Hmm. Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scale is essentially chaotic, isn’t rainfall generally erratic as a consequence of that chaos?. Isn’t that why we have some areas that get droughts in one season and floods the next? Of course there are overriding patterns like El Niño, but it seems to me that this story is simply hyping the obvious known for years: better water storage helps in dry years.
Image above from NASA Earth Observeratory: Global Rainfall Patterns
From a press release, one more thing to worry about. The “big dam dilemma” is actually in the press release, I kid you not, see it unedited below. – Anthony
In a changing climate, erratic rainfall poses growing threat to rural poor, new report says.
Addressing big dam dilemma, experts call for diverse water storage options to reduce uncertainty and improve production of rainfed farming
STOCKHOLM (6 September 2010)—Against a backdrop of extreme weather wreaking havoc around the world, a new report warns that increasingly erratic rainfall related to climate change will pose a major threat to food security and economic growth, especially in Africa and Asia, requiring increased investment in diverse forms of water storage as an effective remedy.
“Millions of farmers in communities dependent on rainfed agriculture are at risk from decreasing and erratic availability of water,” said Colin Chartres, director general of the Sri Lanka-based International Water Management Institute (IWMI), which released the report to coincide with World Water Week in Stockholm. “Climate change will hit these people hard, so we have to invest heavily and quickly in adaptation.”
The report argues against over-reliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface, and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.
“Just as modern consumers diversify their financial holdings to reduce risk, smallholder farmers need a wide array of ‘water accounts’ to provide a buffer against climate change impacts,” said Matthew McCartney, the report’s lead author and a hydrologist at IWMI, which is supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). “That way, if one water source goes dry, they’ll have others to fall back on.”
“For millions of people dependent on rainfed agriculture, reliable access to water can make all the difference between chronic hunger and steady progress toward food security,” McCartney added. “Even small amounts of stored water, by enabling crops and livestock to survive dry periods, can produce large gains in agricultural productivity and in the well-being of rural people.”
IWMI and its research partners estimate that up to 499 million people in Africa and India can benefit from improved agricultural water management.
In Asia, where irrigation was greatly expanded in recent decades, rainfed agriculture is still extensive, accounting for 66 percent of the total cropped area, the IWMI study notes. In sub-Saharan Africa, the proportion is far greater at 94 percent. Yet, these are precisely the regions where water storage infrastructure is least developed.
“Unless we can reduce crippling uncertainty in rainfed agriculture through better water storage, many farmers in developing countries will face a losing battle with a more hostile and unpredictable climate.”
In response to increased demand for food and power supplies, the governments of developing countries with fast-growing economies have invested heavily in large dams during the current decade, ending a 10-year lull in their construction. Many of the 50,000 large dams built worldwide since the 1950s are intended to store water for irrigation.
The positive effects of such infrastructure development, in terms of flood control and improved agricultural productivity are well documented, the IWMI report explains. But so are the adverse social and environmental impacts, including displacement of up to 80 million people from their homes and disruption of the livelihoods of some 470 million people living downstream from dams as a result of altered river flows. As acrimonious debate about large dams continues, IWMI’s advice for governments is to do a better job of analyzing the potential benefits for economic development and poverty reduction and to pay more serious attention to the social and environmental consequences.
But the IWMI study also advocates giving more weight to a continuum of small-scale storage options, citing strong evidence that when such measures are well planned, they can contribute importantly to local food security and economic growth.
Field studies in various semi-arid environments, for example, have proven the effectiveness of using small planting basins to “harvest” water, together with targeted application of organic or inorganic fertilizer. In Zimbabwe, such basins have been shown to boost maize yields, whether rainfall is abundant or scarce, while in Niger, they have permitted three- or four-fold increases in millet yields.
In the northeast of India’s Rajasthan State, the construction of about 10,000 water harvesting structures—intended mainly to recharge groundwater—has made it possible to irrigate about 14,000 hectares, benefiting some 70,000 people. Whereas previously, farmers barely had enough water to produce grains, now they can also grow vegetables and other cash crops. Similarly, the construction of more than 90,000 underground water storage tanks in China is benefiting a million farmers.
Case studies suggest that combinations of different storage options can be particularly effective. In southern Sri Lanka, for example, the construction of a large water storage reservoir, which was then linked to five previously created small reservoirs brought about a 400 percent increase in crop production.
But in some places, the results of major water storage initiatives have been uneven. In Ethiopia, for example, one study showed that groundwater wells and small dams reduced poverty by 25 to 50 percent. But another analysis in the country’s Amhara region found that most of the approximately 4,000 water harvesting ponds constructed from 2003 to 2008 were no longer functioning, mainly because of poor site selection, technical failures and weak community involvement in maintenance.
“None of these options is a panacea,” said McCartney. “They all have pros and cons, which depend on their inherent characteristics, on the way they are planned and managed, and on the conditions at specific sites.”
A further hazard with any water storage option, the IWMI report notes, is that the practice itself will be subject to climate change impacts. In arid regions, for example, soil moisture may decline so rapidly as to reduce the effectiveness of practices like planting basins. Likewise, decreased rainfall could limit groundwater recharge, while rising sea levels will increase the risk of salt water intruding on coastal aquifers.
Another danger is that badly planned storage will not only waste money but actually worsen the negative affects of climate change, for example, by providing extra breeding habitats for malaria-infected mosquitoes.
To guard against such hazards, the report argues, governments need to assume greater responsibility for more integrated planning of water storage systems. In the past, storage schemes were often conceived in a piecemeal fashion at the local level, based more on political expediency than on evidence. An integrated approach would take into account the wide range of hydrological, economic, social and environmental factors that determine costs and benefits and would consider various storage options in combination. Well-planned water storage can help lift people out of poverty and provide them with an effective way to cope with climate change.
“The more we study climate change, the more we realize that water is the principal medium by which its impacts will be manifested in agriculture,” said Chartres. “We may not know exactly what those impacts will be, but we can be sure they will include greater rainfall variability. Water storage in all its forms offers a better way to manage risks during these times of increasingly uncertain weather.
The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is a nonprofit, scientific research organization focusing on the sustainable use of water and land resources in agriculture, to benefit poor people in developing countries. IWMI’s mission is “Improving the management of water and land resources for food, livelihoods and the environment.” IWMI has its headquarters in Sri Lanka and regional offices in Africa and Asia. The Institute works in partnership with developing countries, international and national research institutes, universities and other organizations to develop tools and technologies that contribute to poverty reduction as well as food and livelihood security. www.iwmi.org
The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), established in 1971, is a strategic partnership of countries, international and regional organizations and private foundations supporting the work of a consortium of 15 international Centers. In collaboration with national agricultural research systems, civil society and the private sector, the CGIAR fosters sustainable agricultural growth through high-quality science aimed at benefiting the poor through stronger food security, better human nutrition and health, higher incomes and improved management of natural resources. www.cgiar.org
Jeeez,
Hasn’t rainfall always been erratic???
Ecotretas
Will it never end? Are the possibilities for these fantasies not finite?
“Unless we can reduce crippling uncertainty in rainfed agriculture through better water storage, many farmers in developing countries will face a losing battle with a more hostile and unpredictable climate.”
I’d like to know when climate was more predictable.. Oh wait, isn’t that the whole problem? Apparently they are quite certain what it will be like in the future, especially if we don’t take action now.
Can’t have it both ways, I’m afraid.
“Hmm. Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scalle. essentially chaotic…”
This statement is illogical and wrong. Climate is not chaotic. This is really, really basic knowledge and I am astonished that you would say something like this.
REPLY: Oh puhleeeze. Spare me your faux astonishment. Your anonymous coward existence here on this blog is nothing more than the role of a foil, who gets “outraged, astonished, surprised, irritated, shocked, pick a word” at virtually every post made here. It’s your modus operandi, so color me unimpressed, especially since you’ve cited nothing. I have to laugh though, because you embrace the “erratic” portion of the story, yet complain about the word “chaotic”.
Have a look at one of your friends in climate arms,Chaotic Climate by Wallace Broecker http://216david.tripod.com/216w26.html . While his argument may be extreme, so are you. Then see Tom Vonk below, and then come back with some more faux caterwauling. It’s what you do. – Anthony
Can I get a highly paid job for doing no more than stating the bleeding obvious and putting the words ‘climate change’ in it a few times, please?
I’d prefer it to be at some UN financed body because there will be no need to be accountable – or even right – but the readies will keep on rollin’.
My CV available on application.
This has nothing to do with “weather becoming more extreme”. It’s simply about water provision for those who need it, which is everyone including the extra babies.
“The report argues against overreliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.”
Really?
And what will the Greenies say about “the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil”? I’m sure that, as usual, they’d much rather see tens of thousands die of famine than to encourage taking water from natural wetlands.
Let alone build more large dams and tackle the problem properly.
“In Zimbabwe, such basins have been shown to boost maize yields,…”
I would suggest that the biggest problem for agriculture in Zimbabwe is NOT climate change…
“e season” a Freudian slip, or could it be modelled output ? 🙂
“increasingly erratic rainfall related to climate change”
If you take this bit out, the rest is just the kind of common sense you might expect from a 10 year old… How much has it cost to come up with the wisdom of a 10 year old is another question?
