle" and "ultra maroon".
Member Since: iunie 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
181. BobWallace
12:44 AM GMT on mai 30, 2012
What would be interesting would be a graph of "still standing" record highs/lows. A graph starting back in 1880 or wherever continuous records start.

What I would expect to see is the number of record highs bunched toward the current year and record lows spread more to the left/earlier years, with fewer in recent years.

Of course, the data would have to be limited to sites with continuous records from the beginning date.

Up for that one, Neo?


Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
180. JupiterKen
10:12 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
I don't think it's going out on a limb to state that a new climate regime has been entered, at least here in the U.S.:

Hot

Hot

Hot


Can you show the 2000 - 2011 information also?
Member Since: mai 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 305
179. BaltimoreBrian
08:01 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
I put a motion on the floor to refer to said troll as "Chairman Meow" from now on. Do I have a second?

Quoting vanwx:
Gee green...
I 've liked both your and Someone..'s contributions. I think you are refering to the faker/troll 'MaoistForAgenda21:'. some symbiote disrupter. Trolls try to get working people into useless fights or false dichotomies. I thought this particular was pretty good at throwing those disrupters out.
'MaoistForAgenda21' is a contradiction in terms; only a pychopath or a 'bot' would call themselves such. The 'enemy' wins if we can not talk together. This isn't our first troll. I've no idea if there is some 'agenda 21' but no Maoist would support that.
Both you, Greentortulini and 'someonesgottibetherookie' have always argued for a planet where humans can live. This stupid troll is just a phase. Lets talk climate.
Member Since: august 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 8067
178. Some1Has2BtheRookie
05:58 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Further proof--as if any were needed--that Monckton is certifiable: he is now a tried-and-true Birther. From the following:

My purpose in being here [in Arizona] is to have a further look into whether the president of the United States is the president of the United States. Now you might say, what has this got to do with someone from Britain%u2026 I am here because I am curious. As a peer of the realm I am allowed to stick my long aristocratic nose into anything I want to stick it in.



So now may we all agree to laugh derisively at this sniveling, lying halfwit? and can we all agree to never again be subject to his inane blathering?

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo...


I am fairly certain that Monckton's pistol is not loaded, but that did not stop the interviewer from keeping his hand on his pistol. LOL What a couple of maroons, as Bugs Bunny would say.

BTW, I wonder if Monckton is going to wear that shirt back to England? What a maroon! Time to dress the clowns!
Member Since: august 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
177. Neapolitan
05:15 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Further proof--as if any were needed--that Monckton is certifiable: he is now a tried-and-true Birther. From the following:

My purpose in being here [in Arizona] is to have a further look into whether the president of the United States is the president of the United States. Now you might say, what has this got to do with someone from Britain… I am here because I am curious. As a peer of the realm I am allowed to stick my long aristocratic nose into anything I want to stick it in.



So now may we all agree to laugh derisively at this sniveling, lying halfwit? and can we all agree to never again be subject to his inane blathering?

Cuckoo. Cuckoo. Cuckoo...
Member Since: noiembrie 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
176. Neapolitan
05:00 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
OUCH! Right on pace with the 1st,2nd and 3rd lowest extent.......... Will we have a new #1 this year?
As Bob Wallace said, it's really too early to tell whether new records for extent and/or area will be set this year (though I'd be willing to put money on volume doing just that). Anyway, speaking of ice: there was a big drop in area yesterday (Day 149): 209K km2. That's the first double century break of the year, and, in fact, is the largest one-day decrease in area since June 29 of last year (when 231K km2 was lost).

So far this May, area has decreased by 2.176 million km2, or more than 77K km2 per day. By contrast over the same time period:

-2011: 1.742 million km2 / 62K km2 per day
-2007: 1.242 million km2 / 44K km2 per day

2012 sea ice area is now 268K km2 less than 2007 was on this date. There's 213K km2 more ice than on this date last year. However, from day 150 through Day 154 last year, an average of more than 9K km2 of ice was added each day. Meaning that, barring some unforeseen circumstance, 2012 SIA should be at a historic low point for the date no later than the first few days of June--especially if the forecasts linked to by Bob come to pass.
Member Since: noiembrie 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
175. BobWallace
04:52 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
OUCH! Right on pace with the 1st,2nd and 3rd lowest extent.......... Will we have a new #1 this year?




