[Daniel1960]

Phil,

The baking heat is a weather issue, similar to one which occur back in the 1950s, the 1930s, and many other such years. The heat is a result of the dryness, as the reduced cloud cover allows more solar radiation to reach the surface, which further enhances the drying. Consequently, the heat results from the dry weather, and appears to be localized to the central U.S. (and southern Canada). Globally, 2012 (through June) has not been remarkably warm. According to GISS, 2012 is the 12th warmest of the past 15 years. According to CRU, the first six months of 2012 is tied for 11th.

Every year, some areas are wamer (cooler) than others, and some areas are drier (or wetter). Focusing on these areas experiencing one extreme on the other, while neglecting the others, misses the big picture. Last year, many focused on the Russian heat wave, and yet, 2011 was the 13th warmest of the past 15 years (GISS). Much scientific research has determined that the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have the greatest impact on local temperatures and precipitation. Last year, it was the strong La Nina that results in the Texas drought, similar to past strong La Ninas. The shift this year has returned most of Texas to near-average temperatures and precipitation (northern-most Texas being the exception).

Every year, some part of the globe experiences weather towards one extreme or the other, which has a detrimental effect on local crops. Climate is an average of all these weather events. One locally warm summer does not indicate that a catastrophy is on the horizon.

[Winstonm]

 helene_t, on 2012-July-25, 02:16, said:

You use the word "Skeptic" in two different meanings.

I wonder how the use of the word "skeptic" in the meaning of outright opposition/disbelief came into common use. Over here, a "euro-skeptic" is not someone who is skeptical towards the EU, but someone who is outright against it.

Really, the more apt term here would be AGW denier rather than skeptic, as the most vocal critics tend to discount and attempt to minimize any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet accept at face-value any information or opinion that refutes global warming.

Real skepticism is valuable, but, to me, the denier seems driven by a different motive.

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2012-July-25, 05:00, said:

If the data and observations start to match the proposed models, then I suspect most of the "skeptics" will accept the theory.

For quite a number of folks, ideology, religious doctrine, and/or financial interest trumps even overwhelming evidence.

[luke warm]

 PassedOut, on 2012-July-25, 10:43, said:

For quite a number of folks, ideology, religious doctrine, and/or financial interest trumps even overwhelming evidence.

ain't that the truth!! even so, "If the data and observations start to match the proposed models, then I suspect most of the "skeptics" will accept the theory." until then, i see nothing wrong with remaining unconvinced... but the carbon tax, while politically impossible to obtain at this time, can be "back doored" by having the taxpayer pay $50 a gallon for fuel used by the military

[phil_20686]

 Daniel1960, on 2012-July-25, 05:33, said:

Phil,

Every year, some part of the globe experiences weather towards one extreme or the other, which has a detrimental effect on local crops. Climate is an average of all these weather events. One locally warm summer does not indicate that a catastrophy is on the horizon.

I wasnt suggesting this particular event could be tied to GW, I was suggesting that small variations in weather could have catastrophic consequences. Doubling the price of corn means real hardships for poor countries. By 2100, these `small variations' will be everywhere.

[Daniel1960]

Phil,
Yes, small variations can lead to locally catastrophic consequences. Here in Michigan the very warm March, followed by the April freeze devasted the cherry crop. However, this is most likely a one year, local phenomenon. By saying that these small variations will be everywhere by 2100 implies that they are caused by GW. In the U.S., corn production saw annual decreases of 25% in 1995, 33% in 1993 and 1989, and almost 50% in 1984. Newledge cut its 2012 corn forecast down to 11.3 billlion bushels, which would be a 10% drop from the 2011 production of 12.5. Nevertheless, corn production has doubled since the mid 70s, overcoming these "small variations".

The price of corn has been influenced more by energy costs than actual production since that time. This is true of other foods also.

http://www.econbrows...ciling_est.html

[phil_20686]

 Daniel1960, on 2012-July-25, 13:50, said:

Phil,
Yes, small variations can lead to locally catastrophic consequences. Here in Michigan the very warm March, followed by the April freeze devasted the cherry crop. However, this is most likely a one year, local phenomenon. By saying that these small variations will be everywhere by 2100 implies that they are caused by GW. In the U.S., corn production saw annual decreases of 25% in 1995, 33% in 1993 and 1989, and almost 50% in 1984. Newledge cut its 2012 corn forecast down to 11.3 billlion bushels, which would be a 10% drop from the 2011 production of 12.5. Nevertheless, corn production has doubled since the mid 70s, overcoming these "small variations".

