You may have noticed the same skeptics have moved their goalposts and now say the world has cooled since 2002, 2004 etc. That’s because the only years they can now cherry-pick are from 2001 to 2006, every other year shows a warming trend.
Woods For Trees has ten global datasets available, seven show pronounced warming since 1998, two show very slight warming, one shows cooling. Here’s an image with all ten graphs: http://postimg.org/image/4bobxznzp/full/
Turning to the question in hand, it would be difficult to find many farmers who haven’t noticed the change in growing seasons or prevailing climatic conditions.
Many have changed their crops to ones that are more suited to the warmer and drier conditions (drier in summer when most crops grow, wetter in winter when they don’t). There’s a lot more grasses, pulses, nuts, oils, seeds etc being produced, these have often taken the place of root vegetables that don’t mind cooler conditions.
In some parts of the world, particularly the hot and dry places, there used to be one maize crop per year. With the longer growing seasons many farmers are now producing an early and a late harvest. The yields per harvest are less but the total from both harvests are more. It’s unfortunate that at the same time there has been an increase in flood and drought events.
- - - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO RAISIN CAINE
The point I’m making isn’t whether there’s been any warming or cooling since 1998, but that the skeptics are wrong.
This is a point they go on and on and on about. A search of Answers for the exact phrase “global warming stopped in 1998” returns 1,780 result, “no warming since 1998” returns 2,010 results; for contrast, the claim of “no warming since 1999” returns just 3 results.
Another example, “no warming for 15 years” returns 61 results. Change it to 14 years or 16 years and no results are found. Despite the fact that this claim has been made every year for four years, it doesn’t seem to have dawned on the skeptics to change it from 15 years. They’re not even thinking for themselves, just repeating over and over what someone else once said.
This is a serious problem for many of the skeptics (you, and some of the other genuine skeptics on this site are excluded), they simply do not and can not think for themselves when it comes to climatic matters; instead they repeat ad-nauseam any old nonsense. Is this the workings of a rational mind?
If next year is as warm as this one then the skeptics won’t have a single year left to cherry-pick in any of the temperature records other than the UAH record. I’ve even warned them in advance that this is what will happen, but they ignore the warnings and persist in making themselves look stupid.
Trevor, again you show your complete ignorance, "Turning to the question in hand, it would be difficult to find many farmers who haven’t noticed the change in growing seasons or prevailing climatic conditions."
You live in la-la land. I am from a farming community in South Dakota. I was raised there. I have many relatives who are still farming there. I know the conditions back when I was a lad. I know the conditions today. Some years are bad, some years are great, just as they were 70 years ago. The yield has increased due to technology. The politics and taxes have made farming hard. But other than that, it is the same. There has been no observable change in the climate in all those years. You are getting water on the brain for living so close to the Thames, it seems. You ought to get out and observe the real world and give up your socialist friends who are feeding you this crap. Or are you originating it?
Also, I have lived in Ohio,Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Colorado among other states. But I point to those states because they have an extreme amount of farming. I do know what I am referring to. Apparently you just displayed to the community that you don't.
As to the question: One year does not constitute a trend or a climate change. If that were so, in Kentucky we would be going into an Ice Age because here it was one of the coldest springs on record.
Linlyons: "That said, farmers in more and more places, around the world, are having to deal with the effects of global warming." Source please.
My first hand knowledge on this subject is quite the contrary.
Well, you could listen to weather reports from a farmer or you could read some science:
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s1058...
http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.20...
http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX
@GaryF: "Whatever Deniers say is worthless because they have no interest in scientific explanations of climate change."
I give links to scientific studies. You throw insults. I'll let readers determine "worthless".
_____________________________
Edit@JeffM: Yes, those studies do examine economic losses and normalization is a large part of the analysis. But let's look at one abstract which is really the gist of all of these studies:
"Analyses show that, although economic losses from weather-related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters."
That statement directly contradicts claims that extreme weather is happening more frequently. It's basically saying that economic losses are almost entirely the result "increasing exposure and value of capital at risk."
In plain English, that would mean that a proper policy response would be to reduce exposure and protect capital better rather than reducing CO2. And there is plenty of science in the IPCC SREX which states most climate metrics show low confidence in any changes to recent trends.
And your link to the Francis study is only saying it is possible that reduced Arctic ice cover could lead to an increased probability of extreme weather events. And even then, I'm not sure how supported this hypothesis is.
So what we are reduced to is future predictions and climate predictions have not been turning out well. That's why I'm skeptical.
Longer growing seasons were predicted as a consequence of carbon emissions well over a century ago, and have been massively observed for decades. This is not remotely controversial among scientists.
