Record Year-to-Date Temperatures in the US

[PhillipS]

Primarily a bump for the chart.

The US ceased as a manufacturing hub some time ago. What the US has produced in quantity has been agricultural exports, but can farmers be expected to keep up with changes being brought about by AGW.

Drought, flash flooding, late spring freezes, heat waves - they're inconvenient to those of us in urban environments, but disastrous to those raising crops or livestock. I attended a lecture on corn production last month and found that even with genetically modified crops the bushels/acre returns in most areas are dropping to levels not seen since the dust bowl era. The bio-fuel producers are importing corn for the first time.

Without Manufacturing or Agricultural produce just what is the US economy supposed to be based on?

Terry

The US will be a service economy - AKA "You want fries with that?"

[skierinvermont]

The US will be a service economy - AKA "You want fries with that?"

Service is more about financial services and software and tech. That's the backbone of the U.S. economy.

[skierinvermont]

Primarily a bump for the chart.

The US ceased as a manufacturing hub some time ago. What the US has produced in quantity has been agricultural exports, but can farmers be expected to keep up with changes being brought about by AGW.

Drought, flash flooding, late spring freezes, heat waves - they're inconvenient to those of us in urban environments, but disastrous to those raising crops or livestock. I attended a lecture on corn production last month and found that even with genetically modified crops the bushels/acre returns in most areas are dropping to levels not seen since the dust bowl era. The bio-fuel producers are importing corn for the first time.

Without Manufacturing or Agricultural produce just what is the US economy supposed to be based on?

Terry

Not remotely true. Corn yields per acre this year are higher than any year pre-1995. This year is projected 122 bushels/acre

[TerryM]

Skier

I like your chart better. The presenter was making a case for genetically modified seed & the chart he used showed quite a dip in the 30's (dust-bowl years), then modest gains into the 80's or so when the genetically modified stuff became more widely used, then a steep drop in the last few years as the drought conditions kicked in.

I don't communicate with the guy by E-Mail, but should run into him within a few months - If you'd like I'll try to find out the source of his chart when I see him, but I've a feeling it was some propaganda piece put out by Monsanto.

Terry

[dabize]

Not remotely true. Corn yields per acre this year are higher than any year pre-1995. This year is projected 122 bushels/acre

It is unfortunate that like trees, corn yields do not grow up to the sky.

The really unfortunate part is that the population that this corn has to support has been increasing at nearly the same rate. That means that anything that flattens that curve will result in a lot of hardship.

Are you going to tell me that you think that corn yields are going to increase at that rate over the next few decades in the face of AGW-associated drought and the proliferation of transgenic RoundUp-resistant weeds (brought to us courtesy of Monsanto et. al.)?

[skierinvermont]

It is unfortunate that like trees, corn yields do not grow up to the sky.

The really unfortunate part is that the population that this corn has to support has been increasing at nearly the same rate. That means that anything that flattens that curve will result in a lot of hardship.

Are you going to tell me that you think that corn yields are going to increase at that rate over the next few decades in the face of AGW-associated drought and the proliferation of transgenic RoundUp-resistant weeds (brought to us courtesy of Monsanto et. al.)?

I said nothing of the sort. Just pointing out that thus far AGW-related droughts have had no flattening effect and that corn yields are generally rising rapidly in the U.S. even over the last 10-15 years. I would agree that corn yields cannot rise indefinitely, and that AGW may play a contributing factor in the flattening. I would be careful not to over-exaggerate its significance.

[TerryM]

I said nothing of the sort. Just pointing out that thus far AGW-related droughts have had no flattening effect and that corn yields are generally rising rapidly in the U.S. even over the last 10-15 years. I would agree that corn yields cannot rise indefinitely, and that AGW may play a contributing factor in the flattening. I would be careful not to over-exaggerate its significance.

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The government slashed its expectations for U.S. corn and soybean production for the second consecutive month Friday, predicting what could be the lowest average corn yield in more than 15 years as the worst drought in decades scorches major farm states.

Seems as though the changing climate is changing yields.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The government slashed its expectations for U.S. corn and soybean production for the second consecutive month Friday, predicting what could be the lowest average corn yield in more than 15 years as the worst drought in decades scorches major farm states.

Seems as though the changing climate is changing yields.