The price of corn has been influenced more by energy costs than actual production since that time. This is true of other foods also.

http://www.econbrows...ciling_est.html

(1) Reasoning from a change in production is a fallacy here, its the price that matters. Changes in US corn production are mostly a deliberate change due to changing markets, to keep supply and demand (and hence the price) stable.

http://www.indexmund...corn&months=360

(2) While there have always been extreme weather events, they are becoming more common due to rising temperatures. So while you cannot point to a storm or drought or tornado, and say global warming caused that, it is definitely the case that global warming will lead to many more extreme weather events, at least until the climate settles into a new stable state. This is a near universal prediction of modelling, and is reasonably well confirmed in the data aswell.

(3) Two degrees of warming will change rainfall patterns significantly. Places that have adapted to lots of rain will be in drought, others that have adapted to less rain will be flooded. It is already happening.

[onoway]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-25, 15:16, said:

(1) Reasoning from a change in production is a fallacy here, its the price that matters. Changes in US corn production are mostly a deliberate change due to changing markets, to keep supply and demand (and hence the price) stable.

http://www.indexmund...corn&months=360


(3) Two degrees of warming will change rainfall patterns significantly. Places that have adapted to lots of rain will be in drought, others that have adapted to less rain will be flooded. It is already happening.

There is more to rainfall patterns than temperature. It has been shown by various people around the world that the vegetation patterns have an effect; thus Willie Smits in Borneo has demonstrated that as his work encouraged a healthier diversity/abundance of trees and plants, the rainfall increased back toward traditional amounts and the aquifer which had been consistenly providing less and less water for the major city miles and miles away was being replenished.

Greg Judy is a cattleman in the US who has brought farms abandoned for lack of water and worn out unproductive soil back into productivity, including finding long gone creeks coming back into flow, only by organizing the grazing patterns of his cattle in very specific ways. Sepp Holtzer has restored dried up lakes to health. The same principles are used by Geoff Lawton (Greening the Desert)of the Permaculture Insitute of Australia and many others all around the world in managing to restore land which has given up the ghost and become barren and unproductive. The terrible drought of the 30's was as disastrous in Saskatchewan as it was in Oklahoma, aand finally the soil was stabilized with grasses and then trees, and thousands of acres have been maintained since then as permanent community pastures to prevent that from ever happening again. (A program the federal government has now decided to abandon since they can realize some income by selling the land.)

All of these things are accomplished by correcting the effects of bad management by people, by returning to an understanding of the natural patterns and interactions between what happens to the land and the weather and following the principles of those patterns. Another man in India whose name I forget did the same thing with land considered to be sterile which had three wells all which had been dry for some time. He did a little with it whenever he had some spare time, starting with bringing pebbles in to put around the base of the few plants he could grow so whatever moisture was there couldn't evaporate. Over time he was so successful that he was eventually offered big money to sell the formerly barren land for a resort as it had become such a beautiful lush area.(and the wells had all begun to flow again.)

All these charts and such are interesting but it's perhaps more interesting that a number of people who are too busy fixing things to engage in endless academic debate are apparently under the radar of the academics and scientists.

The other day I watched a video of a scientist who was pontificating about how we needed to find ways to deal with desertification quickly, as it was a fate looming ever closer with climate change. It astonished and dismayed me that someone in his position should APPARENTLY be so entirely unaware of what has already been shown to work extremely well to solve the problem.

Perhaps a big part of the studied avoidance of these solutions is that they depend on paying attention rather than money, of working with natural systems rather than trying to enforce our will on them, and that the solutions never will depend upon (and therefore provide an income source for) multinationals.

In a side note..It is perhaps noteworthy that when farmers in India changed to genetically modified seed, over time they noticed that the water table was falling drastically to the point they were having to dig deeper wells every few years. This was presumably because of the increased need for water if only to mix the chemicals upon which these crops generally depend. The problem became so acute that many (over 600) comitted suicide when their formerly productive lands became barren when they could no longer afford to do so as the water table had dropped so low. Now a very large area of India is designated as GMO free..and slowly the aquifer is replenishing itself.

Almost all the industrial agriculture corn in the US is now GMO corn. Combine a lower rainfall than expected with a monocrop having higher than normal water requirements and soil which is so manipulated that it has no resilience left and you have a problem in the making.

[Zelandakh]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-25, 15:16, said:

(2) While there have always been extreme weather events, they are becoming more common due to rising temperatures.

