<Post peak vehicles: 10,000 km on batteries The Oil Drum An Update on ASPO-USA's Conference Sept. 21-23: Are You Going? >
<DrumBeat: September 8, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: September 10, 2008>

222 comments on DrumBeat: September 9, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

shargash on September 9, 2008 - 1:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The farther north you go, the less sunlight that falls on a given area. Northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not going to replace Kansas as a growing area, at least not acre for acre, I don't care how warm it gets up there.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
sldulin on September 9, 2008 - 4:37pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

My experience with marginal agricultural areas in Wa St is that, so far, the winters are not quite so harsh...but summer temps and precipitation about the same as ever.
One critical limit though, is just the length of the growing season and I can't see that reliably lengthening...also the number of 'growing-degree days' will not expand, so to think that areas that traditionally have not ripened grapes and cantaloupes and corn and any number of warm weather crops will start to do so is wishful thinking.
Now if we could just geo-engineer a few more hours of daylight for the month of September, we'd be talkin.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
doug fir on September 9, 2008 - 5:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

September is the best month, bar none, unless you live on the Gulf coast.

This year is a mammoth change from last, and in spite of the talk of global cooling in the farmer's almanac, I'm afraid we're witnessing a big change underway. Wheat harvests are way down this year, depending on county. South central WA reported some yields at 10 bu/ac. The Palouse, WA area yields are expected to only be 60-85% of normal, due to a cold, erratic spring (snowmelt of large drifts really delayed spring operations) and a cool summer which has pushed harvest back 2-3 weeks.

The climate models have predicted the colder, wetter spring and we certainly got it. With the continual loss of the Arctic icecap, I doubt we can expect many more mild summers. We'll need a new farmers almanac next year.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Zadok_the_Priest on September 9, 2008 - 6:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Rising food prices was a major concern in the Spring. Worldwide inventories were running low.

In eastern Canada, the late summer of 2008 was especially balmy and wet, leading to the ruin of many crops, at least in the Maritimes.

Will be interesting to see how food inventories hold out if harvests are down throughout the northern hemisphere this autumn.

We count on North America to make up for drought related shortfalls in Australia.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on September 9, 2008 - 6:39pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In England the wheat crop was virtually ruined by continual rain, so it's only good for animal feed, if they can harvest it. Not what we were led to expect with climate change. Summers were supposed to get dryer but we've had the wettest August since 1912. June and July wern't so hot either.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ccpo on September 10, 2008 - 4:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You are so full of crap.

The US southern tier is expected to be drier, especially the southwest. The northeast is NOT expected to be appreciably drier.

http://www.irreplaceablewild.org/learn/regions/northeast.html

Temperatures are expected to continue to increase, as are rainfall and extreme weather events such as ice storms and even droughts.

Stuff your propaganda up your arse and then pull your head out of same. I hope someday lying liars about climate change will be tried for their continued crimes against humanity.

Jeers

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on September 10, 2008 - 8:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

ccpo.

Try getting your facts right.

The major wheat growing areas of the UK are in the South East.

There were plenty of predictions that 'AGW' was going to creat a dry desert with Chad-Like conditions. in the South East of England.

This was based on a couple of hot summers in the early 2000's , most notably the same summer that did all the French Pensioners in.

The call from the warmists then was 'see - look - global warming equals desertification of England!'

People were advised to restock gardens with plants more suitable to the southern mediterranean littoral (mostly by plant salesmen...)

Now of course, the Warmists are saying 'see - look: all this rain is due to global warming'

This rapid about face is why Warmism is increasingly regarded as a religion for hysterics.

I await my trial for crimes against humanity while shivering in yet another cool damp September...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on September 10, 2008 - 10:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Perhaps your confusion is the result of your lack of study of the problems which might result from AGW. For example, if the THC weakens (or, worse, shuts down) one result would be cooler conditions for Northern Europe. Don't forget that the flow of warm water which branches toward the north from the Gulf Stream is what keeps Britain warmer than areas at similar latitude along the Pacific Coast of North America. London is at about 51.5N, which is farther north than Vancover Island, BC and Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Consider what happened during the Younger Dryas period...

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on September 10, 2008 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I am fairly confident in GW.