Terry

You'll notice that once every 10 years or so in the chart there has always been a bad year for corn due to drought. This one happens to be particularly bad. The 10-15 year trend is still up. There is every reason to believe the next several years will feature a return to record high yields.

And the contribution of changing climate to this particular drought is far from clear. The severity and frequency of U.S. droughts has only increased slightly, so I would suggest that the contribution is small. There have always been droughts, to say that AGW single handedly turned the clock back on crop yields to 1995 is absurd.

Again, I'll note your affinity for sample sizes of one.

[TerryM]

You'll notice that once every 10 years or so in the chart there has always been a bad year for corn due to drought. This one happens to be particularly bad. The 10-15 year trend is still up. There is every reason to believe the next several years will feature a return to record high yields.

And the contribution of changing climate to this particular drought is far from clear. The severity and frequency of U.S. droughts has only increased slightly, so I would suggest that the contribution is small. There have always been droughts, to say that AGW single handedly turned the clock back on crop yields to 1995 is absurd.

Again, I'll note your affinity for sample sizes of one.

The USDA foreshadowed the new, lower yield projections earlier this week, when it reported half of the nation's corn crop and 39 percent of its soybeans were rated poor or very poor. The nation hasn't seen drought damage this bad since 1988.

Federal scientists say this July was the hottest on record, smoking out even the sweltering temperatures set in the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday that the stretch from August 2011 through July this year was the warmest 12-month period the U.S. has experienced.

But you'll still insist that it's not AGW right?

I've got a bunch of quotes on how this has raised food prices world wide & how even one year's downturn has long ranging effects, but again this is just bad luck (for the worlds poorest) and not something we should concern ourselves with.

Terry

[skierinvermont]

The USDA foreshadowed the new, lower yield projections earlier this week, when it reported half of the nation's corn crop and 39 percent of its soybeans were rated poor or very poor. The nation hasn't seen drought damage this bad since 1988.

Federal scientists say this July was the hottest on record, smoking out even the sweltering temperatures set in the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday that the stretch from August 2011 through July this year was the warmest 12-month period the U.S. has experienced.

But you'll still insist that it's not AGW right?

I've got a bunch of quotes on how this has raised food prices world wide & how even one year's downturn has long ranging effects, but again this is just bad luck (for the worlds poorest) and not something we should concern ourselves with.

Terry

I didn't say AGW wasn't involved. I said it was probably a minor contributor. Show me a large statistically significant increase in U.S. droughts, and maybe I'll change my mind. Put up or shut up.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Terry,

It's not that AGW isn't a factor. Of course it is. It makes it easier to attain said conditions. It just doesn't mean it will be the normal.

[Jonger]

ST. LOUIS (AP) — The government slashed its expectations for U.S. corn and soybean production for the second consecutive month Friday, predicting what could be the lowest average corn yield in more than 15 years as the worst drought in decades scorches major farm states.

Seems as though the changing climate is changing yields.

Terry

How was the 2009, 2010 & 2011 yield? This year was a glaring anomaly, I want to see the trend over the last 10-20 years.

Jon

[TerryM]

Terry,

It's not that AGW isn't a factor. Of course it is. It makes it easier to attain said conditions. It just doesn't mean it will be the normal.

I'm not sure that anything going forward is going to be "normal". At the lecture pushing Monsanto's wonder products that I mentioned up thread I questioned the presenter about drought conditions - at that time remembering Texas in 2011 - and an article I'd read of Indian farmers that had switched to gen- mod seed only to find them not drought tolerant. He assured us that Monsanto produces drought tolerant seeds and that the farmers simply had to order the correct product based on whether they think next year will have more or less rain than usual.

The problem as he sees it isn't that seed corn has been loosing genetic diversity & is therefor less able to withstand abnormal conditions, but rather that the stupid farmers don't know what weather conditions they'll be facing in the growing/harvesting seasons, and are ordering the wrong product.

This year's drought is apparently worse than last year's - but I recall Texas losing ~1,000,000,000 trees in 2011 & ranchers culling their herds. This year the problem has spread with pork producers unable to afford to feed so they're cutting back production now.

As far as "normal" I'm not sure what the new normal will be. The switchbacks from year to year make it very difficult for farmers to decide which seed to plant. A drought tolerant variety will offer lower yield if "normal" conditions prevail & may not be as resistant should the fields face periodic flooding.