But as long as “increasingly erratic rainfall related to climate change” remains in their report I have to question whether the authors may actually have been drinking sea water…?
So we’ve got a bit of common sense (Increasing populations needing more food and thus reliable sources of water) with the usual bit of climate change disaster spin.
Global?
Where’s the NH?
“Unless we can reduce crippling uncertainty in rainfed agriculture through better water storage, many farmers in developing countries will face a losing battle with a more hostile and unpredictable climate.”
I thought the science was settled. In the UK, the UKCIP09 provides projections of change in precipitation (annual, winter and summer means) at 25 km resolution up to 2080. However, they are probabilistic projections, not predictions.
Anyone who has done rainfall capture and measurement will tell you that over a small area there will be variations of the volume collected over that area. The present method of collating rainfall totals means that stations are situated to represent a large area so rainfall measures will not be representative of the total rainfall for that area. This will also apply to temperature. Weather is chaotic as is the rainfall patterns.
Did these guys never hear of the 1930s ‘dust bowl’? I agree with John R Walker except I think 10 year old is too old. My 8 year old grandson has a better take on such things than these clowns.
Economic growth and prosperity has through out history followed the immigration of those who wished to be more free, to try their own ideas on how to become self sustaing, and still make a profit to grow more comfortable in old age.
In the USA the local farmers were shocked at the huge loss of livestock in central China, Mongolia due to just a couple feet of snow.
Here almost everyone who raises livestock mostly on pastures, has as well on farm grain storage, long rows of round bales of hay, stock pens, barns, heated auto water stations, and large amounts of heavy tractors able to move 4X4 through snow, and related field cultivating and planting equipment. A small farm lives or dies by its ability to survive weather events. Those who did not adapt good survival strategies, have been bought on auction at foreclosure, by those with money to do so and expand.
Most farms with soils prone to erosion, has been terraced, water ways added, filter strips along edges of tilled fields, and small ponds with metal tubes through the dams to protect against wash outs during heavy rains. The upper ones filter out the heavy sediments, and the ones lower down get the fine silts as well before the water is moved downstream by gravity above or below ground level. Much more could be done to further improve the water retention in the tillable areas of the country.
The same type of programs if implemented wide scale, and properly actively maintained will work world wide, further use of small planting basins to “harvest” water, in the leveler areas should solve most of the water shortage problems of SHORT duration. Larger projects down stream on the larger rivers could still help with the urban water consumption with less pollution input from the upland growing areas.(With the use of the smaller filtration ponds mentioned earlier.)
As the amount of rain water retained increases, rather than run off filled with the topsoil, the relative humidity and soil moisture will increase, lowering the temperature extremes. Stabilizing the climate, how could that be a bad thing?
When you import ideas that work into areas of high indigenous population density, the perception of “alien take over” induces resistance to change, and lack luster attempts to maintain the new technology. Either by limited funds and equipment not being able to handle the demand, or misappropriation of funds and of tractors / to light tanks conversions from insecure governments.
You can lead a people to water, but you can’t make them maintain the infrastructure, and keep their greedy hands off of the funds.
…Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR).
How about Consulting International Group on Agricultural Research? Let’s give those small plot farmers a CIGAR because it’s seems no one is going to give a dam.
Not one word in this article about the increased water use efficiency of plants as atmospheric CO2 levels rise.
There is loads of literature available on the subject, which the International Water Management Institute manages to willfully ignore, or is blissfully ignorant of.
e.g. For Rice
Shimono, H., Okada, M., Inoue, M., Nakamura, H., Kobayashi, K. and Hasegawa, T. 2010. Diurnal and seasonal variations in stomatal conductance of rice at elevated atmospheric CO2 under fully open-air conditions. Plant, Cell and Environment 33: 322-331.
Maize
Kim, S.-H., Sicher, R.C., Bae, H., Gitz, D.C., Baker, J.T., Timlin, D.J. and Reddy, V.R. 2006. Canopy photosynthesis, evapotranspiration, leaf nitrogen, and transcription profiles of maize in response to CO2 enrichment. Global Change Biology 12: 588-600
Potato
Fleisher, D.H., Timlin, D.J. and Reddy, V.R. 2008. Elevated carbon dioxide and water stress effects on potato canopy gas exchange, water use, and productivity. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148: 1109-1122.
Wheat
Dong-Xiu, W., Gen-Xuan, W., Yong-Fei, B., Jian-Xiong, L. and Hong-Xu, R. 2002. Response of growth and water use efficiency of spring wheat to whole season CO2 enrichment and drought. Acta Botanica Sinica 44: 1477-1483.
What all these studies of major crop species show is that increased water use efficiency will certainly match, if not exceed projected (guessed) reductions in water availability.
Couple this with the common sense water storage methods that this article states and where is the problem?
This statement is illogical and wrong. Climate is not chaotic. This is really, really basic knowledge
.
Proof ?
At which time and space scale happens the magics that transforms the spatio temporal chaos in a deterministic perfectly predictable process ?
And if we are there , what is the fundamental law of physics that governs these particular scales imposing that they take exactly this value and are neither larger nor smaller ?
Perhaps what was meant is that the climate is ergodic (at some scales) and that probabilities of future states can be predicted .
But even if this was the case , and it is far from being proven , then the system would still be chaotic .
Ergodicity and chaos are not mutually exclusive .
In my opinion, erratic rainfall and perturbed climate is mainly a symptom of increased volcanic aerosols which is a natural (non manmade) cycle. Also to a degree, the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action. Since Pinatubo the numbers and volume of the plumes spreading these aerosols has increased. I’ve taken a detailed look at the numbers and the explosivity indexes at…
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/find_eruptions.cfm
Ozone destruction has increased as has global solar brightness except when there’s dimming due eruptions. That type of dimming is in a constant state of change and is, of course, uneven throughout the globe because of the varied eruption locations. I don’t believe CO2 (natural and from human activity) is a significant factor. However, I do think exhaust from aircraft traffic and the launching of spacecraft is an increasingly large factor in global brightening due to its ozone destruction. That’s seen in my opinion in the brightness increase before Pinatubo. I wasn’t going to put in any links but its a bit hard to describe without.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2005/05_07_28.html
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
I don’t agree with everything in the links below, but its a place to start if you should happen to want to do some research and search with key words.
Global dimming and brightening: A review
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2009/2008JD011470.shtml
http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2006GL028031.shtml
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming?wasRedirected=true
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
“erratic rainfall related to climate change will pose a major threat”
I think we are safe ! – all the rain I see is normal “what goes up, must come down” rain
In my neck of the woods, glaciers are our water retention system. I’m betting after this wet summer they’ve grow again (like 2008). http://www.adn.com/2008/10/13/555283/bad-weather-was-good-for-alaska.html
Desalinate with Nuclear Power, a proven technology in use in Russia. Doesn’t have the problem with salt run off of existing precipitation based supplies No nuclear waste from Thorium cycle. Locate the reactors under water you wouldn’t even see them.
Rgds
There’s a lot of sense in this article, but wouldn’t it be more honest to say that ‘climate is erratic and always has been’ as the justification for it?
There was a huge drought in Australia at the beginning of the 20th century, as bad if not worse than the one just ending. So the recent drought wasn’t due to ‘global warming’, it was clearly due to climatic fluctuations………
There’s also a cogent justification for asking whether ancient national boundaries and economic cells might be reconfigured around water drainage systems, rather than where ancient kings finished the killing of their enemies……….
Clearly that would cause some political outrage in some places e.g. Switzerland, which would be chopped up into pieces: the Rhein basin to Germany; the Rhone basin to France; Ticino to Italy and the Engadin to Austria. I’m not saying for a moment it should be done, just creating a little mischief…………
I guess Bayern could cecede from Germany and link to Austria, Hungary, the Northern Balkans, Czech/Slowakia and Romania to form a ‘Danube Federation’?
The middle East’s water courses the same. The Nile the same.
The politics is a bit tricky if the water comes predominantly from the source of the water course, but if there are plenty of healthy tributaries like the Danube it becomes a bit easier………..
The USA seems fairly sensible in that regard………..as are England, Wales and Scotland…..
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:21 am
“[“Hmm. Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scalle. essentially chaotic…”]
This statement is illogical and wrong. Climate is not chaotic. This is really, really basic knowledge and I am astonished that you would say something like this.”
Climate is not random, but it is a non-linear system, driven by deterministic chaos. Because of this, temperature, rainfall, cloud cover e.t.c. have always oscillated up and down in an unpredictable quasi-cyclical way. The system is also prone to sudden ‘black swan’ events (e.g. ice ages) which, until we improve our scientific techniques for dealing with turbulent systems, can happen very quickly in the NH and with little warning.
The deterministic chaos exhibited by weather/climate at all time scales also means that the people writing this report either do not understand how weather/climate operate, or choose to ignore the main driver for climate change, as shown below:-
“…Against a backdrop of extreme weather wreaking havoc around the world, a new report warns that increasingly erratic rainfall related to climate change will pose a major threat to food security…”
Open any World History textbook, chances are you’ll find a picture of an aquaduct. Inconvenient distribution of water is nothing new, nor is human ability to deal with it…
Best,
Frank
Latimer Alder says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:22 am
Slurp of coffee……………………….
