Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has already happened here in Fresno. The high temperature has been well above average(somedays 10-15 degrees) everyday since early December. 70 degrees predicted for later this week. And no rain since December 7th. There is no denying that a major climate change has already occurred here in the Central Valley.
I was at Disneyland the first week of December. It was over 80 degrees 3 of the 4 days that we were there. This whole thing is getting really scary.
I'm just getting done teaching my physical geography class so this is perfect.
Climate is about LONG term variations. NO statement about CLIMATE change can be made based on one abnormal period in a months time.
Climate change IS occurring, but you have to look at the long term fluctuations occurring over MANY years.
At what we are seeing is that while there is an overall slight drying trend over the last 30 years or so, what is most significant, is that we are seeing some of the more extremes, which is a bigger issue.
Last January was a colder than average. Even though January and February last year did not get much rain, January in particular was colder than average, so what snow did fall, did not melt. (There were a couple record breakers last January).
Likewise with precip, while last year was one of the driest on record, the 2004-2005 season, less than ten years ago was one of the wettest on record, even the 2010-2011 winter was wetter than average, with LA getting SF like precip averages.
I do agree its scary with this long period of unseasonably warm and dry period, and I'm nervous about that too, but that doesn't mean
a. we can use that to extrapolate winter conditions for the subsequent years
b. there haven't been years like this in the past because there have.
Now, events like this may be more frequent due to climate change, but this particular event
is because of a ridge of high pressure that has been sitting over the whole southwest not budging, while the polar vortex brought once every hundred year cold temps to the Midwest, and snow that will not stop accumulating.
I'm just getting done teaching my physical geography class so this is perfect.
Climate is about LONG term variations. NO statement about CLIMATE change can be made based on one abnormal period in a months time.
Climate change IS occurring, but you have to look at the long term fluctuations occurring over MANY years.
At what we are seeing is that while there is an overall slight drying trend over the last 30 years or so, what is most significant, is that we are seeing some of the more extremes, which is a bigger issue.
Last January was a colder than average. Even though January and February last year did not get much rain, January in particular was colder than average, so what snow did fall, did not melt. (There were a couple record breakers last January).
Likewise with precip, while last year was one of the driest on record, the 2004-2005 season, less than ten years ago was one of the wettest on record, even the 2010-2011 winter was wetter than average, with LA getting SF like precip averages.
I do agree its scary with this long period of unseasonably warm and dry period, and I'm nervous about that too, but that doesn't mean
a. we can use that to extrapolate winter conditions for the subsequent years
b. there haven't been years like this in the past because there have.
Now, events like this may be more frequent due to climate change, but this particular event
is because of a ridge of high pressure that has been sitting over the whole southwest not budging, while the polar vortex brought once every hundred year cold temps to the Midwest, and snow that will not stop accumulating.
I view climate change the way I would a comet heading our way and there being a 10% chance of hitting....you do what you can to avoid it. That said, people are getting downright crazy nowadays. I guess once partisans get involved we can throw sanity out the window. Basically, every single weather event is due to climate change now. Every strong hurricane is because of climate change. A lack of hurricanes is due to climate change. Record hot temps are due to climate change. Record cold temps are due to climate change. Wetter than usual weather is because of climate change. Drier than usual weather is because of climate change. Lack of snow? Climate change. Too much snow? Climate change. Literally every single weather pattern outside of what we deem normal is now attributed to climate change, as if prior to now weather never fluctuated or fell outside of the norm. As you say, climate change is occurring, but I don't think anybody is concerned about long term trends anymore. It's all about scoring a political point. The left blogs all highlight every record high temp. The right blogs all highlight every record low temp. Single storm events are attributed to climate change. Heck, you would have thought Sandy was the first hurricane to ever hit New York. Looking for long term patterns and examining how those patterns stack up is just too inconvenient.
NO statement about CLIMATE change can be made based on one abnormal period in a months time.
b. there haven't been years like this in the past because there have.
Then why have the three hottest years since the end of the 19th century been in the last decade?
Even old data, like this from 2007, from data obtained from the World Meteorological Organization, states that global mean surface temperature has been increasing steadily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1213101419.htm
Last edited by CA4Now; 01-13-2014 at 06:20 PM..
Reason: last link
I live, work, hunt and deal with local valley farmers on a daily basis. None of the long term, multi generational farmers think the climate has changed. My neighbors across the street still ranch/farm land in Valley Springs Ca that was settled by their family in the 1800's. Drought and flood is a part of life in California and they dont believe the climate has "changed" as the term is being framed in this thread by climate change alarmists.
They are pissed thou at how feed hay/alfalfa suppliers are ripping people right now.
I'm not a climate change skeptic, or at least I believe it enough to agree with limiting it as best we can. That said, there is always another side of the story. We don't argue over whether or not the sun is hot. We don't argue over whether or not gravity makes an apple fall. We do pretty much argue over everything else because not everything is as clear as it is presented. Take your data for example:
1. How do you think average global temps are determined? Do you think they have been using the same weather stations in the same pristine spots since 1880? Of course not. Is it hard to imagine how average temps could vary depending on how many stations are placed where and even their precise positioning? No. Heck, my outside weather station definitely differs based on its placement. There are people who dispute the placement of many weather stations. Considering the small difference in measured temps, it would seem quite logical that placement of the measuring stations, as well as their proximity to any heat sources such as buildings and pavement would be important. Heck, even urban areas are heat sources.