I live in a community surrounded by Mennonite and old order Amish farms. They stay away from anything not available in the 1800's and despise monoculture farming practices. Their yield/acre probably doesn't compare with those following the Agra-Business models, but they seem more interested in keeping their traditions than in maximizing profit.

Wow - we really have drifted way off topic. PhillipS's graphic really tells me all I need to know.

Terry

[tacoman25]

I didn't say AGW wasn't involved. I said it was probably a minor contributor. Show me a large statistically significant increase in U.S. droughts, and maybe I'll change my mind. Put up or shut up.

It's really funny how these same people love to throw out the cherry-picking accusations, yet fail to realize they are demonstrating cherry-picking to the utmost degree by fixating on one event/year in order to back up their alarmist beliefs, rather than looking at longterm trends which give a much broader picture.

[SVT450R]

It's really funny how these same people love to throw out the cherry-picking accusations, yet fail to realize they are demonstrating cherry-picking to the utmost degree by fixating on one event/year in order to back up their alarmist beliefs, rather than looking at longterm trends which give a much broader picture.

+1

[The_Global_Warmer]

I don't think using long term trends when the energy imbalance continues to grow tell's us much.

Sea Ice

Temperatures

Sea Level Rise

OHC

None of them are stable. Temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade but even that tells us all we need to know about the power of GHG induced climate change because they should have dropped like boulder being rolled off the Grand Canyon. But even those have no continuity long term.

In a climate system already in chaos, only further disruption and chaos will ensue as long as the trigger(in this case GHG's) are out of balance, which they are and will continue to grow unabated for another half century at least.

One year doesn't give us a future prediction at all. But we surely can't rely very much on historical trends when it comes to more weather related events going forward.

[PhillipS]

NCDC has released the November State of the Climate report [source] so let's look at how 2012 compares to prior years. From the summary:

The January-November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States, and for the entire year, 2012 will most likely surpass the current record (1998, 54.3°F) as the warmest year for the nation.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me. But I know that some readers here comprehend images better than text so maybe this will help them:

Or broken down by states:

As I've mentioned before, I particularly like the interactive table of Haywood plots in the supplemental material [source]. It allows sorting by various criteria and you can dive deeper into cities of interest.

Can any of the pseudo-skeptics out there explain how 2012 can be the warmest year on record for the US if we're not in a period of warming? And before y'all start ranting about these figures being regional, not global - yes I understand that. But it's a BIG region and it is the region of most concern to me, and a lot of other people. If distant regions are experiencing cooler and wetter conditions - well bully for them. My AC bills are driven by regional, not global, climate. And the water restrictions I've been living with for years are dictated by regional, not global precipitation. The centuries-old trees that are dying by the thousands across Texas, and other regions, can't survive on the global average rainfall. AGW is having a serious, costly impact today - and it will only get worse under BAU.

[tacoman25]

NCDC has released the November State of the Climate report [source] so let's look at how 2012 compares to prior years. From the summary:

The January-November period was the warmest first 11 months of any year on record for the contiguous United States, and for the entire year, 2012 will most likely surpass the current record (1998, 54.3°F) as the warmest year for the nation.

That seems pretty unambiguous to me. But I know that some readers here comprehend images better than text so maybe this will help them:

Or broken down by states:

As I've mentioned before, I particularly like the interactive table of Haywood plots in the supplemental material [source]. It allows sorting by various criteria and you can dive deeper into cities of interest.

Can any of the pseudo-skeptics out there explain how 2012 can be the warmest year on record for the US if we're not in a period of warming? And before y'all start ranting about these figures being regional, not global - yes I understand that. But it's a BIG region and it is the region of most concern to me, and a lot of other people. If distant regions are experiencing cooler and wetter conditions - well bully for them. My AC bills are driven by regional, not global, climate. And the water restrictions I've been living with for years are dictated by regional, not global precipitation. The centuries-old trees that are dying by the thousands across Texas, and other regions, can't survive on the global average rainfall. AGW is having a serious, costly impact today - and it will only get worse under BAU.

This was not the sentiment expressed by many alarmists during the 2008-09 period, which was quite cool for much of the U.S.

[PhillipS]

This was not the sentiment expressed by many alarmists during the 2008-09 period, which was quite cool for much of the U.S.

