Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Say Climate Change Is Damaging Iowa Agriculture

timothy posted about a year ago | from the how-'bout-that-dust-bowl? dept.

Businesses 444

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Radio Iowa reports that 155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa are jointly issuing a call for action against global warming and calling on the US Department of Agriculture to update its policies to better protect the land. 'The last couple of years have underscored the fact that we are very vulnerable to weather conditions and weather extremes in Iowa,' says Gene Takle, director of the Climate Science Program at Iowa State. Both years were marked by heavy spring rains followed by droughts that damaged Iowa's farmland. 'This has become a real issue for us, particularly with regard to getting crops planted in the spring,' says Takle adding that Iowa had 900,000 acres that weren't planted this year because of these intense spring rains. 'Following on the heels of the disastrous 2012 loss of 90% of Iowa's apple crop, the 2013 cool March and record-breaking March-through-May rainfall set most ornamental and garden plants back well behind seasonal norms,' says the Iowa Climate Statement for 2013 . 'Iowa's soils and agriculture remain our most important economic resources, but these resources are threatened by climate change (PDF)." When the Iowa climate change statement was first released in 2011, 44 Iowa scientists signed on and last year's statement was signed by 137 Iowa scientists. "It's easy to set up a straw-man argument, to say, 'Oh, well climates always change; there have been changes in the past. This might just be natural,' " says David Courard-Hauri. "And often that gets played on the Internet as, 'Maybe scientists haven't thought about the fact that there have been natural changes in the past and maybe this is related.' " Of course scientists have thought about that possibility, says Courard-Hauri, but the evidence strongly suggests the climate is changing faster than could be expected to happen naturally."

cancel ×

444 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So we all migrate to iowa then. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45181925)

I take it that they're going to allow us to adapt to climate change this way rather than have to, you know, stop polluting.

Re:So we all migrate to iowa then. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#45182881)

It's not one or the other. Climate change is happening, most of it is beyond the control of Kansans and they must adapt to the changing conditions as best they can, while doing what little they can to slow the change if you can. Suppose Kansas became carbon neutal. Would that stop climate change in Kansas?

So they want money for Iowa? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45181931)

No offence but maybe it is a bad place to grow anything and the reason they are growing apples and decorative plants is that they don't have real jobs.

Re:So they want money for Iowa? (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#45181975)

Is that you, Bobby Jindal?

1. Legalize Regulated Marijuana Cultivation (1, Insightful)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about a year ago | (#45181951)

2. Profit!

Re:1. Legalize Regulated Marijuana Cultivation (2)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45182069)

KGB is under $1000/lb in California at harvest time (now). The cops have multiple checkpoints on I-80 and I-70 going east. Current estimate is CA grows 60% of the nations sweet leaf.

Iowa can continue to send money out of state for an agricultural product.

Re:1. Legalize Regulated Marijuana Cultivation (2)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182215)

There are uses to hemp beyond recreational substance or medicine.

Re:1. Legalize Regulated Marijuana Cultivation (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a year ago | (#45182365)

Hemp growth is incompatible with sensimia growth in the same general area.

Iowa can have the hemp.

Re:1. Legalize Regulated Marijuana Cultivation (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182413)

KGB is under $1000/lb

How much under? What would a 200lb agent bring? Is that hanging or live weight? What's the price elsewhere? Really don't want to pay California taxes.. So, is the cold war back?

Agribusiness (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45181959)

Because Iowa should see perfectly consistent weather every year so our crops can be planted right on time and produce 100% harvest without fail.

Ordinarily there is no love for high fructose corn syrup growers around /., but today they'll get all the climate change kudos they can stand.

Re:Agribusiness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182053)

Kill yourself.

Re:Agribusiness (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182451)

Well done on recognizing Obama from the post.

Re:Agribusiness (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#45182357)

Their weather conditions may be one problem, but one problem that is gonna grow to possibly an even more DIRE problem, is the soil nutrition depletion...due to the way out agribusiness is working up there, to using almost a mono-culture of planting the same fields over and over again with same couple of products, mostl 'dent' corn (I think is the name of it)....and wheat.

We're mostly growing crops that nutritionally not the best for our population, and by not rotating in crops of different nature (how about more green leafy veggies or other veggies that can be eaten fresh and not processed 1400 different ways before consumption?) or allowing fields sufficient time to recover...the soil depletion will likely be the death of the food basket section of the US.

Re:Agribusiness (4, Informative)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#45183015)

Having lived in Iowa for awhile, I have to jump in and say that no, you're quite wrong. A typical Iowa farm does rotate crops between fields - usually between some variety of corn, soybean, and either alfalfa or wheat. They have even gone beyond and introduced no-till, contour plowing, and many other means of conserving the soil.

If there is a problem in farming there, it isn't in any alleged lack of crop rotation, but in the constant (and in many cases over-) use of Anhydrous Ammonia as a fertilizer - and in huge quantities.

They didn't think this through (3, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | about a year ago | (#45181987)

More or less the entire scientific community of the planet has been in a consensus about this for most of the last decade or two and our government still does not give a fuck. Iowa is not going to accomplish by itself what the whole freaking world didn't all together. The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.

You're an idiot... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182063)

www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com

Don't let the facts get in the way of your new 'religion'.

Petro-lobbies indeed.