You should have said “statin the bleedin obvious” a’la Monty Python!:-))
Another slurp of coffee……………………………
As “Adam 4.55 litres” states, this is common sense! There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the article in principle: we should be conserving fresh water for agriculture & other uses for non-rainy days! However reading the quality of the article gives me the feeling that this is either a non-serious paper, (write something for the sake of it so we get noticed), or part of a final year students’ thesis, with all the appeal of authority, urgency, detail, factuality, etc. Anyone with a 0.28N (an ounce for you guys in old money) of common sense could write something just as good, if not better! However, what the heck it has to do with global warming I haven’t the foggiest.
It may have been the driest start to a year for a long time in many a place, but good old Mother Nature is certainly dumping her left out share on the UK in September. Oh & August. Oh & July! Oh & probably in October, November, & December, too! Those of us old enough to remember the “Great Drought” of 1975/6 in dear old Blighty, or was that the “Terrible Drought”, or the “Mighty Drought”, or the “Whatever Drought”, (I’ll leave it to the arty types), Minister for Drought Dennis Howels, told the press that it would need to rain continuosly from around Mid September/October, until Christmas to have any effect on water supplies (I know you Wikipedia types will fill the details). So Mother Nature duly obliged! Having said that, I have not heard anything from the Wet Office to the effect that annual average rainfall is getting lower or higher because of Global Warming over the last 30 years or so!
This report follows the standard template:
“World To End!!! Poor And Minorities Hardest Hit!”
Since when does the AGW crowd care about the rural poor?
Bureaucrats are the same the world over. They have no experience of the real world that they seek to rule. Water storage is a very obvious problem that they can understand, but it is not the crux of the matter, which is delivery. Irrigation farming requires vast capital. Not the government capital or World Bank loans that built the dam in the first place, but capital in the hands of the farmer who is prepared to take the risk of putting in the power lines, the engines, the pumps, the pipes, the tractors and combines that are all essential to the total delivery process. This farmer is not a peasant. He is a man who has spent his life on the land. He has been successful enough to have capital to risk. He has total confidence in his own ability to fix the machinery when it goes wrong, in his own man management skills, in his knowledge of the needs of the crops that he plans to grow, of his ability to manage the cash flow so as to keep all of the lenders satisfied. In addition to this he has to have faith. He has to believe that a drought will not come along before he has had a few successful years for the project to be well established. He doesn’t give a damn about average temperature, although depending on location he may be concerned about late frosts. The one thing that is totally outside his control is the incidence of rainfall in the catchment of the dam on which he is to depend. If the rain doesn’t come the dam will run low, or run dry, but the interest meter on his borrowing will continue to tick inexorably.
Farmers are world’s greatest optimists.
“Hmm. Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scalle. essentially chaotic, isn’t rainfall then generally erratic as a consequence of that chaos?. Isn’t that why we have some areas that get droughts on e season and an overabundance of water the next? ”
No. Summer rainfall is driven by short term temperature drops, while winter rainfall is driven by short term temperature uplifts. Changes in the solar wind speed drive the temperature differentials.
http://www.lmsal.com/solarsoft/last_events_20100722_1007/index.html
This describes the process in a given hemisphere, while regional jet stream movements and positions can affect a particular region, such as the incursions of cooler air into Pakistan in July/August that caused the scale of flooding there.
http://www.zeeburgnieuws.nl/nieuws/images/jet_stream_jul_aug_2010.jpg
Further predictable aspects of the solar signal determine the daily timing of rain and storm events.
According to the BBC, a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) now shows that climate change is not responsible for civil wars in Africa.
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11204686
Now who would have guessed, civilisation can cope with real exisiting problems like droughts. Water storage, -not really a new concept, as Anthony pointed out- simple effective and cheap and around for several millenia.
Despite the unsupported quotes on increased uncertainty and variability, this is a great article as it avocates dealing with problems in an economic manner rather than fight suspected causes of illusive concepts such as “global warming”.
In Aus the droughts well broken, its flooding:-)
such a pity the ultra green agenda 21 cretins have made it so that people cannot! put damns in without massive paperwork and hoop jumping, to save water at times of plenty.
I have 2 4,000 litre tanks, they were full weeks ago and I have had to watch precious rainwater run away. no funds to buy more tanks,
funny thing, they offer rebates…and the tank prices go up! to exactly what the rebate is. No win for the consumer, plenty for the makers.
earthberms slow and hold water, a dam would have given me 2yrs at least of better than saline bore water to use to grow food!
as an EX Green type I am hugely angry at the politicisation of water and land care.
we did fine without this bulldust and legislation, more fees and charges for nothing!
The report argues against overreliance on single solutions like big dams
They should try telling that to the Aussies, who have water supply problems because all recent damn schemes have been opposed by the enviromentalists.
The first map shows Australia as having a dry summer wet winter. Most of Australia’s rain falls in the tropical zone, over two thirds by most accounts, and that happens during the Nov to Apr period. Second, El Nino leaves the SE dry and converse in the La Nina cycle. The map shows mid range for all cycles.
I agree with Martin Brumby @ 12:28. The Greens and Labor stopped construction of a dam, desperately needed in Melbourne on the pretext that CC would leave dams unreliable due to rain deficiency. That particular river is currently in major flood for the second time in three years. Melbourne is now reliant on an extremely expensive to build and even more expensive to run, desal plant. So the Greens stop dams but approve electricity hungry desal. Something smells in Denmark.
The ‘big dam’ problem:
Ericson et al. looked at 40 major river deltas around the world to measure their effective sea level rise (ESLR) and determine the causes.
They found that only 12% show eustatic sea-level rise as the predominant effect. The largest contributor to the ESLR (some 70% of the deltas) was decreased sediments from dams upstream.
Effective sea-level rise and deltas: Causes of change and human dimension implications
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-4J3WGFT-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=3ccb53775be7d1a197d108841290e7be
Nile Delta: ‘We are going underwater. The sea will conquer our lands’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/21/climate-change-nile-flooding-farming
Maged understands better than most the menace of coastal erosion, which is steadily ingesting the edge of Egypt in some places at an astonishing rate of almost 100m a year….
Coastal farmland has always been threatened by saltwater, but salinity has traditionally been kept at bay by plentiful supplies of fresh water gushing over the soil and flushing out the salt. It used to happen naturally with the Nile’s seasonal floods; after the construction of Egypt’s High Dam in the 70s (one of the most ambitious engineering projects on earth), these seasonal floods came to an end….
Oh boy. Rainfall is in the mix. If you thought temp stations were bad you’ll get a real kick out of the rain gauge system.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465005306/ref=oss_product I was reading this book.
It’s stupid the correct talk, El Ninos have varied in strength over the last 5000 years, it is recorded in the coral. It’s stupid to say that El Ninos are “getting strong because of global warming” using 30 years of data. They can vary from short periods to even a whole century. Interestingly I was reading during El Nino when the warm water 200m down can be pushed up along the continential shelf you can get tropical fish in San Fran bay.
With La Nina, I remember a recent article in Australia saying “Global warming (yawn)” tropical fish found in Tasmania for the “1st time”. This would be most likely the same thing happening here because of the coriolis effect pushing the warmer body of water up against Australia and down the continental shelf.
These warming events are just a factor of the sun and the ocean, the coriolis effect and the kelvin waves moving the warm water around the planet, it is not global warming and there is nothing unique or different. All climate “scientists” should be forced to read this book before the world is destroyed by their stupid policies.
I thought weather IS NOT climate? Or is it climate when it suits the activists clutching for (pretty dried out) straws?!
RW, it is you who lacks the basic knowledge. Read chapter 1 of the IPCC report – or if you know better, inform the IPCC.
Anthony, please fix the typos!
It’s really illogical, in fact irresponsible, for this report to be arguing against building dams.
The most appropriate response to this CAGW story is from John O’Brein penned circa 1921 and is titled ‘said Hanrahan’.
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
In accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began,
One frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about,
Coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought,
As it had done for years.
“It’s looking crook,” said Daniel Croke;
“Bedad, it’s cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad.”
“It’s dry, all right,” said young O’Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran
“It’s keepin’ dry, no doubt.”
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
“The crops are done; ye’ll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o’-Bourke
They’re singin’ out for rain.
“They’re singin’ out for rain,” he said,
“And all the tanks are dry.”
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.
“There won’t be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There’s not a blade on Casey’s place
As I came down to Mass.”
“If rain don’t come this month,” said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak –
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If rain don’t come this week.”
A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.
“We want an inch of rain, we do,”
O’Neil observed at last;
But Croke “maintained” we wanted two
To put the danger past.
“If we don’t get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
In God’s good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o’-Bourke.
And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
“We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“If this rain doesn’t stop.”
And stop it did, in God’s good time;
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o’er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o’er the fence.
And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey’s place
Went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.