Are you sure about that Phil? The first scientific report looking into this, done by a generally pro-AGW (Norwegian from memory) research team, found that there was no increase in extreme weather events during the period of recorded weather phenomena. While there was a small increase in the Northern hemisphere, this was completely offset by a small decrease in the Southern Hemisphere. I am aware that there have been some additional studies since. Many of these are controversial, either for their definition of an extreme weather event or for not taking account of the wider reporting of events in modern times. As far as I know the original study is still valid.

One other note of caution here. During the Global Cooling of the 1970s, something which was also widely accepted, it was also predicted that extreme wether events would increase. Those theories are, perhaps unsurprisingly, now firmly resigned to history. Nonetheless, it seems like a reasonable hypothesis, from this and other examples, that humans are predisposed towards predictions that involve catastrophe. This is actually quite a good strategy from a evolutionary point of view. Despite this, I am certainly not a AGW denier. I do remain skeptical about some points though. In particular, I am extremely skeptical about most, perhaps even all, catastrophe scenarios. We have the technology now to take steps to remove excess greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. If the political will were there, all that would be necessary is to agree a disposal method and to determine who pays what, who makes (gains) what, and where the devices are housed. That the actual political solution being put forward in the West is a form of taxation speaks volumes for where the political will lies. I am quite certain that if scientists were in charge of the world's economies for a day, they would come up with a quite different solution.

[Daniel1960]

Phil,
Reasoning from the price is a greater fallacy, as it has been shown that energy costs have a greater effect on price than production. While farmers do rotate crops based on demand (among other things), this is not a very fluid process, as it must be planned six months to a year in advance. This is only a short term effect, affected by the supply and demand of the crops for which corn has been supplanted also. The energy demand has a two-fold effect on the price of corn, as an increase in energy costs lead to a greater demand for ethanol production from corn. Arguing that production changes to keep price stable seems to undermine your argument about rising prices.

As pointed out by Zelandakh, no link has been shown between rising temperatures and extreme weather events. This is another case where models and observations deviate. While many models predict an increase in extreme weather events, there has not been an observed increase. This goes back to the skeptic argument earlier; if observations start to match model predictions, then more skeptics will convert to believers.

I have no doubt that two degrees of warming will change weather patterns. The question that remains is how. Most predictions, albeit from rather alarmist sources, contend that everyone everywhere will experience worse weather. That seems highly improbable. This argument stems from the fallacy that the present climate is optimal, and any change is undesireable. In reality, some areas would improve, while others decline. Completely lost in this argument is the effect that rainfall has on temperature. Increasing rainfall leads to decreasing temperatures. This is due to both the cooling effect of the rain, and the reduction in solar radiation caused by increased cloudiness. In fact, much of the Midwestern heat wave can be attributed to the lack of rainfall (and clouds).

[Zelandakh]

 Daniel1960, on 2012-July-26, 06:27, said:

As pointed out by Zelandakh, no link has been shown between rising temperatures and extreme weather events.

I did not say that no link has been shown. I specifically mentioned that some more recent papers have shown a link, with the caveat that most of these are controvercial from one aspect or another.

 Daniel1960, on 2012-July-26, 06:27, said:

Most predictions, albeit from rather alarmist sources, contend that everyone everywhere will experience worse weather.

This is patently and demonstrably untrue. While media reports tend to focus on the regions that will lose out in predictions, the scientific papers and models themselves do indeed predict that some regions will become "better", for want of a better term. A good examples of this would be Greenland, a region that also had a surge of inhabitation during the Little Ice Age. Up to now, the warming has also had a highly beneficial effect on the UK's wine industry and there are plenty of other examples that can be given.

[Daniel1960]

Zelanek,

Sorry if I misquoted you, but your earlier post stated that studies have found "no increase in extreme weather events during the period of recorded weather phenonena." I am aware that some studies have tried to associate the two, and have shown a causation over regional locales. Maybe I should have said that no link has been established, but I got the implication that you would not agree with Phil's statement that, "While there have always been extreme weather events, they are becoming more common due to rising temperatures." Correct me, if I am wrong.

I agree that my latter statement was a bit of a generalization. Note, that I did not say scientific papers, but rather alarmist sources. There is a major difference here. I am using the term "alarmist," not to refer to the common theory of global warming, but to those on the extreme edge, who argue that a global catastrophy is imminent. They would argue that the warming of Greenland would be a bad thing, because ice would melt, polar bears would starve, and sea levels would rise. They also point out how much more energy will be used to cool civilization, and how many people will die due to extreme heat, while neglecting to point out the energy savings due to decreased heating and the lower death toll due cause by extreme cold. The same sites argue that increasing atmospheric CO2, precipitation, and a longer growing season (due to temperature increases) will not benefit agriculture in the Northern latititudes. In particular, I am referring to skepticalscience.com, but this applies to other such sites.