However, among the anti-science ignoramuses who infest this site with their alarmist paranoia about carbon taxes causing the sky to fall, and their laughable denial of science, no aspect of reality is too obvious to deny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season_cree...
Lin is engaging in the common alarmist known as scare mongering. Let's all flap our stubby little wings and declare the sky is falling. First it was runaway temperatures, then ocean flooding, then "more frequent and intense" hurricanes, then a disappearing Arctic ice cap. The list goes on, but you all understand that none of these scary things actually happened.
Yes, things are pretty grim in Iowa, especially if you are a corn farmer. The weather has gone to hell in a handbag in the last thirty years. Anything I write to counter this claim we be met with name calling and attacking the site I reference.
Lin's claim is easily shown to be false by looking at corn production. Over the last 40 years, while the federal government declared "'climate disruptions to agriculture have increased," actual corn production TRIPLED from 119,421,000 metric tons to 353,965,000 metric tons. That's a pretty good gain despite the "grim" effects of global warming.
Corn dog anyone?
As someone that grew up in South Dakota, I can vouch for what Kano said. Farmers never are happy about the weather.
I saw a commercial last night where Rumsfeld said something like, all generalization are wrong, including this one. It is one of those Hughhh things that makes your brain go "This does not compute" and like Star trek you collapse into an endless do loop of non-computation. Trevor's statement that skeptics are wrong sent me into one of those as well.
When its cold, its really cold???? Really. Show me a study showing a statistically significant increase in extreme weather event accounting for multiplicity or don't pretend that the twattle you spew is in any way related to science.
Here is a hint. Weather has been "odd" at times as long as I have been alive.
And trevor, there might be some warming since 1998, but it sure as crap is not the exponential BS you "scientists" predict.
In fact, I always have to laugh at the argument about the past 15 years. You are literally aruging about whether or not there has been any warming. You think it is a victory when you shout that there has been a weeee little.
Linlyons.
Edit for clarification "It is unfortunate that Al Gore always stressed the most drastic consequences"
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING!!!! Al Gore is not the only one stressing the most drastic consequences. It has been flying around the media. Everyone is expecting tragedy and what you have to show them is that from 1998 to now all but one dataset shows a very very slight warming. And our "extreme weather" events for which you can't show statistically significant increases.
When the climate scientists do not come out as strong against the "alarmists" as the "deniers" (the extreme views), they do more than just show their own bias. They set us all up for failure. The change needed is a marathon, not a sprint. If everyone is always expecting this climate apocalypse, they are going to stop supporting the changes needed as the future does not bring the apocalypse advertised.
Trevor,
What do you expect when the length of time hits that round number of 15 years, that coincidently was once claimed by some climate scientists as the amount of time necessary to really see any statistically significant warming. So using a time frame already referenced by climate scientists in 2013 leads to 1998 and is hardly "cherry picking" or at least no more so than any other timeframe.
You already know the difference between starting at 1878 for temps and 1910. Which is cherry-picking??? And even starting from 1998 to now, is that slight bit of warming statistically significant?
It is the same with choosing to look at rank data. All of this is meaningless as anything but as a soundbite. What are we concerned about? It should be the long-term effect of our CO2 emissions on the climate. Given the LARGE role fossil fuels currently play in our society and he huge effect that climate changes can have on society, it is important not to over or under-estimate the effect.
You warmers may see it as only underestimating the effect has negative consequences, which IMO may be one reason your analysis is biased. That is wholly incorrect. Money diverted to climate change is being diverted from somewhere. Whereever it is being diverted from is likely having a negative impact on society as well.
We don't have the luxury of saying we can spend millions if only it saves one child. Those millions diverted may indeed be diverted from saving 10.
I actually like the "denier's" effect. I think they are providing a counter-balance to the scare-mongering so that the average view is closer to correct. The Al Gore-type view is most certainly wrong. Sure, I would like to see the extremes on both sides come closer to the truth, but both need to move in, otherwise brash decisions become the norm.
And I have also warned you about 15-20 more years of little to no warming being possible. You might want to remember that about 5 years ago, we were told that in 5 years there will certianly be statistically significant warming present and you are still only talking about SOME of the datasets showing non-statistically significant warming, so I would not start counting your chickens quite yet.
Linlyons,
Why are you lying??? I did not pick 1998, nor do I ever use it. In fact, I talk about the entire trend and acknowledge a warming trend.
Trevor was talking about the "cherry-picking" of 1998. I was responding to THAT. I think any date picked can be construed as cherry-picking, which is why I talk about the entirety of the time period given.