Let me guess, you're a 'climate change' shill, who is really a 'scientist' who gets paid for making up this alarmist nonsense. I mean, 'climate' scientists couldn't possibly benefit from this alarmist nonsense, in the form of endless grant money for their fraudulent 'research', could they...

CARBON! CARBON! CARBON!

Go on, keep repeating it over and over and over again. Idiot.

Re:You're an idiot... (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#45182073)

When the overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology say "AGW is real", and even the very small number of researchers working in fields related to climatology who are publicly skeptical rarely if ever actually publish papers in journals backing up their skepticism, I have to say, seeing some random AC on /. posting links to notorious denier sites doesn't exactly convince me that said AC actually a. knows what the fuck he's talking about, b. cares about what the fuck he's talking about, or c. is ever going to be willing to even consider really actually fucking learning a fucking thing about what he's talking about.

Except the IPCC has just admitted it ain't warming (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182121)

so...

Maybe they're petro dollar shills too. (Nah, just kidding, they're grant mongering shills.

And Science doesn't work on the consensus of people who never studied the actual evidence. Science depends on repeatability of experiments which are publicly available and carefully state their premises, assumptions, findings and raw data. The biggest names in Climate Science haven't been practicing "science" at all.

No, peer review by your buddies doesn't count.
No, hiding methods and data behind the proprietary wall of a university doesn't count.

Make it public or it didn't happen.

Re:Except the IPCC has just admitted it ain't warm (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#45182201)

Make what the fuck public? Jesus, fucktard, the evidence, the models, all of it out there.

How about you actually go look, instead of hiding up your own ass and only visiting denier sites that function as you're echo chamber.

You have absolutely no fucking idea what you're talking about, and worst of all, you think that's a good thing.

Re:You're an idiot... (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#45182141)

You know what's awkward for the deniers?
When you talk about the ozone layer.

The same people who said "if we stop using halons and CFCs, we can fix the hole in the ozone layer"
are the ones saying "hey, this global warming stuff is a problem"

Unlike the denial industry, the scientists have already been proven correct once.

Re:You're an idiot... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182727)

You know what's awkward for the deniers?
When you talk about the ozone layer.

The same people who said "if we stop using halons and CFCs, we can fix the hole in the ozone layer"
are the ones saying "hey, this global warming stuff is a problem"

Unlike the denial industry, the scientists have already been proven correct once.

Well the ozone layer hasn't been fixed, we have seen a marked slowdown in ozone depletion which still proves that the ban on depleting gasses appears to have had an effect. We won't start seeing a statistically significant recovery until the 2020s or 2030s. Complete recovery to 1980 levels will not happen until the second half of the century.

Re:You're an idiot... (1, Troll)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45182267)

When the overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology say "AGW is real"

And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism.

Regardless of that: I find it interesting that with the release of the IPCC AR5, which has toned down its predictions of things like warming, and weather extremes (in fact they dropped claims of AGW driving extreme storms such as cyclones altogether), and with AGW climate model predictions [principia-scientific.org] showing ever-increasing divergence from actual observation [principia-scientific.org] , the "sky is falling" cries have become even more shrill.

Re: You're an idiot... (1)

JWW (79176) | about a year ago | (#45182325)

The irony about this issue with regards to Iowa growing seasons is that one of the driving trends of global warming is the movement of the start of the growing season earlier in the year. This last year the unseasonal cold in March and April pushed the start of the growing season way back.

The extra spring rains may be a global warming related trend, but the later start of the growing season is not something that is expected due to global warming, it fact is is counter to the expectations and the trend.

Re: You're an idiot... (3, Informative)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182931)

You seem blissfully unaware of two things:
1) Weather != climate
2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.

Re: You're an idiot... (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45182967)

2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.

Which seems like a reasonable conclusion. But even the IPCC is backing off that claim, apparently because they underestimated the ability of natural systems to "deal with" that extra chaos.

The IPCC is no longer claiming that AGW will drive increasingly energetic weather events. Unlike all the past reports, they don't even mention it in the latest.

Re:You're an idiot... (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year ago | (#45182521)

Good post Jane Q Public. Let's stick to the science, whether it supports AGW or not (at the moment the probability of AGW being the most significant factor in our climate is decreasing - as far as I can tell). So please keep posting the facts as you find them, and ignore those for who it is a 'cult' one way or the other.

Re: You're an idiot... (3, Informative)

Namarrgon (105036) | about a year ago | (#45182921)

Let's stick to the science, whether it supports AGW or not (at the moment the probability of AGW being the most significant factor in our climate is decreasing - as far as I can tell).

Then maybe you should be looking more closely at the actual science, as the IPCC AR5 review upgraded their assessment of the majority of climate change being human-caused to "extremely likely" (95%+ probability). And while a few specific effects of climate change are now considered less likely, others such as polar ice melt have been outstripping projections.

Be careful about cherry picking your science, or letting others do so for you. Read the AR5 executive summary for yourself; it's by far the most comprehensive review of the actual science. And its conclusions are not that everything's fine - quite the opposite.

Re: You're an idiot... (1, Interesting)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45183009)

"Then maybe you should be looking more closely at the actual science, as the IPCC AR5 review upgraded their assessment of the majority of climate change being human-caused to "extremely likely" (95%+ probability). And while a few specific effects of climate change are now considered less likely, others such as polar ice melt have been outstripping projections."

