Midwest and Great Plains region is entering a severe drought

[rockpilefarmer]

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

So Robe, what are you trying to say here, That this is our new normal?

Just like in the mid-2000's people were all up in arms about all the hurricanes, but after 2005 they just kind of dropped off. And the 2003 European heatwave, we were told this is our new normal. Or the 2011 flooding in Pakistan. Or the tonadoes of last year...and the list goes on and on.

This climate change stuff is like watching a show on Nostradamus, the predictions can be applied to any situation, and with all the coverage in today's world they sure do a good job of scaring people.

Roberto's love of science is more like a religion it seems. In fact, science does NOT have all the answers. If it did, we would not be in this mess.

My religion is that of a sovereign creator. We have messed up our once perfect planet. Roberto sees things differently. He can do that, at least while this nation is still free.

[roberte]

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Yeah, the literature of those with an agenda.

Really? Tell us about the "agenda"; especially where you find evidence of some "agenda".

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Sorry, but our view in the historic past of climate is not extensive enough. This warming that we’re going through now cannot be seen as unprecedented, WRT the earth’s history. We just don’t have a complete historical view. There’s a place for proxy reconstruction, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves that we have the entire picture.

You do realize that the deniers have had 100+ years to come up with an alternative theory. A theory that has a substantive body of data to support it.

And they haven't.


Hence, the reliance on science and empirical research.

[robbie]

Originally Posted by roberte

The "new normal" isn't the drought, just as the "new normal" isn't the precipitation records being broken. Or the heatwaves. Or a colder than normal summer. Or......

<*>

[LoreD]

Originally Posted by robbie

The only way to fix it is higher taxes.

Robbie,

That is a purely political comment and has nothing to do with the effects of the drought on food.

LoreD

[Roadrunner]

Originally Posted by roberte

You do realize that the deniers have had 100+ years to come up with an alternative theory. A theory that has a substantive body of data to support it.

And they haven't.


Hence, the reliance on science and empirical research.

I don't know what you're saying about deniers having 100+ years to come up with an alternative theory. That's nonsensical.

This heat wave and drought is simply weather, not our new climate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMd8RT2a_8U


I absolutely agree on science and empirical research. This is not that; if you look at the article it shows some melted lamp covers and of course it was blamed on GW. http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/201...lobal-warming/


It was a very hot day in Stillwater, Oklahoma, about 115°F. Someone sent a photo to KFOR-TV, via FACEBOOK, showing part of a streetlight that had melted. The far-left blog Think Progress picked up the story. Global warming true believer Bill McKibben saw the story and, believing he finally had proof of global warming, took to Twitter, tweeting to Senator James Inhofe (Okla.) saying, “Senator Inhofe, God may be trying to get your attention. Check out this picture.”

Alas, ground truth intervened. People on the ground noted that there was a dumpster fire at that location. The fire melted the front two bulbs of the four-light street lamp.

The fact that only two of the four lamps were melted should have been a clue. Another clue is that glass does not melt at 115°F (glass begins to soften at a minimum temperature of over 1100 °F).

It seems the credulous will believe the incredible. This story shows the perils of confirmation bias (the tendency of people to believe information that confirms their beliefs).

[roberte]

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

I don't know what you're saying about deniers having 100+ years to come up with an alternative theory. That's nonsensical.

"In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm


2012 - 1896 = "You do realize that the deniers have had 100+ years to come up with an alternative theory. A theory that has a substantive body of data to support it.

And they haven't."

[Roadrunner]

Originally Posted by roberte

"In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth's atmosphere, we would raise the planet's average temperature"

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm


2012 - 1896 = "You do realize that the deniers have had 100+ years to come up with an alternative theory. A theory that has a substantive body of data to support it.

And they haven't."

Where do I start….

First point. I find it funny that when I once provided a link of Clive Best who analyzed temperature data, that’s all he did, analyze temps. You were quick to jump on the fact that he’s not a climatologist. However, now you present a non-climatologist as establishing global warming (AGW) as a fact. And this was over a 100 years ago, not long after we first learned about the earth's greenhouse, let alone study it in-depth.

Can you say: Hypocrisy. BTW, I’m not faulting you for referencing this great man; I understand the importance of interdisciplinary research in science.

Second Point. Actually all he did was attempt to calculate how changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could alter the surface temperature. He did not warn humanity on the dangers of AGW. This is a valid scientific question that Svante Arrhenius proposed. But it’s important to note that he did not factor in climatological things like clouds, convection of heat upward in the atmosphere, and other essential factors. Remember he’s not a climatologist. I’m not attempting to mar his reputation, he was a great man. But this wasn’t much more than an idea, much of which was based on more common sense than extensive scientific observation and testing.

Common sense, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so increasing it should increase temps. But when dealing with complicated systems it isn’t that black and white. This reminds me of when science thought the universe’s rate of expansion was slowing down. And why did they belive this? Only because it made sense, since that is such a ubiquitous observation in normal life. But, only after extensive scientific observation, we found out that the universe’s rate of expansion is not slowing, it isn’t even remaining constant, but it’s increasing.

Question: If CO2 is such a crucial factor in increasing temperatures. Then what were the temps on earth when the ppm concentration was @ 5,000 ppm? Yes, I know the world was basically ice free, but I’m talking about the temps. With all the talk about how great CO2 is at trapping heat, as if it's the only factor to consider , one would think that the temps were constantly in the hundreds of degrees.

[roberte]

Here is the link to that conversation.

You can read about Clive Best's expertise at http://clivebest.com/blog/?page_id=2 where he cites nothing beyond a science degree as expertise in the field of climatology.

Climate science covers a wide range of expert fields; I'm pretty sure you won't find a quote by me saying a physicist can't contribute to it. So show us Dr. Best's CV; where it says 'published in a peer-reviewed journal, this paper on some aspect of climate science.

IF you can demonstrate that he has demonstrated -beyond a blog - expertise in the field, then we can talk about his work.

The comments about Svante Arrhenius make little sense. His work has stood for 100+ years and that century plus of time has seen verification and increasing mountains of data in support.

Originally Posted by Roadrunner

Where do I start….

First point. I find it funny that when I once provided a link of Clive Best who analyzed temperature data, that’s all he did, analyze temps. You were quick to jump on the fact that he’s not a climatologist. However, now you present a non-climatologist as establishing global warming (AGW) as a fact. And this was over a 100 years ago, not long after we first learned about the earth's greenhouse, let alone study it in-depth.

[Spudworth]

Originally Posted by dustdevil

Wisconsin is not in the "corn belt", but Mohoghead's great state of Missouri is.

I run across some numbers that would be interesting here. WI and MO produce about the same amount of cron for grain with WI barely nudging MO. Rank #9 and #10. But WI is the leading state in corn for silage production. If you back calculate the grain produced from the silage numbers WI outleads MO a good bit.