“There’ll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We’ll all be rooned,” said Hanrahan,
“Before the year is out.”
Have a nice day 🙂
“IWMI’s advice for governments is to do a better job of analyzing the potential benefits for economic development and poverty reduction and to pay more serious attention to the social and environmental consequences.”
Thank you captains obvious. 😐 I hope we didn’t pay too much for this report. Next up, how irrigation can improve crop yields!
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:21 am
“[“Hmm. Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scalle. essentially chaotic…”]
“This statement is illogical and wrong. Climate is not chaotic. This is really, really basic knowledge and I am astonished that you would say something like this.”
Please RW – Send us a mathematical proof of your assertion. Please begin by writing down all of the differential equations require for describing the climate (you’ll actually far ahead of GISS on this). Then show that the resulting system is both well-posed mathematically and cannot admit chaotic solutions…
Next thing you know, he’ll be repeating the absurd notion that climate is a boundary value problem…
All this climactic variability over the long-term has been known for the last 4 cycles (1870-present).
All the big dams were built with at least 3 cycles under the belt.
The attention span of those who manage the water, however, is no longer than half a cycle.
And that is the problem.
They panic at both ends of the spectrum while, at the same time, go on water dispensing sprees in between.
Water management Warning: Children at play.
As a resident of the dryer western states here in the US, I have seen numerous small ponds with breached earth dams. Built in dry years and destroyed in wet. I can find two huge basins terminated in dams, that are nearly dry for 19 years out of 20… and, I fear, another, nearby, to be dry in a couple of years.
Chaotic? We need grants to warmists to straighten this out.
Major discovery, water management is important. Wow, to think such a significant issue has been missed for all these years. Good thing this study was done so now we can all understand that some years it rains and others it doesn’t.
Just substitute ManBearPig for whenever they say “climate change”, or when they say “in a changing climate”, substitute “when ManBearPig comes”, and when they say a “more hostile and unpredictable climate”, of course that would be a “more hostile and unpredictable ManBearPig”. Then, at least the paper makes sense.
Of course, it will be argued that it is the richer countries fault, due to all the nasty C02 they’ve emitted, so they will be on the hook for dealing with any water shortages and/or flood damage.
Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scale is essentially chaotic
Chaos is in the mind of the beholder. Chaos exists as far as we choose to ignore nature´s laws and replace them by a mathematical chaos.
Another danger is that badly planned storage will not only waste money but actually worsen the negative affects of climate change
…..??????????????????????????????????
WUWT?!!!!
Erratic rainfall?????? They are stating the damned obvious.
Below is a selection of erratic reporting from the BBC regarding Africa and rain:
Africa could face more droughts [March 2006]
West Africa faces ‘megadroughts’ [April 2009]
Are the deserts getting greener? [July 2009]
UN issues desertification warning [June 2007]
The Greening of the Deserts [June 2009]
And just recently we have more erratic behaviour from the BBC:
Climate ‘is a major cause’ of conflict in Africa [Nov. 2009]
Climate shifts ‘not to blame’ for African civil wars [Sept. 2010]
Finally:
“Case studies suggest that combinations of different storage options can be particularly effective. In southern Sri Lanka, for example, the construction of a large water storage reservoir, which was then linked to five previously created small reservoirs brought about a 400 percent increase in crop production.”
“The more we study climate change, the more we realize that water is the principal medium by which its impacts will be manifested in agriculture,” said Chartres. “We may not know exactly what those impacts will be, but we can be sure they will include greater rainfall variability. Water storage in all its forms offers a better way to manage risks during these times of increasingly uncertain weather.”
Surprise, surprise, who would have thought that water was so important in areas of drought. Why didn’t anyone think of this before?
###
On the subject of water wars below is what history has shown us about shared water resources promoting peace and treaties!!!!
http://www.utne.com/Politics/Water-War-Peace-Conflict-Negotiations-Hope.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7886646.stm
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol3/article3-2.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458282a.html
http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/the_truth_about_water_wars/
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/NavigatingPeaceIssue1.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2215263/
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/sais_review/v022/22.2dinar.html
http://www.rips.or.jp/english/seminars/indias_policy.html
I live in Southern Australia. We have a seemingly perpetual cycle the goes like : drought, fire, flood.
When we recently had a long drought, it was caused by global warming. The recent disastrous bushfires, caused by global warming. We are waiting for the announcement of the cause of this weeks floods.
@enneagram
You quote
‘Another danger is that badly planned storage will not only waste money but actually worsen the negative affects of climate change
…..??????????????????????????????????’
There is nothing new here. This story has been told and retold over millenia.
There was a time, not so long ago in our forefathers time, when Man lived in an Earthly Paradise. But because of his Sin in doing (insert xxxxx where xxxxx represents whatever the storyteller is peeved about, burning fuel, sex, not praying enough, praying to the wrong gods, wearing a kilt….you name it some nutter will get excited about it), he has been banished from Paradise and must make restitution for his errors. And stop doing whatever xxxxx is this time around.
Today’s Climate Alarmists are little different from all the previous doomsday cults. In this particular case their chosen means of worship/ritual is by ‘Climate Science’, which bears a superficial resemblance to real science, but has none of the substance. The great Richard Feynman called stuff like ths Cargo Science, as being analagous to those who hope that by building a mock airfield on a Pacific Island, they can bring back the USAF and all the goodies (and Gods) that came with it.
And they will have just as much joy of it.
These people aren’t studying climate, they are preaching the religion!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/27370
So…let me get this right. They want to bottle up all of the fresh water and then wonder why a drought hits? Sounds like a good idea [/sarc]
>>Against a backdrop of extreme weather wreaking havoc
>>around the world
The weather is only ‘wreaking havoc around the world’ because we have tripled the world population inside one century.
According to Wiki, Pakistan has quintupled (x5) its population since 1950. So the recent ‘disaster’ of floods in Pakistan are actually due to the rampant, unsustainable and irresponsible population increase, not extreme weather. More people = more people effected by floods.
And its not just Pakistan. In Britain, thousands of homes, that had been built on flood-plains, were flooded and destroyed. And government officials moaned and groaned and cited climate change. Bo****ks to climate change as an excuse!
The clue to the real problem lies in the name of the land ….
And they are only building on flood-plains because Britain is now the most crowded nation in Europe.
A civilisation without population control is not only uncivilised, it is doomed to disaster and extinction.
.
The Great Population Dilemma? Nothing new here! Move on, move on people!
We really do need Warp Drive Intergalactic Transport, the sooner the better!
We’ve always had this problem of overpopulation and never, ever, had a good and effective solution.
The inventor of Warp Drive will go down as the Greatest Inventor in Human History!!!
“Another danger is that badly planned storage will not only waste money but actually worsen the negative affects of climate change”
Apparently these climate clowns can’t even tell when to use the word “affects” and when to use “effects”. If only they had a brain.
And since when are they concerned about wasting money?
“Robert of Ottawa says:
September 7, 2010 at 4:11 am
The report argues against overreliance on single solutions like big dams
They should try telling that to the Aussies, who have water supply problems because all recent damn schemes have been opposed by the enviromentalists.”
Funny, and I thought it was because the south-east of Australia had been having a 13 year drought with major rain anomalies in the catchment areas of the capital cities. The last time I checked the main dam supplying my home town was 3% full, up from 0.9% in March. But you’re right, the answer would be to build another dam because when you build dams they automatically fill with water – kind of like the way the rain follows the plough.
“…Against a backdrop of extreme weather wreaking havoc around the world, a new report warns that increasingly erratic rainfall related to climate change will pose a major threat to food security…”
Their use of the word “erratic” is simply a description of the weather does. Can someone here tell me if in the last 1,000 years we ever had a period of un-erratic rainfall globally? If you really want to see erratic rain / climate shifts see below:
——————
How is it that AGW appears to have produced so many smart scientists?
Isn’t it amazing how they figure out stuff?
All they need do is ponder out loud or write up some supposition, as if they discovered something, and it becomes scientific, plausible, published and then gets referenced as if it’s a really cool story.
It’s become and strange kind of nauseating funny.
Frank K
Next thing you know, he’ll be repeating the absurd notion that climate is a boundary value problem…
No risk 🙂
He doesn’t know that a thing such as boundary value problem exists .
This will prevent him at least talking nonsense in this particular issue .
“Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scale is essentially chaotic, isn’t rainfall generally erratic as a consequence of that chaos?. Isn’t that why we have some areas that get droughts in one season and floods the next?”
You guys really need to read Leroux “Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate” Springer 2010 2ed. and you’ll understand that weather and climate are not chaotic at all.
David Waggott says:
September 7, 2010 at 1:41 am
Did these guys never hear of the 1930s ‘dust bowl’?
_____________________________________________________
I agree, did these idiots forget about the DUST BOWL???? Short memories and heavily edited education seems to abound in so called “science” and “policy making” these days.
