This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
US Unveils "Climate Hubs" In War Against Climate Change
Just when you thought the "creativity" of this country's central planners couldn't get any greater, here comes the US Department of Agriculture with a brilliant plan to "mitigate the impact of a changing climate" - Climate Hubs. No really: Ag Sec Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. "Climate Hubs" will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. Why is this being announced? "Today's announcement is part of the President's Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment."
From the USDA
Secretary Vilsack Announces Regional Hubs to Help Agriculture, Forestry Mitigate the Impacts of a Changing Climate
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced today the creation of the first ever Regional Hubs for Risk Adaptation and Mitigation to Climate Change at seven locations around the country. "Climate Hubs" will address increasing risks such as fires, invasive pests, devastating floods, and crippling droughts on a regional basis, aiming to translate science and research into information to farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners on ways to adapt and adjust their resource management. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama pledged that his Administration will continue to do everything in its power to act on climate change. Today's announcement is part of the President's Climate Action Plan to responsibly cut carbon pollution, slow the effects of climate change and put America on track to a cleaner environment.
"For generations, America's farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges. Today, they face a new and more complex threat in the form of a changing and shifting climate, which impacts both our nation's forests and our farmers' bottom lines," said Vilsack. "USDA's Climate Hubs are part of our broad commitment to developing the next generation of climate solutions, so that our agricultural leaders have the modern technologies and tools they need to adapt and succeed in the face of a changing climate."
The Secretary first announced his intention to create the Hubs last summer. The Hubs will provide outreach and information to producers on ways to mitigate risks; public education about the risks climate change poses to agriculture, ranchlands and forests; regional climate risk and vulnerability assessments; and centers of climate forecast data and information. They will also link a broad network of partners participating in climate risk adaptation and mitigation, including universities; non-governmental organizations; federal agencies such as the Department of Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Native Nations and organizations; state departments of environment and agriculture; research centers; farm groups and more.
Across the country, farmers, ranchers and forest landowners are seeing an increase in risks to their operations due to fires, increases in invasive pests, droughts, and floods. For example, in the Midwest, growing seasons have lengthened by almost two weeks since 1950. The fire season is now 60 days longer than it was 30 years ago, and forests will become increasingly threatened by insect outbreaks, fire, drought and storms over the next 50 years. These events threaten our food supply and are costly for producers and rural economies. Drought alone was estimated to cost the U.S. $50 billion from 2011 to 2013. Such risks have implications not only for agricultural producers, but for all Americans.
The Hubs were chosen through a competitive process among USDA facilities. In addition to the seven Hubs, USDA is designating three Subsidiary Hubs ("Sub Hubs") that will function within the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest. The Sub Hubs will support the Hub within their region and focus on a narrow and unique set of issues relative to what will be going on in the rest of the Hub. The Southwest Sub Hub, located in Davis, California, will focus on specialty crops and Southwest forests, the Southeast Sub Hub will address issues important to the Caribbean, and the Midwest Sub Hub will address climate change and Lake State forests.
The following locations have been selected to serve as their region's center of climate change information and outreach to mitigate risks to the agricultural sector:
- Midwest: National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Agricultural Research Service, Ames, Iowa
- Sub-Hub in Houghton, Mich.
- Northeast: Northern Research Station, Forest Service, Durham, N.H.
- Southeast: Southern Research Station, Forest Service, Raleigh, N.C.
- Sub-Hub in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
- Northern Plains: National Resources Center, Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colo.
- Southern Plains: Grazinglands Research Lab, Agricultural Research Service, El Reno, Okla.
- Pacific Northwest: Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service, Corvallis, Ore.
- Southwest: Rangeland Management Unit/Jornada Experimental Range, Agricultural Research Service, Las Cruces, N.M.
- Sub-hub in Davis, Calif.
"This is the next step in USDA's decades of work alongside farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to keep up production in the face of challenges," Vilsack said. "If we are to be effective in managing the risks from a shifting climate, we'll need to ensure that our managers in the field and our stakeholders have the information they need to succeed. That's why we're bringing all of that information together on a regionally-appropriate basis."
The Climate Hubs will build on the capacity within USDA to deliver science-based knowledge and practical information to farmers, ranchers and forest landowners to support decision-making related to climate change across the country.
* * *
Once again, one is left speechless.
»
- 18733 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
-So true, and if there is climate change, lets see the data used and pertinent calculations and correlations. CO2 and Temp are no longer corelated since mid century (sorry al gore). Venus is undergoing severe climate change. National Geographic reported climate change on Mars was due to Solar events. Saturn climate is changing and the weather on Jupiter is so severely changed that one of it's stripes has disappeared. Could there be a common theme here ? Perhaps the SUN ?
Who the hell decided California should grow 75%+ of the produce.
That is one of the dumbest decisions in history. California historically was mostly desert. Diverting rivers and creating thousands of man made reservoirs turned California into an agricultural powerhouse, but at what cost.
You weren't meant to have green lawns and midwest shrubs in Arizona and Nevada, but somebody decided it would be a good idea. Let's plant tropical palm trees in the desert too. Run the Colorado river dry, who cares, the lawn in the desert is green.