2. Because of #1 above, they don't use raw data to determine average temps. They massage the data and normalize it. While this is done as scientifically as possible, it doesn't take a genius to envision the complexities and potential inaccuracies introduced in this process. We know that not all weather stations pass the accuracy test in that they are poorly placed too close to heat sources. Think about how hard determining average global temps must really be. How many weather stations are used worldwide? Several thousand. Who inspects them and how often for external heat influences? How many are new or have been relocated between 1880 to now? CA is a perfect example of how difficult this is. Everyone in CA knows how small differences in location can result in cooler or hotter temps. If you were to place 1000 weather stations in CA, where you place them would have a significant impact on recorded temps. Can you see how the positioning of the stations would impact temps?
Again, I'm not a climate change skeptic. I believe it enough to take action. I also like the general idea of keeping our world as clean as possible. I'm just pointing out that few things are as black and white as they are made out to be. There is no doubt in my mind that very few people will look at those charts and think about how the data is gathered, massaged and normalized. Most people probably assume there have been the same weather stations in the exact same pristine spots uninfluenced by human activity since 1880. Nothing could be further from the truth. Therein lies the reason why this is argued and the effects of gravity are not.
I live, work, hunt and deal with local valley farmers on a daily basis. None of the long term, multi generational farmers think the climate has changed. My neighbors across the street still ranch/farm land in Valley Springs Ca that was settled by their family in the 1800's. Drought and flood is a part of life in California and they dont believe the climate has "changed" as the term is being framed in this thread by climate change alarmists.
They are pissed thou at how feed hay/alfalfa suppliers are ripping people right now.
I am an alfalfa farmer in the Fresno area myself. I'm the fifth generation in my family to live on this property. The fact that the climate has changed in this valley is not debatable, although the cause may be. Yes we have had droughts in the past. But not this severe. And what about the fact that the high temperatures are consistently well above average here for the last 4 or 5 years? What about the fact that we don't get 1/100th of the fog that we used to get? It used to be that we started getting ground fog in late October after the first small storm passed through. After that, it either rained or was foggy until March. We also used to get the high fog where we wouldn't see the sun for 2 or 3 weeks at a time. It hasn't done that in at least 12 years.
As for your comment about being ripped off on Alfalfa, I'm wondering how many acres of Alfalfa you farm? Do you have any clue of the tremendous cost of production? The fact is that with the decreased acreage and increased production costs, alfalfa should be $400 a ton instead of the current $240.
I'm just pointing out that few things are as black and white as they are made out to be. There is no doubt in my mind that very few people will look at those charts and think about how the data is gathered, massaged and normalized. Most people probably assume there have been the same weather stations in the exact same pristine spots uninfluenced by human...
Possibly. However, there are too many other ways climate change is being measured, and so much of the research seems to point to the same results. Wish there was some evidence pointing in another direction.
I'm not a climate change skeptic, or at least I believe it enough to agree with limiting it as best we can. That said, there is always another side of the story. We don't argue over whether or not the sun is hot. We don't argue over whether or not gravity makes an apple fall. We do pretty much argue over everything else because not everything is as clear as it is presented. Take your data for example:
1. How do you think average global temps are determined? Do you think they have been using the same weather stations in the same pristine spots since 1880? Of course not. Is it hard to imagine how average temps could vary depending on how many stations are placed where and even their precise positioning? No. Heck, my outside weather station definitely differs based on its placement. There are people who dispute the placement of many weather stations. Considering the small difference in measured temps, it would seem quite logical that placement of the measuring stations, as well as their proximity to any heat sources such as buildings and pavement would be important. Heck, even urban areas are heat sources.
2. Because of #1 above, they don't use raw data to determine average temps. They massage the data and normalize it. While this is done as scientifically as possible, it doesn't take a genius to envision the complexities and potential inaccuracies introduced in this process. We know that not all weather stations pass the accuracy test in that they are poorly placed too close to heat sources. Think about how hard determining average global temps must really be. How many weather stations are used worldwide? Several thousand. Who inspects them and how often for external heat influences? How many are new or have been relocated between 1880 to now? CA is a perfect example of how difficult this is. Everyone in CA knows how small differences in location can result in cooler or hotter temps. If you were to place 1000 weather stations in CA, where you place them would have a significant impact on recorded temps. Can you see how the positioning of the stations would impact temps?
Again, I'm not a climate change skeptic. I believe it enough to take action. I also like the general idea of keeping our world as clean as possible. I'm just pointing out that few things are as black and white as they are made out to be. There is no doubt in my mind that very few people will look at those charts and think about how the data is gathered, massaged and normalized. Most people probably assume there have been the same weather stations in the exact same pristine spots uninfluenced by human activity since 1880. Nothing could be further from the truth. Therein lies the reason why this is argued and the effects of gravity are not.
This is true. Airports have been consistently used as weather stations. However, land use changes around an aiport fairly quickly.
Airports are built out where theres still LOTS of open space/agriculture, only to be a focal point of major suburban commercial and industrial development with a lot of rooftops and parking lots eventually completely surrounding an airport.
Possibly. However, there are too many other ways climate change is being measured, and so much of the research seems to point to the same results. Wish there was some evidence pointing in another direction.
Interesting. That article actually provides ammo to skeptics who argue it is just a natural phenomena. Climate change advocates shoot down those who believe it's just a natural cycle by pointing to the rapid pace. They say it has never happened so fast in the past when it obviously couldn't have been caused by man. This article suggests it has happened suddenly in the past.
I pretty much have a fatalist view here. With 3rd world nations now emitting more greenhouse gasses than we do, and no real effort to control their emissions, I kinda feel like we are on a path to "whatever is going to happen is going to happen." Although I understand why the skeptics make some of the arguments they do, I don't get the resistance. This is analogous to a comet with a 10% chance of impact. You do something. You don't obsess over the chance of it not hitting because the cost of being wrong is too great. Saying "I was wrong" isn't going to cut it. If it's all bogus then the worst outcome is that we spent extra money making our world a cleaner place. I'll take that over the alternative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