If you want to pay attention to the "actual science", then you should not be paying attention to the summary, because as Dr. Richard Lindzen [dailycaller.com] rather gleefully points out, as the actual science in the IPCC reports has been progressively offering weaker and weaker evidence of AGW, those summaries have become ever more alarmist.

Your comment is really just more evidence of what I was saying.

Re:You're an idiot... (2)

erikkemperman (252014) | about a year ago | (#45182681)

And yet the AGW models The overwhelming majority of scientists working in fields related to climatology today get paychecks that rely on people being focused on their alarmism

Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?

Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here [slashdot.org] on /. at the time.

Re:You're an idiot... (1, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#45182937)

"Where are you suggesting these pay checks issue from? What would the UN, say, stand to gain by influencing IPCC research toward alarmism -- or bias in any direction, for that matter? In the other corner, as it were, who is bankrolling the denial camp?"

I didn't write anything about "bankrolling" a "camp". That sound suspiciously like conspiracy theory to me. As for paychecks... they do come from somewhere, yes? I'm not suggesting any kind of big conspiracy, as you seem to be doing. I'm simply saying: AGW is what they're doing, and they are getting paid for it. Is there something about that with which you disagree?

"Also I am pretty sure the latest IPCC report made a point of stating more clearly and unambiguously then ever before that climate change is real and man-made. We discussed it here on /. at the time."

Yes, the report does make a point of saying so, in their executive summary. Which is just proving my point. Because the actual science in the report [ed.ac.uk] (pdf) does not justify the claim. If anything, the actual evidence is weaker than before. (That is a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature Climate Change, by the way). 117 climate models were studied. Of those, 114 overstated the actual amount of warming (by, as I stated before, an ever-increasing margin), and the mean divergence between those 114 models and current reality was 100%. In other words, the models, on average, predicted 100% more warming than has actually been observed.

Put that together with the increasing number [wordpress.com] of new studies that contradict the very foundations of most AGW climate models [principia-scientific.org] , and the only reasonable conclusion is that these ever-more-shrill pronouncements are nothing but hot air (pun very definitely intended).

Re:You're an idiot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182545)

Oh no, a "notorious denier site". You 'denier' you.

You idiot.

Did you READ anything on ClimateDepot? Too challenging for you?

AGW is an obvious scam. Your pathetic 'rebuttal' didn't convince anybody, especially your last sentence.

How the alarmists must be laughing as useful idiots like you back up their position at any cost, rather than THINKING about it. Cretin.

FAT CAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT IT AGAIN! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182381)

FUCK SCIENCE!

Censorship - should please you... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182093)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/18/los-angeles-times-endorses-censorship-with-ban-on-letters-from-climate-skeptics/

After all, 'the debate is over', according to the alarmists. What debate? They never had one, and they don't want one, because their crimes will be revealed.

Re:Censorship - should please you... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182195)

you're quoting fox???

youareanidiot.org

is setup for intelectual colossi such as you

Re:Censorship - should please you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182989)

What are you talking about? "You're quoting Fox"? Huh? I gave a LINK to an ARTICLE on Fox, which says that the Los Angeles Times is CENSORING any comments which don't 'toe the party line' on the AGW scam. You idiot, you can't even read.

Which is probably why you follow whatever the T.V. global warming alarmists tell you.

Watch 'The Great Global Warming Swindle':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-m09lKtYT4

Scary - you might have to THINK. Idiot.

not the issue (2)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#45182175)

More or less the entire scientific community of the planet has been in a consensus about this for most of the last decade or two and our government still does not give a fuck.

AGW is real, in that humans have caused the climate to warm, but that doesn't mean we can or should do anything about it.

The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.

Yes, that's the only way, and fortunately that's not going to happen. When all is said and done, if you could give people a choice between driving their cars and economic growth now, and a few degrees warmer temperatures and a few feet of sea level rise, they are going to prefer driving and growth.

Of course, the idea that we even have that choice is an illusion. Global warming is inevitable and we better just learn to live with it.

Re:not the issue (3, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#45182427)

Yes, that's the only way, and fortunately that's not going to happen. When all is said and done, if you could give people a choice between driving their cars and economic growth now, and a few degrees warmer temperatures and a few feet of sea level rise, they are going to prefer driving and growth

Maybe you shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself.

I'll bet the same argument was once made when it came to not just shit in the street but to dig a hole out back.

And the bit about "economic growth" is bullshit. The only "growth" that ignoring climate change guarantees is that of the bank accounts of a handful of energy companies.

Global warming is inevitable and we better just learn to live with it.

Did you learn to live with a 640k limit on address space? It appears as though you have learned to live with a very dim view of humanity's ability to innovate. "Solar energy isn't any good and we just need to learn to live with it" and, "Internal combustion engines are here to stay and we just need to learn to live with it" and, "Pumping toxic chemicals into the ground water under extreme pressure is how we're going to keep the lights on and we just need to learn to live with it".

I will never understand why there is a small but vocal cadre of tech nerds who for some reason believe that we have reached the absolute zenith of technological innovation when it comes to energy, but will gladly engage you in a discussion of the best types of interstellar drives to power ships for colonization of deep space.

Re:not the issue (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#45182729)

It appears as though you have learned to live with a very dim view of humanity's ability to innovate.

Quite the contrary: I think humanity will have no problem coping with warmer temperatures and rising sea levels. I also think humanity will have no problem developing new, clean energy sources.