So don't lie about me and then have the audacity to pretend I have no credibility. Everyone knows you are a liar. What??? Not true??? But I said it, so it must be, right??? I made a slight point showing you are wrong and therefore I can call you a filthy liar who lacks all credibility, Right??? Thats just proper debate right??? Well is it?
What early spring Does not warm up enough til the second week of May in Missouri
i just don't see how u can come down on one side or the other of the issue, It is like proving there is a god, it is just un knowable, stop spending energy ant time thinking about it
Ottawa Mike: You give links to the economic toll on disaster losses. You did not give links to the number of extreme weather events that occurred. The links you gave state things like
"The 1926 Great Miami hurricane would have created a much larger absolute damage than the absolute damage recorded at the time were this hurricane to hit Miami in, say, 2010 instead and, following conventional methodology, the absolute damage therefore needs to be scaled up in order to make it comparable to absolute damages in 2010." (To get the full articles search for them on Google Scholar and click on the PDF links on both)
One wonders why you would like to economic losses as a means of showing trends in extreme weather events when things such as improved building techniques and so on, which I am sure are not included, also play large roles. You could read all the science you want. But you have to understand what is being said.
They are aware that the monetary cost of damage is increasing. They are just scaling the monetary cost back then to today with increases in wealth and everything.
Regarding the increase, decrease or steadiness of extreme weather in the regions you emphasize:
https://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20...
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...
OM: No it doesn't contradict anything. Here is some of the conclusion in the article you posted.
"The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefor, it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters."
http://lightning.sbs.ohio-state.edu/geog...
It deals with disaster economic losses not with frequency of intense weather incidents. And I will repost this, which I have already posted in my comments, for you too.
https://www.pik-potsdam.de/research/clim...
Edit: Some of the things not included in your posted study include improved building techniques, adaptability, and so on. You are taking the same course of arguments that Glenn Beck took when he wrote something similar to "Deaths due to extreme weather are down!" then coming to the conclusions that there is no increase in extreme weather events. Do you see the fallacy here?
http://news.yahoo.com/grim-harvest-climate-change-sweeps-iowa-farms-op-173359130.html
" Extreme weather events are happening more frequently. Rainfall is coming in torrents, flooding towns and fields. Dry spells seem to come out of nowhere. When it's cold, it's really cold, and when it's hot, it's scorching. Texas and Oklahoma saw more than 100 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in 2012. The impacts on farmers are significant, and the federal report concluded that 'climate disruptions to agriculture have increased in the past 40 years and are projected to increase over the next 25 years.' "
Whatever Deniers say is worthless because they have no interest in scientific explanations of climate change. They will accept and say anything that they believe contradicts AGW. That said, although some observations are consistent with AGW predictions, there is insufficient evidence to identify any trends in changing weather patterns.
====
kano – Saying that it could be anything says nothing. You have to provide some evidence of a relationship between the variables plus a scientific explanation of a physical connection between them.
====
joe ---
>>We do understand there is a natural global warming, that it actually saved us from the ice ages<<
I think that both those pro- and con-AGW will agree that comment redefines “stupid.”
=====
OM ---
You link to things you think can be used as a negative to AGW. Deniers have no alternative scientific explanation (theory) for the evidence - and, throwing out every lame-brained idea that appears in some Denier blog is not science and does not count.
I throw insults at liars and idiots. It is something that the world needs more of. You and possibly Raisin Caine are too smart to have gone to the Dark Side of the Force. You should try putting your prejudices on the shelf once in a while.
We are not saying there is a "pause in global warming." We are denying (and rightfully so) that Gore's version of global warming exists at all. We do understand there is a natural global warming, that it actually saved us from the ice ages, and that Al Gore is a liberal lunatic and a fat pig.
Mr. Gore derived his findings by listening to the demonic voices in his head, and then transcribed those inaudibles onto paper, and then preached this nonsense to the general population. I also respectfully maintain that those who believe in his crappola are deniers of reality.
It is unfortunate that Al Gore always stressed the most drastic consequences. All the folks that are concerned about global warming are to some degree, unhappy with that. On the other hand, clearly global warming is happening, as Gore predicted. It is unfortunate that he handed AGW deniers something to complain about.
That said, farmers in more and more places, around the world, are having to deal with the effects of global warming.
Never met a farmer yet who was happy with the weather.
What evidence is there that unusual weather, and I will admit there has been some unusual weather in the last couple of years, has anything to do with CO2, it could be ocean cycles, solar cycles, weakening of the earths magnetic field, lots of different reasons.
For it to be CO2 you would have to see big changes in global temps, CO2 on its own has no effect on weather.
hard question for me to answer...