[phil_20686]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-July-26, 05:18, said:

Are you sure about that Phil? The first scientific report looking into this, done by a generally pro-AGW (Norwegian from memory) research team, found that there was no increase in extreme weather events during the period of recorded weather phenomena. While there was a small increase in the Northern hemisphere, this was completely offset by a small decrease in the Southern Hemisphere. I am aware that there have been some additional studies since. Many of these are controversial, either for their definition of an extreme weather event or for not taking account of the wider reporting of events in modern times. As far as I know the original study is still valid.

So yes it depends what you mean by extreme weather. For example, in the US there has been a 20% increase of the amount of rain in the heaviest downpours. That is to say that a larger fraction of the total rain is coming in heavy rain, even though the total rainfall has not changed much. These type of events which are `unusual' rather than extreme show a pretty robust finding. The problem with `studies show no link' is that if you look at tornadoes, where there is such a huge variation already, you need a huge number of data points to get a three sigma finding*. The common events give you a much better place to look. Just this week there has been an unprecedented thaw in greenland's icesheet reported.

Another robust finding is that tropical storms are now lasting significantly longer (i.e. dissipating more energy) than they were fifty years ago. Change is happening now.

@onoway: You are not wrong. Nowhere did I claim that changing temperature was the only thing that affects rainfall, but you are rather missing the point. People adapt their techniques to local conditions. If conditions change, they will have to adapt. The reality is that this will be incredibly disruptive. We in the UK have been breeding cereals for nearly two hundred years to improve yield, and pest resistance, based on local rainfall and soil quality. Projections for the UK suggest that temperatures here will go at least ten degrees lower if the north Atlantic current is switched off. (Edinburgh is further north than Novosbrik in Siberia). That will mean different crops, which means different materials, which means different knowledge and experience, and it will be extremely disruptive. Moreover, you cannot so easily displace farming techniques from one place to another, due to different soil, different pests, different diseases.

Even if, in theory, we have all the tools that we need. Human nature is such that it seems extremely unlikely that societies will adapt easily. Particularly in poorer regions. I mean we already have all the tools to eradicate absolute poverty in africa, and how is that working out?

@Daniel:
You said

Quote

Reasoning from the price is a greater fallacy, as it has been shown that energy costs have a greater effect on price than production. While farmers do rotate crops based on demand (among other things), this is not a very fluid process, as it must be planned six months to a year in advance. This is only a short term effect, affected by the supply and demand of the crops for which corn has been supplanted also. The energy demand has a two-fold effect on the price of corn, as an increase in energy costs lead to a greater demand for ethanol production from corn. Arguing that production changes to keep price stable seems to undermine your argument about rising prices.

(1) These statements have different timescales: Production changes year on year to match supply. It cannot change faster than that, but companies to keep inventories to make up for bad years. But production changes a lot year on year based on demand, which is well predicted by the trading of wheat futures. A large quantity of commodities are `bought' via futures more than a year in advance. In the long run the price is always close to the price at which it can be produced. In the short term, a shortage produces a spike based on the laws of supply and demand. Demand for food is notoriously inelastic, which is why prices are volatile when there is a shortage.

In the medium term the price of corn tracks energy prices, as that is the production factor that is currently changing. In the short term you get a price spike in bad years due to supply and demand. 1996 and now being the two obvious spikes both caused by drought in corn producing areas. These price spikes cause genuine hardship in poor countries, and changing weather will create more of them. Corn production, on the the other hand, is much more volatile than corn prices. This is the magic of the invisible hand. 1993, us corn production fell by a third, barely in blip in the price.


*This was a favourite tactic of tobacco companies. Do fifty small studies which simply do not have the resolution to show a correlation at the level claimed, and then claim you have studies that `show no correlation'.

[Daniel1960]

Phil,
The spike due to the production decrease in 1995 is evident. The spike in 2008 is independent of production, and completely related to the rise in energy prices. The recent spike is a combination of production decrease and energy increase. Compare the expected production decrease of ~10% to the 25% in 1995. The ethanol demand is also evident from 2005 onward. Interesting point about 1993 though.

[Zelandakh]

 phil_20686, on 2012-July-26, 12:04, said:

So yes it depends what you mean by extreme weather. For example, in the US there has been a 20% increase of the amount of rain in the heaviest downpours. That is to say that a larger fraction of the total rain is coming in heavy rain, even though the total rainfall has not changed much. These type of events which are `unusual' rather than extreme show a pretty robust finding. The problem with `studies show no link' is that if you look at tornadoes, where there is such a huge variation already, you need a huge number of data points to get a three sigma finding*.