I will never understand why there is a small but vocal cadre of tech nerds who for some reason believe that we have reached the absolute zenith of technological innovation when it comes to energy

Quite to the contrary: I think there will be tons of innovation in clean energy. And to get that, government should get out of the way and let companies develop those technologies, instead of attempting to solve the problem top-down and interfering with innovation.

Maybe you shouldn't speak for anyone but yourself.

Maybe you should take your own advice.

Re:not the issue (1, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182849)

Ohhhh. You could have just /said/ that you're of the libertarian religion.

Re:They didn't think this through (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182255)

The only way we'll ever start making progress on climate change is if somebody finds a way to outspend big oil, the car manufacturers, and every other petro-lobby.

It's not that simple mate. Gas-powered cars are just a small part of the problem, they impact mainly large cities. There's also planes and container ships (look at the drop in pollution during the flight ban post 9/11), they impact the higher atmosphere and the seas respectively. These two areas each are bigger than the earth's landmass, plus they move around the planet and spread pollution much more quickly, yet they are largely unseen by the average city-dweller. Cars can be replaced by electric versions or public transportation, but there are still no alternatives to oil-based intercontinental planes and container ships.

Other than oil, you have manufacturing, it uses a ton of energy, much more than current renewable energy sources can provide. Manufacturing also creates other polluting by-products a lot of which is dumped into the sea and our water sources, again unseen by the average city-dweller.

All this pollution plus deforastation to create more living space for humans kills the flora and fauna which produces a bigger imbalance in the ecosystem which impacts the climate.

Sure we could stop all polluting activities, but there are so many of us we can't all survive without planes, ships, and manufacturing plants. We need to eat but we live in cities where we can't grow food, so we make money instead, and to make money we get a job producing something that is marginally useful yet polluting.

So we can raise alarms like crazy, but it will require a major change in our societies and economic models before we can do anything about it.

Re:They didn't think this through (2, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45182273)

This is the main quote from the second article, which I think captures the entire debate, both because of what it says, and what it does not say:

“In the scientific community, we have debates on the details,” [director of Iowa State University’s climate science program] said. “But there are very, very few scientists who are active in studying climate science who deny the existence of the role of heat-trapping gases in raising our global average temperatures, and the fact that these heat-trapping gases are produced by humans.”

Note that he does not say 'scientists agree what will happen as a result of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.' Scientists don't agree on that topic, it ranges from "nothing serious" to "civilization will be destroyed."

Note that he does not say 'scientists agree on how we should respond to global warming.' Scientists once again don't agree on that topic, it ranges from 'do nothing' to 'mitigate consequences' to 'stop all coal production immediately.'

One of the reasons government has done nothing to stop global warming is because scientists don't agree on what to do. This certainly annoys some scientists and some have taken to insulting other scientists, but the reality is, on the hard questions of global warming, there is no consensus.

Re:They didn't think this through (0)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#45182409)

Simply wrong.

Scientists won't never tell the government what to do. It's not their task. It's the task of the government to do something, and all scientists will do is analysing the consequences if certain actions are taken. A climate scientist does not tell you "drop your carbon dioxide emissions immediately", he will rather say: "if you emit this amount of carbon dioxide over the next x years, the average atmosphere temperature will increase between t1 and t2 degrees". And an oceanographer might then say: "An increase of atmospheric temperatures of t1 degrees will mean between m1 and m2 increase of sea levels, and a t2 increase will mean between m3 and m4 increase of sea levels." And a cartographer of a certain coastal area then can tell you how far into the land the sea will go, if m1 or m2 or m3 or m4 will happen.

But it's still up to the politics to decide which consequences government will accept, and which consequences it will try to avoid at what cost.

And yes, the answers of scientists will always be ranges of possible values, maybe with certain probabilities attached to those values. It has nothing to do with agreeing on a single value, there is simply none. There are just dozens of different scenarios, some more probable, others less.

Re:They didn't think this through (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45182453)

Scientists won't never tell the government what to do. It's not their task.

I don't know if you're an idiot or ignorant, but counter-examples abound [insideclimatenews.org] .

Because science are not plitics (4, Insightful)

aepervius (535155) | about a year ago | (#45182489)

Stop saying there is no consensus. There is a quasi consensus *on the science*. Once politics , denier, and teh conservative STARTS tio admit that point and stop trying to denie it with all their strength, we MAY take a step toward a solution. But as long as news media trump up some fake "let both side speaks" as if there were two side of the debate, and all the associated shenanigan to refuse admit the science is real, there cannot be any step toward a solution as long as people/politician deny the science. Once that hurdle is gone, solution will be found. But we haven't gone past that step.

Re:Because science are not plitics (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#45182765)

Stop saying there is no consensus.

I didn't. I clearly explained which points have consensus and which don't. Read it again.

Re:They didn't think this through (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about a year ago | (#45182301)

Well, for a decade or two the entire scientific community agreed that the climate in the western USA had permanently changed. For the better, mind you. That was in the 1870ies and 1880ies. And then ... things went back to normal and all explanations for the supposedly permanent changes that scientists came up with were rendered moot.

After decades of one-up-manship and changing goalposts for "global warming" ... oh no ... look, they call it "climate change" these days. Of predicting less rain for Germany when weather was rather dry (about 10 years ago), of predicting more rain when the weather was rather wet or a few years (lately), of predicting that we may never see snow again when there was little snow for a stretch of a couple years (early 90ies to early 00's), of predicting that climate change will lead to catastrophic winters (after snow falls picked up lately). Then there is the nostradamic expression of "extreme weather events" for which no definition has ever been offered so as to be able to write more headlines. And so on and so forth.