I am sceptical regarding AGW.

I am not confused about GW at all

Perhaps you should address the Warmists who change their story from year to year (depending upon the weather situation from year to year!).

One year its a desert (with fanciful maps)

Next year its Noahs floods.

Perhaps that is why they retreat from the moniker GW and now use Climate Change :-)

'cos it changes...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on September 10, 2008 - 3:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

At the risk of whipping a brain dead horse...

If your understanding of the science does not include what happens as the result of our changes to the optical properties of the atmosphere, well, I would think you wouldn't understand AGW. As for the local impacts, they will vary due to the different distribution of energy as the solar energy flows thru the climate system and back out to deep space.

Short term variation is weather, changes in long term trends are climate. One year does not make a trend. Try 10, 20, or 30 years.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
weatherman on September 10, 2008 - 4:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It would help if the climate observed bore any relation to climate models. Instead they have been the exact opposite. As Mudslogger said claiming opposing conditions as evidence of AGW is damaging the credibility of it's claiments.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on September 10, 2008 - 4:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Cant you read?

Take up that same argument in your last sentence with the warmists!

They are the ones trying to freak everybody out with predictive pronouncements based on weather events

I know the difference between weather and climate. You need to try and explain that to the AGWarmists who take a couple of years of weather (when it suits them of course) and extrapolate climate 'science'.

You just dont get it do you?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on September 10, 2008 - 9:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sorry to say, after more than 30 years of study, I DO think I get it.

AGW can cause different changes in different locations. Taking a couple of years of "weather" is not the same as taking several decades of satellite "temperature" data, oceanographic temperature measurements or measuring the daily sea-ice extent since 1979. And, there are other examples of changes seen in the environment which are consistent with AGW, but I doubt you would care to think about it with an open mind. For example, has MUDLOGGER read even 1 of the (now 4) IPCC WG 1 reports? Does MUDLOGGER think his lack of a reply to my comments about atmospheric optics or the the Younger Dryas is acceptable? Is MUDLOGGER only playing politics by repeating the disinformation spread by the petroleum industry shills?

Of course, I do find it rather significant that Weatherman and MUDLOGGER posted replies within 8 minutes of each other at 4:41 and 4:59 PM USEST , long after the thread had been superceded with today's DrumBeat.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
MUDLOGGER on September 11, 2008 - 7:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

As an expert then (and me only a mere earth scientist, oil company shill and evil troll)

Please tell me all about the Mann Hockey Stick

Please tell me why the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice age were smoothed out between 1990 and Mann.

You still failed to recognise that Warmists use hot dry summers as 'evidence' and then a few years later cold wet summers as 'evidence'

Your lsast para is of no significance. But then as a warmist I am sure you can read an evil and coordinated plot into it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
uub on September 9, 2008 - 5:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Denmark is one of the more productive farming areas in the world, and is north of Alberta. The North Atlantic current keeps northern Europe warm for the latitude, and there is enough sunlight in the summer. Remember that northern areas actually get more hours of sun in the growing season. It also helps that Denmark is flat, has good soil and enough and stable rainfall. The amount of sunlight is not such a problem.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Black_Dog on September 9, 2008 - 9:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The extra hours of sunlight may not produce much more gain. That's because the real issue is the amount of energy falling on flat ground, such as a field. At higher latitudes, the sun stays lower to the horizon, i.e., the sun vector has a high zenith angle. Thus, the effective energy on a horizontal surface will be less than that at lower latitudes where the sun is high overhead. That's the sort of information that the solar energy folks worry about and crops are essentially solar collectors. I don't have the data in hand, but I would expect that the net solar availability thru the growing season may not be so large as you suggest.

E. Swanson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Lynford on September 9, 2008 - 11:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Crops are not flat like the ground they cover. There is a vertical component to most of them. The longer sunlight season is meaningful.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on September 9, 2008 - 11:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Other than the edges of the field, most crops are "horizontal only" for solar absorption.

I could see spacing plants further apart at higher latitudes.

Winter solar insolation has little value in growing crops, and high latitudes do benefit from long days during the growing season. 20 hours of low intensity sunshine can be good for many crops.

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

222 comments on DrumBeat: September 9, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version