Even if you're correct, which I doubt, how are the opinions of a few people several years ago in any way relevant to January - November 2012 being the hottest 11 months on record for the US?

Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread?

[tacoman25]

Even if you're correct, which I doubt, how are the opinions of a few people several years ago in any way relevant to January - November 2012 being the hottest 11 months on record for the US?

Do you have anything constructive to add to the thread?

I am correct, I have been posting/observing on these boards for a long time. When skeptics/deniers would point out how cold those years were, AGW alarmists would say: "The U.S. is just 2% of the globe, it's meaningless." Or: "The global temperature is all that matters." It happened over and over.

It is relevant because if you think the record warm 2012 in the lower 48 is so meaningful, you have to to assign the same sort of meaning to very cool periods in the U.S. It's not a one-way street. You won't find very many two year periods that were cooler in the U.S. than 2008-09. And very few three winters in a row that were colder for the U.S. than 2008-11.

[PhillipS]

I am correct, I have been posting/observing on these boards for a long time. When skeptics/deniers would point out how cold those years were, AGW alarmists would say: "The U.S. is just 2% of the globe, it's meaningless." Or: "The global temperature is all that matters." It happened over and over.

It is relevant because if you think the record warm 2012 in the lower 48 is so meaningful, you have to to assign the same sort of meaning to very cool periods in the U.S. It's not a one-way street. You won't find very many two year periods that were cooler in the U.S. than 2008-09. And very few three winters in a row that were colder for the U.S. than 2008-11.

You still don't get it or, as I suspect, you're just being pseudo-skeptical, as usual. The cool period you reference was unusual, but not unprecedented. The temperature record for Jan - Nov 2012 wasn't just unusual, it was unprecedented and record setting. There is a fundamental difference in the important of unusual versus unprecedented weather. Denialsts are fond of minimizing extreme weather by saying "Well, it's happened before so it can't be AGW making it happen now". Okay, fine, then please point out a Jan - Nov period when the US was this warm.

You didn't have to cherry pick 2008/2009 to find cooler weather - every year, every single year in the US temperature record was cooler. Jan - Nov 2012 was hotter than any other Jan - Nov period in the full 118 year record.

To claim that's not significant, or only as significant as a brief cool spell in the past, is just denialist nonsense.

[tacoman25]

You still don't get it or, as I suspect, you're just being pseudo-skeptical, as usual. The cool period you reference was unusual, but not unprecedented. The temperature record for Jan - Nov 2012 wasn't just unusual, it was unprecedented and record setting. There is a fundamental difference in the important of unusual versus unprecedented weather. Denialsts are fond of minimizing extreme weather by saying "Well, it's happened before so it can't be AGW making it happen now". Okay, fine, then please point out a Jan - Nov period when the US was this warm.

You didn't have to cherry pick 2008/2009 to find cooler weather - every year, every single year in the US temperature record was cooler. Jan - Nov 2012 was hotter than any other Jan - Nov period in the full 118 year record.

To claim that's not significant, or only as significant as a brief cool spell in the past, is just denialist nonsense.

Doesn't matter if it's record-setting or just the 2nd or 3rd warmest period in question, look at the fundamentals of my point: you are talking about one country that covers about 2% of the earth, and one very warm or very cool period does not prove anything. Which is exactly what people on here were pointing out when the U.S. went through that recent cold period. Logically, this fact must be applied both ways.

The distinction you make between unusual and unprecedented is yet another point that is not always followed by your alarmist brethren. I have often seen unusual, but not unprecedented, events cited on here as evidence of the affects of AGW. Something being unprecedented does not prove climate change influence, anyway...unprecedented things happen quite often, which is the natural result of having such a short detailed climate record most places.

[scottmartin49]

Doesn't matter if it's record-setting or just the 2nd or 3rd warmest period in question, look at the fundamentals of my point: you are talking about one country that covers about 2% of the earth, and one very warm or very cool period does not prove anything. Which is exactly what people on here were pointing out when the U.S. went through that recent cold period. Logically, this fact must be applied both ways.

The distinction you make between unusual and unprecedented is yet another point that is not always followed by your alarmist brethren. I have often seen unusual, but not unprecedented, events cited on here as evidence of the affects of AGW. Something being unprecedented does not prove climate change influence, anyway...unprecedented things happen quite often, which is the natural result of having such a short detailed climate record most places.