Trust is a rapidly depleting resource when it is shamelessly abused for politicking.

Re:They didn't think this through (1)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | about a year ago | (#45182583)

Your problem isn't with the science, it's with the deliberately disingenuous reporting on said science.

Re:They didn't think this through (2)

tp1024 (2409684) | about a year ago | (#45182673)

No, my problem is also with the deliberately disingenuous science by people who take "publish or perish" as an excuse to put out "scientific" papers according to their news value, instead of their scientific merit.

The scientific merit of papers in climate science is questionable in any case, since the concept of "replicability" is virtually non-existent. They are not replicable, period. Because the raw data and computer models used are not published and quite jealously guarded, on the grounds of preventing people to "pick the apart". Which, if you believe it or not, is what science is all about. Mercilessly picking apart the models, finding possible sources of error, correcting those, make predictions, compare prediction with measurements ... throwing models into the dust bin, when it tuns out they didn't work and BE HONEST about it.

Re:They didn't think this through (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182345)

Outspend them to do - what exactly? Have the government invoke unlawful mandates? Increase costs for every single person? When in fact the effect of global warming is actually now less than originally thought according to the IPCC.

US CO2 production has been dropping. I'd suggest you lobby other governments like China and India rather than focus on a single government in a single region.

Here's the fact of the matter: fossil fuel use will be around long after everyone living is now dead. It's not going away based on wishful thinking like yours.

You Epitomze The Typical Brainwashed Slashdot User (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182399)

"More or less the entire scientific community of the planet has been in a consensus about this for most of the last decade or two"

Wrong: http://www.climategate.com/

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RlPZZGZCt6s

The entire Human Created climate change theory was created, financed, pushed through science and the mainstream media through the Rothschilds.

And as usual on Slashdot, some dumb motherfucker mods you up to 5, when you provide no sources on the "entire scientific community's" opinion.

And no, The Rothchilds funded IPCC does not count as a legitimate scientific resource, because it lies about science, blatantly, and in your face.

Yes, the irony of your post is you are the problem. Repeating like a dumb, retarded parrot what your masters have repeated to you. Rather than doing your own science and concluding with your own facts, you simply listen to the mainstream media and science outlets directly controlled by the Rothchilds.

How I hate your ilk with a passion.

Re:You Epitomze The Typical Brainwashed Slashdot U (1)

turgid (580780) | about a year ago | (#45182495)

The entire Human Created climate change theory was created, financed, pushed through science and the mainstream media through the Rothschilds.

The lizard people? David Icke [davidicke.com] , is that you?

Re:You Epitomze The Typical Brainwashed Slashdot U (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182995)

The Rothschilds? The 19th century called, they want their anti-Semitic conspiracy theories back...

Re:They didn't think this through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182913)

Iowa isn't just any state though. If they can do for global warming what they've done for corn subsidies, it would be a big help.

Damn tree huggers (3, Insightful)

yusing (216625) | about a year ago | (#45181993)

The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970, to " to create awareness for the Earth's environment and to encourage conservation efforts."

The phrase "Damn tree huggers" has been heard ever since. Yeah, even in Iowa. So, 40 years of deliberate ignorance and acrimony is coming home to roost? Tough grid.

Re:Damn tree huggers (4, Insightful)

pitchpipe (708843) | about a year ago | (#45182113)

So, 40 years of deliberate ignorance and acrimony is coming home to roost? Tough grid.

Shit. Not only do we see the promotion of ignorance and acrimony on the far right coming home to roost in the area of climate change, we see it in a general distrust of experts no matter the field. Look at the latest government financing 'crisis'. Most of those on the far right were in favor of a government default on the debt. They do not believe the consensus of economists that the results would be really bad. Also, look at vaccines, we're starting to see the results of all of the people who believe that somehow vaccines are harmful so they don't get their kids vaccinated.

The promotion of ignorance was a useful tool for some of the ruling class to promote their agenda, but now it's really starting to bite them in the ass. Unfortunately it's biting all of us in the ass.

Re:Damn tree huggers (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year ago | (#45182839)

It will not affect them, only their voters.

Our representatives live in an entirely separate world.

Re:Damn tree huggers (1)

JDAustin (468180) | about a year ago | (#45182227)

You ever think about why the founders of earth day choose Lenin's 100th birthday? Because Green is the new Red.

Re:Damn tree huggers (1)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year ago | (#45182549)

Nice one!

Re:Damn tree huggers (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about a year ago | (#45182777)

Are you saying this is all some complicated ploy by communists in their nefarious quest to redistribute wealth?

Hold On For Just One Minute Bubba... (4, Funny)

rueger (210566) | about a year ago | (#45182033)

Is it any coincidence that Iowa is like right next door to Nebraska [slashdot.org] , and that both of these stories involve so called "scientists"?

I smell a conspiracy to pollute our precious bodily fluids. Or communists. Or something.

And Isn't Area 51 almost also next door to Iowa? You never can be sure, since the government also makes all of the maps.

Re:Hold On For Just One Minute Bubba... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182411)

"And Isn't Area 51 almost also next door to Iowa? You never can be sure, since the government also makes all of the maps."

      Take a trip or at least read a map before posting you moron.