The Warmistra would have had a field day with the 1930’s weather:
The most visible evidence of how dry the 1930s became was the dust storm. Tons of topsoil were blown off barren fields and carried in storm clouds for hundreds of miles… The impact of the Dust Bowl was felt all over the U.S. During the same April as Black Sunday, 1935, one of FDR’s advisors, Hugh Hammond Bennett, was in Washington D.C. on his way to testify before Congress about the need for soil conservation legislation. A dust storm arrived in Washington all the way from the Great Plains. As a dusty gloom spread over the nation’s capital and blotted out the sun, Bennett explained, “This, gentlemen, is what I have been talking about.” http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/water_02.html
I guess it has become standard practice for most organisations involved, even peripherally, in growing food and livestock to give a nod and a wink to posited negative aspcts of Climate Change to stay ‘on message’ and thus keep the grant moneys flowing in. Apaart from that, most of this report is quite sensible and undramatic, but by reading between the lines one gains a sense of the writers’ frustration with primitive agriculturalists who don’t understand the value of maintaining systems that capture and store rainwater. This sugests that educating such farmers is a priority that has been missed for whatever reasons. I know from my own youthful experience of working in the rural world that much of farming is unromantic, boring and physically unrelenting.
Like many former farm boys, I found the lure of the city lay not in the bright lights of the nightspots but in a physically less demanding, more stimulating and more ordered life.
OT – but according to an Italian scientist the BP oil spill has interrupted the “loop current” (gulf stream) and could plunge us into the next glaciation.
http://www.iceagenow.com/BP_oil_spill_driving_us_into_an_ice_age-I_do_not_buy_it.htm
Now what would the bill for that be?
Here’s what it states: We need to collect water but we don’t want the water to have secondary uses, so no power dams. Just water collectors. No need to make these uppity poor third-world nations independent of our good graces, gifts, and guidance.
Apparently ‘irregular’ rainfall causes corn to pop in the fields of Kentucky!
“”A Hardin County farmer says that some ears among his feed corn rows popped on the stalk in a phenomenon that agricultural experts say is associated with irregular rainfall and high heat.””
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2010/sep/02/hot-and-dry-kentucky-farmers-corn-pops-field/
It’s good to see robust debate in a climate blog. Someone like RW can take strong issue with Anthony Watts and RW’s comment doesn’t get moderated into oblivion.
I sometimes post at pro-AGW blogs. I believe I’m civil, though in disagreement, but my comments don’t survive moderation. It seems that this happens more than in years past.
I get the impression that AGW advocates realize that they can’t hold their own in open debate anymore.
“Unless we can reduce crippling uncertainty in rainfed agriculture through better water storage, many farmers in developing countries will face a losing battle with a more hostile and unpredictable climate.”
IOW, business as usual, for the last 6,000 years; at least if we delete references to Climate Change.
As usual, Michael Crichton said it best (I don’t have the original, so I’m paraphrasing):
Storms, floods, droughts, hurricanes – it’s not the end of the world, it is our world. I think it’s time we grew up and knew it.”
The first step to untangle the entire “Climate Change Scheme” and take the alarmists the wind out of their sails is to simply distance ourselves from the term Climate Change = Anthropogenic CO2 driven climate resulting in weather extremes as propagated by the UN IPCC.
Our current weather, how extreme it might be, is nothing unusual and falls well within the extremes of the natural climate variability experienced during the entire interglacial.
If we distance ourselves from the term “Climate Change” and replace it by “Natural Climate Variability” the warmists will lack their big hook to hang all their alarmist articles and reports to dry.
Just give it some thought.
Climate Change = Erratic Rainfall= ‘big dam dilemma’= decline in bee pollination
“Fears of a decline in bee pollination confirmed: may be due to climate change”
“TORONTO, ON – Widespread reports of a decline in the population of bees and other flower-visiting animals have aroused fear and speculation that pollination is also likely on the decline. A recent University of Toronto study provides the first long-term evidence of a downward trend in pollination, while also pointing to climate change as a possible contributor…”
http://www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/58513/Fears_of_a_decline_in_bee_pollination_confirmed_may_be_due_to_climate_change.html
____________________
Everything is all stuck together like a big wad of chewing gum!
There is more to supplying water to agriculture than building things including dams, ponds, and canals. The “rule of law” must be in place along with the means to keep everything working. Operation, maintenance, repair, delivery schedules – and many more – have to be guaranteed. A few weeks without water, say, because sediment has blocked flow or a pump burned up and another isn’t available will result in crop failure.
A recent book looks at some of the issues in trying to provide aid where things don’t work just the way some folks think they ought to. Here is a quote from a review of:
“Famine and Foreigners: Ethiopia since Live Aid” by Peter Gill
http://www.aworldtowin.net/reviews/famine.html
Reviewed by Susan Jappie
“
Peter Gill’s book looks at the controversial outcomes of the international efforts to help this historically powerful African country overcome the devastating effects of a series of droughts that destroyed the livelihoods of the people of Ethiopia.”
Invest heavily and quickly The statement we must invest heavily and quickly sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth and a plan for international control of all water. It is a very hard sell that we must submit to an investment in the third world based on a money and power grabbing hoax of global warming.
Where is the extreme weather wrecking havoc around the world that we never had before? Someone wrote all science is political. If it is, that is not an excuse for it not being honest.
R de Haan. “Natural climate variability”. Excellent idea. I’ll do it. Can I say ‘climatic’?
Richard Holle says:
September 7, 2010 at 1:46 am
Economic growth and prosperity has through out history followed the immigration of those who wished to be more free, to try their own ideas on how to become self sustaing, and still make a profit to grow more comfortable in old age.
In the USA the local farmers were shocked at the huge loss of livestock in central China, Mongolia due to just a couple feet of snow.
Here almost everyone who raises livestock….
__________________________________________________
Nice summation. Now if we could only keep the bureaucrats, politicians and greedy corporations from wrecking the system. Recently Farm Ponds have been the target of an eradication program here in the USA. Talk about idiocy!
The UN/WTO came up with the international “Guide to Good Farming Practices” in January 2005. When repeated attempts by Congress failed to get the law passed starting in the same year, corporations went a different route using their purchasing clout and contracts. They mandated farmers must follow their scorched-earth strategies in order to sell their products.
These policies include ponds being “poisoned and bulldozed. Vegetation harboring pollinators and filtering storm runoff is being cleared.” Now how does that square with this press release on water conservation methods?
“large growers instituted a quasi-governmental program of new protocols for growing greens safely, called the “leafy greens marketing agreement.” A proposal was submitted last month in Washington to take these rules nationwide.”
The “Food Safety bill” that was submitted was by none other than our old friend of “Cap and Trade” fame, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles. It gives new powers to the Food and Drug Administration to regulate all farms. The head of the new improved version would be Mike Taylor, lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto according to internet scuttlebutt.
“Large produce buyers have compiled secret “super metrics” that go much further. Farmers must follow them if they expect to sell their crops. These can include vast bare-dirt buffers, elimination of wildlife, and strict rules on water sources. To enforce these rules, retail buyers have sent forth armies of food-safety auditors, many of them trained in indoor processing plants, to inspect fields…. “If they’re not prepared for the farm landscape, it can come as quite a shock to them. Some of this stuff that they want, you just can’t actually do.”
The same problem is seen in the Guide to Good Farming Practices that are modeled on Good Manufacturing Practices for the Pharmaceutical Industry and written by academics, not farmers. This is an example straight out of the Guide to Good Farming Practices and used by the Corporations . Of course they were the co-authors of the Guide via the World Trade Organization.
“Auditors have told Kimes that no children younger than 5 can be allowed on his farm for fear of diapers. He has been asked to issue identification badges to all visitors.”
From the Guide:
“keeping the immediate surroundings clear and free from stagnant water [ponds???] and anywhere that could harbour pests, and arranged so as to allow easy disinfection of areas used by professional visitors (veterinarian, animal or feed deliverers, milk or egg collectors, carcass disposal agents, etc.)
…so as to make access difficult for unauthorised persons or vehicles (barriers, fences, signs)”
I wonder if unauthorised persons include Monsanto’s private investigators [who] arrive unexpectedly on farmers’ land and take samples from fields, often without permission, a practice that has instigated repeated trespassing accusations
So much for the press release.
“The report argues against over-reliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface, and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.”
They need to talk to Rep. Henry Waxman so he can get his story straight before anyone else points out the problem with his bill and this CAGW report.
Well, it sure is a big damn dilemma where these people get their “bona fides” from- The IWMI is a nonprofit, scientific research organization focusing on the sustainable use of water and land resources in agriculture…. Really? And THAT somehow gives them credence in the “study” of global weather? “The more we study climate change, the more we realize that water is the principal medium by which its impacts will be manifested in agriculture,” said Chartres. What a completely UN-scientific statement. The more we study … the more we realize … the principal medium(s) … impacts will be manifested… WHAT study?? This “report” is backed up by a “study”? Where is it? AND “realization”? that agriculture is “principally” impacted by water? DUH!