I'm thinking that we'll see extent drop to the bottom spot over the next few days. Forecasts are for a lot of transport though the Fram.

Right now predictions are for at least five days of high transport, including moving out some of the oldest, thickest ice from the Arctic Basin.

If you go to this page and click on the most recently run (top-left) "Valid On" dates you can see what the model is projecting for each date.

On "20120603" you can see the arrows indicating ice movement along the top of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland. That's the thick stuff. When it exits into the warm Atlantic large volume drops occur.

Link

Or you can go to this page and click on CICE Speed and Drift Last 30 days gif and it will run into the next few days, showing what is likely coming.

Link

Whether we'll end up with a record extent year, can't predict the weather that far in advance. But I do think we'll drop volume once more, setting the ice up for a massive loss when weather gangs up on it.
Member Since: februarie 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
174. Patrap
04:42 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Uptown, New Orleans

Elevation
20 ft

Now

Clear

Temperature
91.8 F

Feels Like 97 F


....ooooooooooooooh weeeeeeeeeee, Wattup wit Dat ?
Member Since: iulie 3, 2005 Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
173. cyclonebuster
04:24 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
OUCH! Right on pace with the 1st,2nd and 3rd lowest extent.......... Will we have a new #1 this year?


Member Since: ianuarie 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
172. Neapolitan
04:14 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:
P.S. Neap do you have a web page where you are keeping those graphs of highs and lows? They're really good at showing just how nutso the temps have been in the last few years without any words.
Funny you should ask that. After some urging from elsewhere, I created a public site on Google to hold a bunch of the graphs I maintain; https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs /

I mentioned on Masters' blog this morning that there have so far been seven heat/warm waves in the U.S. this year, and zero cold/cool waves. Just six days have seen 100 or more record low temperatures, while 86 have seen 100 or more record highs. Pretty astounding, really...
Member Since: noiembrie 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292
171. AlwaysThinkin
03:39 PM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
I don't think it's going out on a limb to state that a new climate regime has been entered, at least here in the U.S.:

Hot

Hot

Hot


Not too surprised. Here in Janesville, we came within four degrees of our record May high of 91 degrees (set only in 1988 after a century of records) in the first few days of this May. A week ago Saturday we hit it. This last Sunday? We blew it away by six degrees. Last year at this time we either tied or came within a degree of tying our record May high. It's getting too easy to shatter these highs anymore. Also Friday and Saturday is where we got three fifths of our rain fall totals for this month, until then when I tilled a garden bed for a local food pantry last week the soil looked like it had turned to dusty sand that just wouldn't be able to hold down much more than a blanket let alone a plant. Straw helped to hold in the water, but only so much.

P.S. Neap do you have a web page where you are keeping those graphs of highs and lows? They're really good at showing just how nutso the temps have been in the last few years without any words.
Member Since: august 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 300
170. Neapolitan
11:32 AM GMT on mai 29, 2012
Quoting BobWallace:
NPR had a piece on this evening's news about farmers in Missouri dealing with very early, very dry conditions brought on as much by heat as lack of rain.

Climatologists call it a "flash drought," a sudden, unexpected burst of high temperatures and low humidity that can wither crops in a matter of days. And with temperatures hovering above 90 degrees, farmers worry the weather could have disastrous consequences on corn and other crops.

One of the farmers talks about how, this time last year, his fields were under water and this year his crop is threatened by too little water.
I don't think it's going out on a limb to state that a new climate regime has been entered, at least here in the U.S.:

Hot

Hot

Hot
Member Since: noiembrie 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13292

Viewing: 220 - 170

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5Blog 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

Overcast
41 °F
Cer acoperit