"Is it any coincidence that Iowa is like right next door to Nebraska [slashdot.org], and that both of these stories involve so called "scientists"?"

      As opposed to the rest of you "armchair scientists". Maybe we hard-working food producers should let you self-serving city(look at the population distribution) spawn starve.

Re:Hold On For Just One Minute Bubba... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182923)

I can't tell, are you trolling, have no sense of humor, or just stupid?

Re:Hold On For Just One Minute Bubba... (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | about a year ago | (#45182925)

Lighten up. It's obviously a joke. "Precious bodily fluids" is a reference to the Dr. Strangelove movie.

It's all OK though (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182047)

3D printing will rescue us all.

wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (3, Interesting)

Fubari (196373) | about a year ago | (#45182049)

This caught my eye 3 months ago: I was pleasantly surprised to see an article like this in the Wall Street Journal (which I had thought of as more of a mouthpiece for conservative oil interests and thus opposed to this sort of news):
excerpt:
U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North [wsj.com] "Warmer Climate, Hardier Seeds Help Crop Gain on Wheat, North Dakota's Staple

RUGBY, N.D.—Wheat has long dominated the windswept farm fields of the northern Great Plains. But increasingly, farmers here are switching to corn, reflecting how climate change, advancements in biotechnology and high corn prices are pushing the nation's Corn Belt northward.
...
The shift, which is occurring in northern Minnesota and Canada's Manitoba province as well, shows how warming temperatures and hardier seeds are enabling farmers to grow corn in areas once deemed inhospitable to the crop."

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182065)

But see, they're spinning climate change as being a positive thing (and, by omission, as not being man-made), so we can still ignore scientists when they say we have to stop polluting so much.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182107)

"But see, they're spinning climate change as being a positive thing..."

when life gives you lemons...
Cut CO2 to 0 and you still have to deal with change.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182151)

Cut CO2 to 0 and you still have to deal with change.

Don't be stupid. Cut carbon dioxide to zero and you've got two things:
1) no life exhaling it (animals)
2) no life inhaling it (plants).

Nobody's suggesting cutting it down that far.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

JDAustin (468180) | about a year ago | (#45182247)

But they are suggesting cutting down the carbon emissions per person to what the equivalent of 1850's level.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182295)

"They"? Uh huh.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about a year ago | (#45182373)

Great! I'll be able to go back to heating my house with a coal fire!

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (2)

dhanson865 (1134161) | about a year ago | (#45182383)

Cut man controlled mechanical CO2 emissions to 0 and it will cause no deaths

Cut C02 concentrations in the air to 0 and all hell breaks loose instantly.

So when someone says "Cut CO2 to 0" they are probably talking about some source of emissions or group of sources of emissions that excludes the CO2 required for living and produced by living.

Just like if someone says "cut off the heat" they don't mean bring the temperature to absolute zero. You don't have to think in such extremes just because a casual statement sounds like it might be asking for extreme measures.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182457)

Cut man controlled mechanical CO2 emissions to 0 and it will cause no deaths

That depends entirely on how it's done, doesn't it?

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#45182207)

But see, they're spinning climate change as being a positive thing (and, by omission, as not being man-made)

I don't see how that is spinning it as "not being man-made".

I also don't see how that is spinning it as a "positive thing"; rather, it is saying that we can adapt to climate change.

so we can still ignore scientists when they say we have to stop polluting so much.

Scientists can tell us what the consequences of our actions are, but they have no business making policy choices for the nation. That's something politicians and the people do as a whole.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (2)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182331)

1) By omission. Did you read? They call it "climate change" and omit any reference to how it's caused by pollution. That's part of WSJ's staying on the conservative message.

2) It's implicitly positive that we can grow corn further north now, i.e. over a larger area. Article omits how this implies we won't be able to grow it anymore in southerly regions.

3) Strawman, nobody's saying that scientists should be able to make policy decisions. We are saying that common fuckwits should pay attention to them despite how the fixes are going to be expensive and inconvenient, because ignoring them will be more expensive and even more inconvenient.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year ago | (#45182779)

1) By omission. Did you read? They call it "climate change" and omit any reference to how it's caused by pollution. That's part of WSJ's staying on the conservative message

Fact is that climate change has multiple sources, both man-made and natural. WSJ is correct, and you are attempting to "spin" things.

It's implicitly positive that we can grow corn further north now, i.e. over a larger area. Article omits how this implies we won't be able to grow it anymore in southerly regions.

No, it's not "implicitly positive", it's just a statement of fact. What bothers you is that this can, in fact, be rationally perceived as positive. Again, your spin and your biases.

Strawman, nobody's saying that scientists should be able to make policy decisions. We are saying that common fuckwits should pay attention to them despite how the fixes are going to be expensive and inconvenient, because ignoring them will be more expensive and even more inconvenient.

Except, of course, that scientists are not in a position to make that determination, economists are. And to most economists, your reasoning is bogus because future costs are strongly discounted when translated into the present, to the point that they basically don't matter.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

kanweg (771128) | about a year ago | (#45182407)

Iowa is in the US. In the US there is a filter for politicians. It only allows people to pass that deny evolution. So, the people in power lack spine, brains, critical thinking skills, ignore facts or have opinions without collecting facts; or any combination thereof. Rather bad bunch to make policy choices.

The public is informed even worse. They don't make these decisions for a living. So, they'll have less time to think things over. You don't want important decisions to be based on the average uninformed person. In communist China they had bunches of farmers decide what to do with people who knew stuff.

