thank you
Depends on how radical you want to get. Here's a link to drought maps, this is pretty radical compared to the several decades preceding the more recent maps, especially 2012:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=drou...
More radical but perhaps still not as 'radical' as what you might be looking for, here is a link to USDA Hardiness Zones:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=usda...
Hardiness Zones only change after years of weather conditions that add up to climate shifts-in this case, northward. You combine some research on these two types of maps in the U.S. over the last few decades and it is not a pretty picture, at least not if you are in the Midwest United States and actively engaged in agriculture. On the other hand, if you are in the right place at the right time you're golden...within a radius of 75 miles I have heard of variances in corn yields of 197+ bushels per acre. You heard me right-a bumper crop on good farmland is 200 bushels per acre and within just a few miles on some good farms the yield in 2012 was...3. Three. 3 bushels an acre. Check out the state agriculture statistics for some interesting info on production and then look at past yields and maps. These guys who are poo-pooing the weather extremes like it is 'normal' aren't in the thick of it, agriculture on the most productive land in the world. You gotta be able to read these maps and statistical info that is available or be right in the middle of it, holding your breath every season and hoping the drought and other weird weather doesn't get worse if it hasn't got you already.
To me, this is pretty radical. To a guy munching on a sandwich while he's tapping away on his keyboard in some suburban split level, radical doesn't happen until the roof of his house catches on fire.
You want to know what is really stupid? Don't take this as an insult to your question but mearly as an observation of interpreting facts.
Suppose we have 3 winters. 1 winter was colder than normal with a lot of snow and very cold days. The other 2 winters were very mild. Not much snow but wet with a few nice warm days. Sort of above average. It would be technically correct to claim that 66% of the past three winters were hotter than average and a graph that represents that fact would appear radical. I mean 2 out of 3 years is a significant majority here. But when you increase the data resolution to include 5 years, 10 years 20 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years and so on a much larger and much different picture emerges. Why because the increased resolution of the data paints a clearer picture of trends, even discloses natural cycles and variations that cannot be detected in a low resolution graph.
What I am trying to say is that any graph of short term climate patterns is going to look radical and it will be easy to jump to conclusions such as it being unprecidented and interpret that as a crisis of some sorts. But looking at long term graphs it is very easy to determine that our short term radical pattern is actually just one of many cyclic oscillations in a climate pattern that has been occurring for millions or even billions od years. The perspective clearly changes when a much larger picture with much higher resolution is available. What seems radical in our short term view is acutally quite predictable and normal in a long term view. The current spike in recent global temperatures is much smaller than previous spikes within the past 2000 years. But one would never know that looking at a graph depicting radical changes in climate and weather in just the past several years. And that's why it is stupid.
There hasn't been any radical weather changes the past several years. I'm sure you could find some alarmist propaganda maps and hockey stick graphs by binging Al Gore and Michael Mann.
Radical Weather Changes????
What's that mean?
There are no credible graphs depicting "radical weather changes".
Yes, James Hansen analyzed extreme weather events in the article below has references to his graphs. The second article has some data near the bottom which might be useful to you as well.
You try Rutgers university climate lab. global snow coverage graph for a start.
And this, my friends, is why Ian's main response regarding natural disasters and the number of people killed is stupid.
http://www.emdat.be/sites/default/files/...
More here: http://www.emdat.be
(Note: This covers all types of natural; disasters not just climate changing ones.)
you can look at this site as well for risk assessment. http://www.gripweb.org/gripweb/
Hurricane data: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/Data...
Doing a speech on global studies, any map or graph that shows radical weather changes throughout a couple of years, if there is a map of the U.S. I would be very grateful
thank you