“We may not know exactly what those impacts will be, but we can be sure they will include greater rainfall variability. You DON’T know exactly the things you SHOULD KNOW, but you know exactly the variability of rainfall and that it WILL be greater?!? Ahh, excuse me for being so brash but, HOW do you know that? And, how do you know that is NOT a BETTER situation? Maybe it’ll be MORE rain everywhere… or at least more rain where “we” need it… or rain at the RIGHT TIME because THAT’S the real key to success in rainfed agriculture. But surely they know that because they are- focused “on the sustainable use of land resources in agriculture”…. In heart of farming in – Stockholm… Wisconsin… right? Oh no, that’s where the report is from?? Their HQ is in Sri Lanka… Sri Lanka?? Maybe they should move to – – Stockholm, WI.
I’m sure, in short order water wouldn’t be such a big damn dilemma, being right next to a lot of it…
Alexander K says:
September 7, 2010 at 7:31 am
“I know from my own youthful experience of working in the rural world that much of farming is unromantic, boring and physically unrelenting.
Like many former farm boys, I found the lure of the city lay not in the bright lights of the nightspots but in a physically less demanding, . . .”
Your comment is timely: Last Friday we agreed to buy a local man’s remaing hay. It was cut but still in the field. Saturday morning a man came with a machine and produced 112 bales of 110 pounds each folloowed by his brother with another machine that picked up 56 bales out of the field in just a few minutes and delivered it 2.6 miles away (to us) at about 50 mph. A second trip brought us the next load – about 3.5 tons.
That’s 7 tons, pickup and delivered, in about 30 minutes. I opened a gate. My wife wrote a check. Here is a link to see a delivery (not us):
As a young person I helped put hay up the old fashioned way. Once or twice with a wagon and pitchforks (as described in the link below), but mostly – back then – bales weighed about 60-65 pounds. Now they are twice that. Here’s the link (it is ironic – I was raised about 40 miles from this organic farm):
http://www.localharvest.org/blog/27987/entry/loose_hay_and_the_claw
The long tailed distributions of water flow in the Nile river system have been well studied and Mandelbrot has written about them.
Why any of the Warmists would ignore centuries of data is still a mystery to me, but it continues. Willful ignorance is worse than outright stupidity.
They ignore or spin the ice core data, they ignore world temperature data, they ignore anything that doesn’t fit the religion. They would, if they were allowed, cheerfully sit another Inquisition, and “save” the realists from their “sins”.
“It’s good to see robust debate in a climate blog. Someone like RW can take strong issue with Anthony Watts and RW’s comment doesn’t get moderated into oblivion.”
At least half the comments I leave never appear.
REPLY: More faux outrage. You have 236 comments on WUWT, your views have been well distributed here. Yes the ones that violate policy are snipped, and you’ve made many that violate policy, and that personally attack me and others, or act as flame bait to hijack threads. These get snipped. Read the policy page. That’s why you are often in the troll box. No I’m not going to argue merits of your individual posts. Clean up you act and you’ll have more of a voice here. If you don’t like the policy then don’t comment here. – Anthony
You can make this up, there is no limit to the way you can combine things to produce “astounding climate news” stories. Maybe they will get tired.
In SWFL this AM, it was in the low 70s and chilly. A nice December style night. Is this climate change? It is the peak of the hurricane season. Something has to be broke. Let me see, ‘Once Upon a time — ‘
Anthony, your rant does not address the point I raised at all.
Someone suggested that the IPCC WG1 report contradicted my statement. Here is an extract:
“While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences … The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.”
REPLY: Yeah sure whatever, predict when the next ice age will happen then, or when the next El Niño rivaling 1998 will occur, or even simpler, predict the next long term drought in the USA midwest. Let us know when you’ve got that method down. – Anthony
The report argues against over-reliance on single solutions like big dams, proposing instead an integrated approach that combines large- and small-scale storage options, including the use of water from natural wetlands, water stored in the soil, groundwater beneath the earth’s surface, and water collected in ponds, tanks and reservoirs.,
They don’t even mention Reverse Osmosis, as they didn’t knew about its existence, and that is because they are biased and don’t want you to remember that the 71% of the world is WATER…..And that’s very bad news for the droughts armageddon. (BTW, it would mean that membranes’ manufacturers are not members of the carbon market elite).
No mention of the increased CO2 production from lake-bottom sediments. Is this exacerbating the “problem?”
Water “DERIVATIVES” anyone?….It seems someone out there is thinking to print a few trillions out of NADA.
Sweat instead, drip off some excess water! by working hard, that will make you healthy and happier, I can assure you!
I find it interesting that, at least here in California, the steady increase in the state’s measured average temperature also has produced an increase in the state’s average annual rainfall. The state’s average rate of change for precipitation just over 3 inches per 100 years. http://www.calclim.dri.edu/
Warmer is wetter.
Well I got yer Big Dam Dilemma right here:
Hoover Dam Guide: Welcome everyone. I am your dam guide, Arnie. Now I’m about to take you through a fully funtional power plant, so please, no one wander off the dam tour and please take all the dam pictures you want. Now are there any dam questions?
Cousin Eddie: Yeah, where can I get some damn bait?
Vegas Vacation (1997)
John F. Hultquist said at 10:12 am
…it is ironic – I was raised about 40 miles from this organic farm):
http://www.localharvest.org/blog/27987/entry/loose_hay_and_the_claw
THANK YOU John, for that link. It took me back to my youth. I wasn’t raised ON a farm, but sure spent a lot of time on my family’s farms and if you were there, you worked – – and learned a lot about the real world and how to “adjust” to changing conditions, including weather. That is why I have said all along, to the individual – “climate” is a myth. And for these – “fools” (sorry couldn’t think of a better word) to say they are studying “climate” changes in an effort to come up with highly local solutions to water shortages, is just plain fraud and job perpetuation. While the farmers they are suppose to help, keep suffering. It’s a big damn dilemma to me why we don’t just bypass these non-profits and just give the money to the farmers. Hell, they could bury it and with the added water retention it would do more for them than the IWMI.
Again, sorry. It’s just damn frustrating when you see the list of things that grant money (US tax dollars) is being given way to everyday.
The bolded quote shows a complete lack of understanding. Whoever said this is applying stochastic reasoning to explain a fundamentally chaotic problem. Chaotic systems settle into trajectories (attractors). The trajectory bounds the possible outcomes but you cannot say with any confidence where on that trajectory you will end up.
Ken Harvey says:
September 7, 2010 at 3:48 am
Farmers are world’s greatest optimists
_____________________________________________________________
NO. NO. NO.
Farmers have to be pessimistic. “Expect and prepare for the worst. Since it usually doesn’t get quite that bad, you can be happy. If it gets that bad, you can still be happy that you were smart enough to be prepared.”
The pore optomist would soon be looking for a job in town.
As long as you have rivers, you will have floods. One solution is just not to build in the flood plains, but the temptation during the non-chaotic years is just too great (best soil around and the high availability of water).
It is not AGW that is causing the flooding problems. It is the fact that people gamble. And sometimes lose.
Milwaukee Bob says:
September 7, 2010 at 11:52 am
……Worst if the very final goal of scammers would be their appropiation/ownership of the total arable land.
The last investments of he who organized the first Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit has been precisely in the best US arable lands. A new emerging world class of Land Lords ?
Farmland investment of Global Warming elite:
http://davidgarnerconsulting.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/rothschild-cashes-in-by-investing-in-farmland/
Summary: After Edmund de Rothschild’s statement, without basis, at the 4th World Wilderness Congress in 1987, that CO2 is the cause of a non-existent global warming – and that combating it needs money (our money), he founded the World Conservation Bank for this reason. In 1991 its name was changed to The Global Environment Facility (GEF). The purpose of this facility is to lend money to the poorest countries, printed by the IMF out of thin air, and with the guarantee of our governments. The facility takes wilderness areas with mineral riches as security. The GEF money is then to flow back to our governments as reimbursement for paid loans. I.e. We give away our tax money. For what? When a country cannot repay loans to the GEF it must give up a piece of its territory to the Rothschild banks (GEF, IMF, World Bank) – up to 30% of the Earth are meant. If land cannot be offered as collateral the country must starve (Haiti, Argentina and others). Rothschild´s stroke of genius was that he had his GEF smuggled into the UN system at the Rio UN Summit in 1992 by his friend, Maurice Strong. So now high-ranking ministerial officials from 179 countries are in the the council of the bank – blessing Rothschild grabbing the world! This article brings interviews with a man who was a participant at the 4th World Wilderness Congress,a man who knows what happened there and knew Rothschild personally – as well as David Rockefeller, who tried to threaten him to silence about what he had learned at the Wilderness Congress. The GEF is to manage the money just promised to the developing countries in Copenhagen (100 billion dollars a year from 2020 – 30 bn over the next 3 years) with the help of the World Bank. However, Rothschild does not leave it there. He and his henchmen are now joining the race of certain governments (China, Saudi Arabia), to buy up large areas of farmland in developing countries, having the crops transported back to the home countries. This leaves the locals, already starving, with much less crops available – with food prices rising rapidly – which is exactly Rothschild’s expectation. This makes people flee from Africa to Europe. Food prices have doubled in the past year or so – so that many people in Haiti before the earthquake, could not even afford to buy mud pies with minimal nourishment. And so it goes on. This is the ultimate goal of Rothschild’s New World Order.