No need to put a lid on scientists voicing an expert opinion. At the very least it is a valuable contribution to a discussion.

Bert

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182475)

There is a difference between Americans and 'merkins. Only in certain areas will you see biblical literalists being elected to office.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year ago | (#45182091)

I'm not sure how many farmers in the midwest and southwest are going to be thrilled when the boon in the northern areas of North America are permanently coupled with decreases in arable land in their part of the world.

But being a Canadian, I think it's great news. The longer the pseudoskeptics funded by the Kochs keep folks blinded, the more likely in a hundred years or so Canada will own the US's ass because we'll be planting grain in the Northwest Territories.

Re:wsj: "U.S. Corn Belt Expands to North" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182861)

wsj is fairly unbiased.

the wsj commentators on the other hand....

The dust bowl never happened (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182083)

It's all propaganda made up to discredit climate science.

Climate Change is the new Witchcraft (0, Flamebait)

laing (303349) | about a year ago | (#45182111)

As recently as a few hundred years ago, farmers turned to witchcraft while seeking blame for similar problems. People haven't changed very much. Science and education have improved over the past few hundred years. Science and big government now fulfil part of the role the church did in those days. Overall there isn't much difference between what happened then and what is happening now. When do the human sacrifices begin?

See: How a Bad Rye Crop Might Have Caused the Salem Witch Trials [bonappetit.com] .

They can always grow (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year ago | (#45182189)

rice?

Does it matter? (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about a year ago | (#45182243)

No. There will be more food problems. Food prices will increase, so people in poorer countries will starve. Western world will not care, but just buy their food and say something about capitalism having it's way.

Climate will change and nature will adjust as it did for millions of years. The question is not if the "new" climate will be habitable. It will be. The question is if will fit in.

Don't Tell Anyone But Change is Already Here. (2, Insightful)

BoRegardless (721219) | about a year ago | (#45182285)

We have had a 50 meter rise in sea level in about 20,000 years. Does that give ANYONE a clue? Do you think any government could have stopped that?

Egypt was the most powerful nation on earth about 5000 years ago because of its fabulous growing regions. They are now desert caused by NATURAL climate change. Could any government reverse that change?

Based on lack of Sunspots of late, we may have an inordinately cold hard winter (climate change?) and some areas in the upper midwest already had 20,000 steers freeze to death. Climate change? Well, the same thing happened back in the 1960s, so was it climate change? Tell me when the next Maunder Minimum will occur? No solar scientist knows if or when. We still don't understand the long term variations of climate due to the variability of the Sun's output. Vary the sun up or down .01-.02% and the earth has large changes.

Scientists afraid of losing their job don't necessarily want to publish papers that go against the grain of politics. To do so may eliminate one's income.

There are damn good reasons to eliminate pollution where they occur, but the U.S. is not going to eliminate Asia's soot, carbon and heavy metals and chemical pollution. About 25% of the Los Angeles air pollution was noted in the paper recently to be from Asia/China. The US is NOT going to stop that by spending large sums in the US.

If we start spending massive sums before we really understand what is needed or even after, we may doom society to merely working for the government bureaucrats on a futile search for "stability" that can never be reached meaning we will all be serfs to an omnipresent government.

Re:Don't Tell Anyone But Change is Already Here. (1)

tp1024 (2409684) | about a year ago | (#45182397)

Not we didn't have a 50 meter rise in sea level in the last 20000 years. We had a sea level rise of roughy 150m in the last 20000 years. Permafrost soil thawed at rates that cannot be repeated these days, because there is so much less of it these days than during the iceage. Temperatures rose by several degrees, deserts didn't expand, there was much more fertile land on the globe that used to look like Siberia or Canada before the end of the ice age.

Of course, we all know that tundra and taiga have vastly preferable climate to any other climate zone. That's why people move there by the hundreds of millions.

Re:Don't Tell Anyone But Change is Already Here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182439)

Egypt was always a desert you fucking moron. Their large agricultural output came from annual Nile flood. In addition the desert protected them from invaders and let them develop civilization without constant threat of war. There are pre-dynastic mummies that are preserved precisely because they got buried 5000 years ago in the sand and it dried them out and preserved them. You really should learn archaeology from actual archaeologists not the oil industry. idiot.

Re:Don't Tell Anyone But Change is Already Here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182449)

Egypt was the most powerful nation on earth about 5000 years ago because of its fabulous growing regions.

And it would remain so provided people remained as they did 1000+ years ago. Please learn a little before talking bullshit.

Pointing out that you do not understand differences between 100 years and 100,000 years puts a cherry on top of your "knowledge".

New England foliage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182297)

Here in New England, I've noticed that the fall foliage season (October, so we're at peak right now) has been much less impressive than I've remembered in decades past. The leaves change color but they're mostly wilted, so you don't have an overall effect of brilliance. My guess is that global warming has a lot to do with it.

I guess the only objective measurement you could get would be on the statistics for "foliage tourists" travelling to New England from overseas.

Life In Alberta (2)

RichMan (8097) | about a year ago | (#45182305)

http://albertaventure.com/2013/06/albertas-farmers-adapt-to-climate-change/ [albertaventure.com]

“It’s jokingly been said by some people that we’ll eventually become the grape producers of America.”