*This was a favourite tactic of tobacco companies. Do fifty small studies which simply do not have the resolution to show a correlation at the level claimed, and then claim you have studies that `show no correlation'.

This is precisely the point really. "Extreme weather" is such a nebulous phrase it can be taken to mean many different things. Worse, an "increase" can be in numbers (which the initial paper addressed) or intensity (which it did not consider at all). Intensity is quite an interesting one too - I cannot think of a single paper that does not suggest an increase here but what is causing that is harder to pinpoint. The problem here is that intensity is generally measured in terms of damage levels. As more areas become developed and with changing weather patterns it is not necessarily the warming directly causing an increase. This is an area where it would be nice to see the noise removed from so we can have a definitive result of approximately how much extra energy is being released (aplogies to the scientists if this has actually been done since I last checked the literature).

My opinion is that it is potentially just as misleading to say that "extreme weather events are becoming more common due to rising temperatures" as to say "there is no link between rising temperatures and extreme weather events". The first statement is potentially true for a given definition of "extreme weather event" but is certainly not proven, nor is it true for some perfectly reasonable definitions of "extreme weather event". The second statement could still conceivably be true for the current temperature rise. However, it is much more likely that this is completely untrue and it would violate some of the Laws of Nature as we understand them if this were true for greater rises in temperature.

Finally, the issue of small surveys. This is one of the reasons I mentioned that the research team for this specific paper is not a AGW-skeptic group. Indeed this team is (imho) known for being amongst the statistically most rigorous in the field. The result was not a one or two sigma rise, buried by a small sample. They studied all of the available data at that time and found no rise at all. I will also mention here that this team have published supplementary papers since showing a potential link between warming and extreme weather events. As so often in the field, it depends on which data source(s) you use, how you handle that data and which definitions you use.

[hrothgar]

 Al_U_Card, on 2011-April-07, 20:51, said:

The point has never been about whether climate changes. BEST has only "analyzed" 2% of the accumulated data and has yet to "publish" any results.

BEST is now in the process of releasing a more complete analysis. The full papers should be live on the BEST website tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's a useful Op Ed piece that Muller published in the NYT over the weekend along with a key quote:

http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all

Quote

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

[Daniel1960]

Much has been theorized about precipitation and extreme rainfall. The data shows that both have increased. The following shows an analysis of Eastern U.S. rainfall patterns (significantly more rainfall falls in the East compared to the West). Winter, spring, and summer rainfall are virtually unchanged over the past half century. The entire increase was observed in the fall.

http://engineering.t...-streamflow.pdf
http://www.eurekaler...c-cir051602.php

Over the past century, precipitation in the U.S. lower 48 has increased 6%.
http://epa.gov/clima...cipitation.html

Both rainfall and extreme rainfall have increased, possibly linked to increased temperatures. However, another potential cause is the ocean circulations. In the U.S., increases in heavy downpours is associated with the warm phase of the AMO.

http://www.springerl...8r732520w40308/

To quote the Shakespearean play (Much Ado About Nothing), the increase in tropical cylcones following the intense 1990s, and culminating with the extremely active 2005, has tapering off to lower levels of the 1960s and 70s. Once again, too much focus was placed on short-term changes, ignoring long-term trends.

http://policlimate.com/tropical/

[PassedOut]

 hrothgar, on 2012-July-30, 07:48, said:

BEST is now in the process of releasing a more complete analysis. The full papers should be live on the BEST website tomorrow.

In the meantime, here's a useful Op Ed piece that Muller published in the NYT over the weekend along with a key quote:

http://www.nytimes.c...&pagewanted=all

Good job by BEST, and good use of the web: Summary of Results: Global land temperatures have increased by 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years

From the link posted by Richard:

Quote

The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.

Hope we can focus now on the difficult part.

[chasetb]

Basically, we are doomed because China, and to a far lesser extent are polluting the atmosphere and don't give a damn about Kyoto. So why worry about going green, when the end of the world is arriving at the end of the year anyway? Obama, why are you forcing coal-powered electricity plants out of business???

I am sarcastic about the end of the world, but the rest of it I am serious.

[hrothgar]

 chasetb, on 2012-July-30, 10:51, said:

Basically, we are doomed because China, and to a far lesser extent are polluting the atmosphere and don't give a damn about Kyoto. So why worry about going green, when the end of the world is arriving at the end of the year anyway? Obama, why are you forcing coal-powered electricity plants out of business???

I am sarcastic about the end of the world, but the rest of it I am serious.

"Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work well with small children, let alone other countries.