Well of course weather is getting more extreme; and climate too. It gets worse and worse as you get older; so you forget that whopping 100 year storm that happened two years ago; and when it happens again next week, you are gonna be shocked.
I can state categorically, that I don’t remember any severe weather at all, when I was four years old; everything was always hunky dorey; so clearly it is getting worse; much worse.
People can actually get paid for making studies like this ? I think I need an agent who can get me on that gravy train.
George E. Smith says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:23 pm
People can actually get paid for making studies like this ? I think I need an agent who can get me on that gravy train.
Any agents around?
RW says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:46 am
Anthony, your rant does not address the point I raised at all.
Someone suggested that the IPCC WG1 report contradicted my statement. Here is an extract:
“While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences … The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75.”
____________________________________________
Nice try with the analogy RW, but off the mark. Comparing the ability to KNOW the average life expectancy of a population is not the same as KNOWING the climate. One is a very easy, simple mathematical task: directly observe the number of men who die each year (millions), the ages at which they die, and compute an average life expectancy. The other isn’t: how many DIRECT observations of the CLIMATE can one measure each year? How does one the compute the average CLIMATE for 2010? Since we only have one sample each year, how accurate is that number?
Not to mention the fact that knowing the average life expectancy of a man in 2010 doesn’t mean you can predict the average life expectancy in 2050…
Or would you care to give us your prediction today on the average life expectancy of a man in the US in the year 2050? You’ve got all the data you need, right? I mean, you know which types of cancers will be cured by then, right?
Good Lord All Mighty! Was this not covered in the Old Testament? Are these new age, post normal scientists not capable of reading texts about common sense (Genesis 42) regarding years of plenty and years of drought? Must they require money to research common sense? You don’t suppose these idiots would “discover” that dams are a good measure against years of drought if we threw a ton of cash at them. Maybe if we started a new journal dedicated to common sense research these young whipper snappers might get enlightened. Not.
And I’m not even a religious person, but I have at least studied the Bible for Gawdsake!
With the ending of long General Drought over much of Australia and now vast flooding across much of the same including filling to overflowing the Murray Darling River Basin that had degenerated into a series of stagnant muddy pools recently, here is the poem by Dorothea Mackellar written in 1904 that generations of schoolchildren knew off by heart until the latestgeneration were inculcated by the new Malthusians and doomsdayers. Given Australia’s British background and due deference to the Mother Country at the time with its daffodil and green fields of home poets and longing, Dorothea makes the break we European migrants all came to love and understand-
The love of field and coppice, of green and shaded lanes,
Of ordered woods and gardens is running in your veins.
Strong love of grey-blue distance, brown streams and soft, dim skies-
I know but cannot share it, my love is otherwise.
I love a sunburnt country, a land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges, of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons, I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror- the wide brown land for me!
The stark white ring-barked forests, all tragic to the moon,
The sapphire-misted mountains, the hot gold hush of noon,
Green tangle of the brushes where lithe lianas coil,
And orchids deck the tree-tops, and ferns the warm dark soil.
Core of my heart, my country! Her pitiless blue sky,
When, sick at heart, around us we see the cattle die –
But then the grey clouds gather, and we can bless again
The drumming of an army, the steady soaking rain.
Core of my heart, my country! Land of the rainbow gold,
For flood and fire and famine she pays us back threefold.
Over the thirsty paddocks, watch, after many days,
The filmy veil of greenness that thickens as we gaze.
An opal-hearted country, a wilful, lavish land –
All you who have not loved her, you will not understand –
Though earth holds many splendours, wherever I may die,
I know to what brown country my homing thoughts will fly.
wsbriggs says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:22 am
The long tailed distributions of water flow in the Nile river system have been well studied and Mandelbrot has written about them.
Why any of the Warmists would ignore centuries of data is still a mystery to me, but it continues. Willful ignorance is worse than outright stupidity.
Mandelbrot has also written about Harold Edwin Hurst; he named the “Hurst Coefficient” in his honor. Hurst developed his eponymous coefficient in the 1950s to estimate ideal storage capacities for resevoirs. Since annual stream flow variations (such as the Nile’s, in Hurst’s case) are now known to be chaotic, Hurst’s work anticapted this field, and fractal geometry, by a good 10 years.
Hydrologists routinely use Hurst’s methods, and are perplexed that climatologists get so huffy when hydrologists suggest they try it. Hydrologists are pragmatic engineers and don’t seem to understand that inerrency is the sine qua non of climatology.
There are a couple of good threads at Climate Audit about hydrologist Demetris Koutsoyiannis’ (futile, so far as I know) attempts to get climatologists to try the stochastic approach.
RW
While weather and climate are closely related, there are important differences … The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue. As an analogy, while it is impossible to predict the age at which any particular man will die, we can say with high confidence that the average age of death for men in industrialised countries is about 75
Ignorance without bounds . The analogy is not even wrong .
The example postulates implicitly that there exists an invariant probability distribution of the life expectancy .
This is trivially falsified by the observation that the average life expectancy varies with time .
And as the dynamics of the major parameters influencing the life expectancy are unknown (f.ex when will be discovered the cure for AIDS ? What will be the financing of medical care ? etc) , there is no way to predict with high confidence anything concerning the probability of death unless one assumes that nothing ever changes .
For weather and climate it is even worse .
It is not known that such an invariant probability distribution may exist even in principle .
Experimental evidence in spatio-temporal chaos in geophysics is rather showing that such an invariant probability distribution generally does NOT exist .
It is not astounding that not only you but the IPCC studiously avoid the discussion of ergodicity , e.g the proof that weather and climate can admit a stochastical stationary interpretation .
It has been known and proven for a long time that time averages of a temporal chaotic system are as chaotic as the original system .
If I show you a plot of a Lorenzian chaotic system , you will not be able to make a difference between a plot showing the chaotic solutions and a plot showing time averages of the solutions .
Chaotic systems stay chaotic at all time scales and that’s why if the weather parameters have no invariant probability distribution , their time averages (so called climate) will not have an invariant probability distribution either .
The analogy you proposed is just silly .
Tom Vonk – you missed the point completely. I did not propose the analogy. I merely posted an extract from the most recent IPCC report, in response to someone who seemed to think that it said something quite different.
As I’m sure you must know, chaotic systems are not immune to analysis. For example, the orbital parameters of solar system bodies vary in a chaotic manner. However, we can find out with some certainty the bounds within which they vary. These bounds (orbital climate, if you like) do not vary chaotically, and their response to an external perturbation is not a difficult problem to solve. The statement “Since all weather and hence climate on a longer scale is essentially chaotic” remains a non sequitur and a very basic error for someone supposedly interested in weather and climate to make.
RW
No I didn’t miss the point , I merely explained why the point and the analogy were silly .
The example of gravitationaly bound systems is even sillier .
It is not a scoop that we know since more than a century that the N body system orbits are chaotic .
But we also know that this particular kind of chaos concerning Hamiltonian conservative systems is NOT ergodic ! That means that there can be no stochastical description of planetary orbits . There is no invariant “probability” that the orbit will be this or that .
Precisely because the system is conservative , there are results concerning the stability of some orbits (look up the KAM theorem) but you must not confuse these stability results with predictability .
You are very mistaken if you think that the N body system is “not a difficult problem to solve” .
Poincare took a really long time and even he did a mistake .
On the contrary it is extremely difficult to solve and the results exist only for very simplified particular cases .
The difficult , strongly coupled cases show such an extreme sensibility on initial conditions that they can’t be “solved” for any practical purposes .
Of course all this has nothing at all to do with the spatio temporal chaos in non conservative systems like weather and climate .
The statement that a chaotic system is chaotic at all time scales is trivial to prove as I have already shown with the Lorenzian example that you apparently either didn’t read or didn’t understand .
If you still believe the contrary , would you care to sketch a proof how chaotic solutions to a system of ODE or PDE become non chaotic by time averaging ?
It certainly should not be difficult if you consider that hamiltonian chaos is something very easy .
Something is telling me that you will not want to go beyond hand waving 🙂
Ref – observa says:
September 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Beautiful! Shame kids don’t memorize things anymore, especially poetry.
“If you still believe the contrary , would you care to sketch a proof how chaotic solutions to a system of ODE or PDE become non chaotic by time averaging ?
It certainly should not be difficult if you consider that hamiltonian chaos is something very easy .
Something is telling me that you will not want to go beyond hand waving :)”
Yes – I have noticed this pattern of posters like RW making sweeping statements and claiming “basic errors” on our part, but then running for the tall grass when we start to discuss the behavior of partial differential equations, boundary conditions, and (my specialty) the numerical solution of these PDEs. It always disappoints me as they never want to get into the interesting details. But then they point to the models as evidence of impending climate disaster in 50-100 years
Anyways, I too look forward to the rigorous proof that climate is not chaotic and that its mathematical description is in fact a “boundary value problem” [cue crickets chirping…]
Btw as this is a science blog , it is time to put this question of chaos at all scales to rest once and for all .
Only undergrad maths are necessary to stop the misinterpretations .
Let’s take f(t,X0) the solution describing the system with X0 being the initial condition : f is weather .