The Good:
One of the ways this is measured is through the boundary for corn heat units, which measures where corn can be grown in the province. The northern boundary for these units has moved up a couple hundred kilometres since the 1910s, and it’s advanced about 50 kilometres since the 1940s.

The Bad:
His county was flooded four years ago, but he didn’t get any rain at all in July or August of 2012. “You can go from one wet year to extremely dry with no gradual buildup. Basically you just get hit with it and you have to survive it,” he says. “Nothing is consistent anymore. You think you have things figured out and then it throws a loop at you to say to you, ‘No, you don’t.’

Follow The Money:
agriculture-oriented investment funds have taken an increased interest in Canadian farmland?

It's much worse than you may think . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182317)

We are looking at a high probability of the complete extinction of our species, and that very soon . . . possibly within the next twenty years. There have been five major extinctions on our planet. Two of those extinctions appear to be from impacts, perhaps from asteroids, but three others appear to have followed a very different path; a climate change path very similar to the one that we are now upon. This sequence of events is described in an article by Peter Ward which was published in Scientific American in 2006 (http://www.chicagocleanpower.org/ward.pdf). In this scenario the oceans and atmosphere are contaminated with lethal levels of hydrogen sulfide gas that, at least in the case of the end-Permian extinction, killed from eighty to ninety-six percent of all species on land and in the sea.

        In a recent novel (Hubris Ark, William Bradford Cushman) the author argues that the timeline of these events is best understood by thinking in terms of the “hockey stick” shape of exponentially occurring events, and that we are now at the point in our climate change where the curve begins to rise very rapidly. In addition to Ward, the book also cites the work of Dr. Lee Kump who has modeled the H2S concentration of the end-Permian extinction --- a model which finds the atmosphere going from life-supporting to lethal between two data points just one hundred years apart.

        We have got to get the bribery that now runs our government stamped out, or these coin-operated idiots are going to get us all very dead. The IPCC predictions have proved to be about seventy years too optimistic so far. Which is to say that this problem is not going to wait for a fix nearly as long as those making oil profits keep saying.

Iowa (5, Insightful)

Tailhook (98486) | about a year ago | (#45182355)

Iowa agribusiness has been cultivating more land than ever due to high commodity prices. Between 2001 and 2011 [thegazette.com] Iowa went from under 1700 million bushels of corn to over to almost 2400 million, while soybean is nearly the same during that interval.

We did not become 40% more efficient at growing corn since 2000. That growth represents more land use; land that was considered marginal when commodity prices were low is now viable. Marginal means flood plain, land with poor drainage or limited access to water. What's actually happened here is that since the marginal land is now in the rotation, farmers incur higher risk of big losses during outlier years.

Two bad years after apparently 10 good years (at least) is not Climate. It's weather. And "Weather Is Not Climate." Or so I'm told whenever we get a cold spell.

Climate Change Is Damaging Iowa Agriculture? . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182361)

Iowa has 36 colleges and universities?

Meanwhile, down here in Missouri... (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | about a year ago | (#45182447)

I own about 500 acres that I rent out. Last year we had our best yielding soybean crop yet plus the prices were up there. I know we sold most of ours at about $15 a bushel last year and even booked a bunch this year @ $14 a bushel.

Rice yields last year were up, but not by a large amount. This year's rice looks to be a slight improvement over last year and the beans are still in the field, yet is the most consistent stand I've ever seen in 20 years on the farms.

The farm income and my work income are about the same and the farms earn more than my wife's salary and she's a corporate attorney at a Fortune 300 and makes decent money.

Re:Meanwhile, down here in Missouri... (1)

Nimey (114278) | about a year ago | (#45182887)

Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?

More crap science that decieves. (0)

hackus (159037) | about a year ago | (#45182557)

Has anyone noticed that they now describe Man Made Global warming, which nobody uses anymore to describe climate change based on man made contribution, or that is, to initiate a world wide carbon tax, is now generic Climate Change?

Which, nobody will argue that climate change happens, which is I think why they are starting to try and deceive people by suggesting historic climate change is the same as mane made climate change, which there is not one shred of evidence to support, and in fact is false.

We should have no winters by now, and extreme changes in climate when Al Gore and his crony investment banker buddies were setting up a Global Carbon Exchange to make billions.

Climate Change used as a term to masquerade as Man Made Global Warming is a gigantic scam.

-Hack

That's impossible (2)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#45182621)

155 scientists from 36 colleges and universities in Iowa

That would mean there are more scientists and universities in Iowa than there are in the country I currently live, which is one of the more civilized in Europe. Now I may have been sleeping for all those years, yet....

Simple explanation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182769)

Anything made of atoms (including gases) can change temperature. The gases/particles we have added to the atmosphere are slightly heated by Earth and then cool down. Some of this captured/lost heat returns back to Earth.

Nonsense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45182987)

Nonsense! Government subsidies are destroying Iowa agriculture. Last time I was there I saw a pro-subsidy billboard every mile. It's a religion to them. For a supposedly conservative state want a big and bloated DoA. What's wrong with the subsidies? Go fly over Iowa and look down. EVERYTHING is corn and soybeans. It's a monoculture from border to border, with a few isolated dots that might be hog barns. This is not healthy for the soil, it's not healthy for our diets, and it's not healthy for our economy.

In Other News - Least Extreme Weather in YEARS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45183001)

Dear Global Warming Alarmists:

Stick it in your ear please.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/new-study-2013-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-extreme-us-weather-years-ever-many-bad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>