Troll....

(Why do people respond to this stuff?)

[tacoman25]

Troll....

(Why do people respond to this stuff?)

I am not a troll. I have been posting on here a lot longer than you, and if I was a troll the moderators would have took notice a long time ago and taken the appropriate action.

How about bringing a valid response to the table, something a little more substantial than vacuous troll accusations? How about addressing just one of my points?

[scottmartin49]

Denial is a fascinating state of being. It usually occurs when a person feels powerless- impotent if you will- to effect change against something they fear.

One turn of mind when confronted with fearful change will attempt to fight against it. This, in the example we're observing, may take the effect of doing anything from driving a Prius or giving up beef to educational outreach or political activism. it's a broad spectrum.

Another might find some peace in their circumstances or seek mitigating/moderating actions, possibly even finding perfect acceptance.

Some continue in their fears until.....(?)

When no one holds what one says in credence, find the fault in yourself or give up.

(Unless you consider yourself a rare misunderstood genius- usually a different sort of personality flaw!)

I think that covers about all of it..

Merry Christmas to you, and a happier, better New Year! That's all I have to say.

[FPizz]

Doesn't matter if it's record-setting or just the 2nd or 3rd warmest period in question, look at the fundamentals of my point: you are talking about one country that covers about 2% of the earth, and one very warm or very cool period does not prove anything. Which is exactly what people on here were pointing out when the U.S. went through that recent cold period. Logically, this fact must be applied both ways.

The distinction you make between unusual and unprecedented is yet another point that is not always followed by your alarmist brethren. I have often seen unusual, but not unprecedented, events cited on here as evidence of the affects of AGW. Something being unprecedented does not prove climate change influence, anyway...unprecedented things happen quite often, which is the natural result of having such a short detailed climate record most places.

100% correct

[skierinvermont]

If all Taco is saying is that "The record warm 2012 annual temperatures doesn't PROVE anything" then I agree with him. It doesn't prove GW or AGW. It is however likely a symptom of AGW, which for other reasons we know to be occurring.

And yes people in the past, possibly myself, have made vague statements like "all that matters is global temperature." In terms of proving the existence of GW or AGW it is a much more reliable measure. I would not use a regional cool period to disprove AGW and I would not use a regional record hot period to prove it.

[tacoman25]

Denial is a fascinating state of being. It usually occurs when a person feels powerless- impotent if you will- to effect change against something they fear.

One turn of mind when confronted with fearful change will attempt to fight against it. This, in the example we're observing, may take the effect of doing anything from driving a Prius or giving up beef to educational outreach or political activism. it's a broad spectrum.

Another might find some peace in their circumstances or seek mitigating/moderating actions, possibly even finding perfect acceptance.

Some continue in their fears until.....(?)

When no one holds what one says in credence, find the fault in yourself or give up.

(Unless you consider yourself a rare misunderstood genius- usually a different sort of personality flaw!)

I think that covers about all of it..

Merry Christmas to you, and a happier, better New Year! That's all I have to say.

Just as there is a broad spectrum of reactions to fear, there is also a broad spectrum of views on how much there is to fear from AGW. There are deathly afraid views, there are not quite as pessimistic but still very concerned views, there are concerned views, there are mildly concerned views, there are unconcerned views, and there are those in denial.

Before you label me or anyone else here a troll or denier, please consider that this isn't a black/white issue, with a simple us vs. them. There are deniers, and there are doomsday alarmists, and then most people fit somewhere in between...myself included.

[Jonger]

80 Years later and we are putting up similar numbers.

The world is warmer today than it was 80 years ago, but remove the upward number adjustments and UHI and we are probably below the 1930's in the lower 48. Thats with 150ppm less CO2 in the 1930's.

[PhillipS]

I am not a troll. I have been posting on here a lot longer than you, and if I was a troll the moderators would have took notice a long time ago and taken the appropriate action.

How about bringing a valid response to the table, something a little more substantial than vacuous troll accusations? How about addressing just one of my points?

Oh, now don't be modest - you're one of the most prolific pseudo-skeptical trolls on the forum. And you're funny too - the idea that the moderators would lift a finger to stop the trolling - what a hoot!