Let’s define g(t,X0) = 1/T Int from t-T to t [f(y,X0)dy] the time average of f over some arbitrary averaging period T (f.ex 30 years) : g is climate .
We will prove that if f is chaotic , g is chaotic too .
Since f is chaotic there exists an L >0 such as :
f(t,X0+dX0) – f(t,X0) = h(dX0).Exp(L.t) for dX0 being a small difference in initial conditions and h some function of dX0 .
This translates the exponential divergence of orbits what is the definition of chaos .
Let’s compute now the difference of the orbits of g for a small difference in the initial conditions dX0 .
g(t,X0+dX0) – g(t,X0) = (by definition of g)
1/T Int from t-T to t [f(y,X0+dX0)dy] – 1/T Int from t-T to t [f(y,X0)dy] =
1/T Int from t-T to t [f(y,X0+dX0) -f(y,X0)]dy =
1/T Int from t-T to t [h(dX0).Exp(L.y)]dy (because f is chaotic) =
h(dX0) . (1/L.T) . {Exp[L.(t-T)] – Exp[ L.t]} =
h(dX0) . (1/L.T) . {Exp[- L.T)] – 1} . Exp (L.t)
QED
There is an exponential divergence of trajectories of g which has been defined as the time average of f .
It is therefore proven that if f (weather) is chaotic then g (climate) is chaotic too and as this is true for every averaging period T , it is true at all time scales .
TomVonk says:
September 8, 2010 at 5:39 am
Thanks Tom. That’s a very profound analysis. I have a question – does this result have implications for ensemble averaging of chaotic solutions? That is, the trend these days is to run multiple weather/climate simulations and averaging them in hopes that this process will yield a unique (and hopefully more accurate) “ensemble” result. My sense it that this can be effective over short time periods, but as solutions are taken farther out in time, the accuracy diminishes rapidly. What are your thoughts on this?
RW…chirp, chirp, chirp…
You might want to say “finite difference” instead of “small difference”…since small doesn’t really make any sense in Rn or C or any other metric space for that matter.
Tom Vonk – yes, you did miss the point. The point was that the IPCC report said what I said it did, and not what “PaulM” thought it did. Whether you like or agree with what it said is irrelevant.
Climate is not chaotic over all timescales. You can see this simply by looking at the geological temperature record. Similar input (variations of insolation at 65N) gives similar output (ice ages). Similarly, plot a Lorenz oscillator as many times as you like for the same σ, ρ and β – after a given time you’ll find that the plots all look very similar even though the initial conditions were different. The long term average does not vary chaotically.
REPLY: Well that’s progress, you started with this in a previous comment:
to now saying
Yep, definitely progress. 😉
– Anthony
Pamela Gray says:
September 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm
And I’m not even a religious person…
Don’t feel ashamed of it, as it transpires from what you wrote. Be ashamed, instead, of not questioning enough yourself about the validity or truthfulness of everything you received from our “liberal” and post French revolution culture.
TomVonk says:
September 8, 2010 at 5:39 am
LOL!, that’s chaotic Calculus instead. Do you know anything real, apart from Ghosts of course, which can tend to the infinite or to zero?. Anything that is real is a measurable quantity. Period.Check this:
http://www.milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html
Anthony – your statement remains illogical and wrong, and you compounded it by implying that you think ice ages are somehow indicative of chaotic variation, when in fact they show the opposite. My statements do not contradict each other. One is merely a specific restatement of the other.
REPLY: Yeah sure whatever, anything to avoid having to admit you made conflicting statements. -A
RW says:
September 8, 2010 at 11:29 am
No differential equations? No proofs? Come now – let’s see ’em…[chirp, chirp, chirp]
Now this makes good sense. Our public climate zones in Central and NE Oregon were pretty grossly defined, which meant that forecasts were pretty useless at the zonal boundaries. Weather variability was and is a very big deal when your forecast says all is well and then you get hit with rain right before you start harvesting wheat.
Well, based on climatological re-evaluation, our zones are being redrawn. And from the look of it, all for the better.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/pdt/reference/Zone_Alterations_PDT_2010.pdf
Maybe someone at the NWS has decided that weather, interacting with topography, IS the most important thing to consider and they had better do a better job of feeding the populace more accurate information.
Frank K
Yes there is a relation with “ensemble averaging” .
The proof that a chaotic system is chaotic at all time scales that I sketched in the post above is a proof about exponential divergence of orbits .
This proof doesn’t tell and can’t tell much in this form about what happens for very long times when t goes against infinity .
Indeed the exponential divergence can’t go forever because the chaotic orbits are bounded .
So when the system has described many times an orbit (each being different) , the orbits may cluster and often do cluster in privileged regions of the phase space .
These regions are called chaotic attractors .
Then these regions (e.g physical sates) are more probable to be hit by a chaotic orbit than other regions .
It is the ergodic theory which studies the questions when t goes against infinity .
If there exists an invariant probability density function (e.g independent of initial conditions) then the system is ergodic and it is possible to predict probabilities that the system will take this or that state even if it is still impossible to predict individual trajectories .
For example the whole body of statistical thermodynamics uses the fact that a large number of colliding material particles is chaotic and ergodic .
“Ensemble averaging” is a tool related to the ergodic theory and aims to provide a stochastical interpretation of a chaotic system .
Of course if no invariant PDF exists and the system is not ergodic (like f.ex the hamiltonian dynamics governing the N body gravitational problem) then no stochastical interpretation is possible .
RW
Similarly, plot a Lorenz oscillator as many times as you like for the same σ, ρ and β – after a given time you’ll find that the plots all look very similar even though the initial conditions were different. The long term average does not vary chaotically.
There is some progress but it’s about time you stopped insisting on silly statements .
The short of it is that Anthony is right and you are wrong , admit it and live with it .
The average of a Lorenz solution is EXACTLY as chaotic as the solution itself . You substitute in the proof I sketched the Lorenzian variables for f and it will stay perfectly valid . The average of a chaotic Lorenzian variable defined as g in the proof is simply chaotic too .
The variability will obviously decrease with increasing averaging period (T in the proof) but that is due to the 1/T factor that eliminates all variations in the infinite limit – the “smoothing effect” . It is sufficient to rescale the time axis (e.g to zoom) to see the chaotic behaviour of averages just by eye balling .
Of course the Lorenz system admits a chaotic attractor which doesn’t depend on initial conditions but that has nothing to do with chaoticity (or exponential divergence) of averages .
You seem to be very confused about what a chaotic system really is and especially about the proven fact that once a system admits chaotic solutions , then the averages of these solutions stay chaotic at all time scales too .
Enneagram
Why would you put this link in a discussion on a science blog ?
This totally unknown guy tells us :
No one understands or ever understood calculus, not Einstein, not Cauchy, not Cantor, not Russell, not Bohr, not Feynman, no one. Not even Leibniz or Newton understood it. That is a big statement, I know, but I have already proved it and I will prove it again below.
Already with this he has exploded the crackpot index (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html) .
He scores almost on every point . Congratulations !
Then he delivers us following pearls of wisdom :
To measure a length you don’t need a watch. To measure velocity, you do. Velocity has a “t” in the denominator, which makes it a rate of change. A rate is just a ratio, and a ratio is just one number over another number, with a slash in between .
There is more of the same . Of course as could be predicted from his truly impressive crackpot rating , he has also demonstrated that the relativity is wrong . Yes , quantum mechanics too .
Please try to avoid making people waste their time with things like : http://www.milesmathis.com/calcsimp.html
Thanks in advance .
Thanks Tom. There’s a new post up describing a NAS report on the predictability of weather and climate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/09/nas-report-plateau-in-our-ability-to-make-accurate-seasonal-forecasts/#more-24594
I’d be interested in your opinions of the report (which appears to be a useful summary of the ability of modern forecast systems to predict climate on seasonal time scales), as it ties into what we’ve been discussing here.
Oh dear, Tom Vonk. You contradict yourself so much, it’s clear you don’t know what you are talking about. This is the key bit that you say yourself but then seek to deny:
“Indeed the exponential divergence can’t go forever because the chaotic orbits are bounded.”
Poor people will always suffer because of the unequal distribution of resources, particularly food and water.
The ideas for water storage are a good idea. However, work also has to be done to improve the political and economic infrastructures of underdeveloped countries so that resources can get to those who need them.
I suppose using the term climate change just makes more people pay attention to the problem.
In Pakistan, there is no need of big dam like Kalabagh dam project in Punjab as three out of four Provincial Assemblies have passed about 10 resolutions against construction of Kalabagh dam in Punjab.
A pro-dam lobby belonging to Punjab are bent upon to prove people of three out of four provinces are enemies of Pakistan and also enemies of their own provinces..
The underground of water in Punjab is sweet and sufficient to meet all requirements of province but the underground water of Sindh is brackish. Punjab wants to control the water of Sindh and turn it to desert. Presently Indus delta – sixth largest in the world is already on verge of death as it was in Sindh. Had Indus delta been in Punjab, Punjab and Pakistan Govt both would have not allowed it to die. What a shame!