Then these people complain about climate change and want the government to do something about it. What it really is people trying to deflect blame away from them for causing harm to the environment. If California has a drought, it is the fault of CO2, not turning the fucking desert into an oasis.
Good point. The re-distribution of millions of tonnes of water a year, and it's re-purposing, into evaporative agricultural loss, is a lot more likely to affect California than one extra molecule of c02 per ten thousand of other air molecules. I hadn't thought of this; although I have read about the grand water redistribution schemes that have been going on there for a century. I think I'll research this a little; it seems interesting. Re-distributing water and it's locale of evaporation on the scale it's done there, represents a enormous movement of heat from point one to point two; and a big, maybe huge, heat pump that isn't going in the direction we received it from nature. Very interesting.
Good point. The re-distribution of millions of tonnes of water a year, and it's re-purposing, into evaporative agricultural loss, is a lot more likely to affect California than one extra molecule of c02 per ten thousand of other air molecules. I hadn't thought of this; although I have read about the grand water redistribution schemes that have been going on there for a century. I think I'll research this a little; it seems interesting. Re-distributing water and it's locale of evaporation on the scale it's done there, represents a enormous movement of heat from point one to point two; and a big, maybe huge, heat pump that isn't going in the direction we received it from nature. Very interesting.
Thank goodness, the land and farm police are finally here with swat teams!
Who is this Barrack guy? Can this guy actually address something that is a real national problem? Why hasn't this assclown been run out of office yet. SMDH........... I guess its true that you get the government you deserve.
When are they going to start handing out uniforms ?
Time to take this Bolshevik down.
This isn't about weather. This is soviet regionalization, and it violates state & federal constitutions. If you don't protest the crooks will claim you consented, so get off your ass and tell your senators this will put them all out of work, permanently, and that they will be disposed of with the dissenters because dictators don't keep cheap turncoats around.
No, of course it's not about weather.
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/january/nasa-finds-2013-sustained-long-te...
But I guess NASA is wrong as well. As most climate scientists of course. I mean, what do they know?
There aren't very many climate scientists. there are a lot of people who play a climate scientist on TV. basically. What the actual climate scientists, the people who study the phsyical chemistry at the basis of the thesis know, is that it is very unlikely. As for the evidence; it's created by data picking. it was warmer, globally, in 900AD than it is now; what else do you really need to know? Oh, and yes, NASA, is wrong; as wrong as the day they launched the Challenger with an air temp. of 0 degrees C. and killed everyone on board. As wrong, shall, we say, as only a government funded burecracy can be wrong.
The climate scientists that are there agree that CC is happening and blame humans for it. A compilation of several hundreds of studies show only one dissenting opinion. And comparing climate science with a decision to launch a space shuttle back in the 80s has nothing to do with eachother. The decision to launch the shuttle was taken by managers, not scientists if there is any relevance anyway, which there is not. Climate skeptics organisations such as Heartland are funded by big oil. Who do you trust more? Scientists from academia with decades of study and research under their belt or skeptics funded by big oil?
Edit: one probable strategy by these hubs is that they are going to push for the planting of drought resistant GMO. Usually this is seed with drought resistant properties acquired through conventional breeding with added herbicide resistance via GM. Plus added BT toxins. The CC debate being high jacked by big biotech via the USDA.
Ah, the question which was asked was " Do you think there is climate change?". Of course 99% agreed.
The real question, which was NOT asked, was how much of this change has been caused by human activity.
Different answer.
Sorry, not much.
Hardly....
Do you practice making shit up or does it come naturally...
As for your "real question", the 97% concensus is exactly on that, we are responsible...
This is what was actually done
http://skepticalscience.com/how_97.html
you're that dumb that you're still parroting a false 97% claim?
if you have a problem with your gall bladder, are you going to go see a podiatrist, or a proctologist?
asshat.
They know what song brings in the money from the government.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/02/10/140210fa_fact_aviv?current...
Same story there as here. Only change "Syngenta" for your prefered oil company.
Hey, they gotta know where to put the FEMA camps....
This actually sounds like a great idea, badly needed, except for the obvious: the ones running the show can't be trusted to tell you if the sky is blue.
On the other hand when it comes to forecasting & adaptation, using nature's ways or the crack-newest in gene-splicing technology, Monsanto is behind farmers all the way, even scanning fields from the ground & satellite constantly. Since officially Monsanto isn't part of government (even though really, they are), I guess that means central controllers aren't needed for the benefit of farmers - so who else could this really benefit if done right? Not many.
Until urban planning is designed to minimize waste-heat & to control irrigation MUCH more cleverly, at the very least using grey-water systems for ALL toilets... meh. Why bother.
I see Agenda 21 is in full implementation. How much longer until have collective farms; PhDs, who got all of their farming knowledge from their ivory tower libraries, instructing 5th generation farmers on how to more effectively use their land.
This is definately Agenda 21 infrastructure being laid out.
abortion
global warming
bitcoin
stocks are cheap
BARBARA STREISAND!!
I wanna know how the Human population filling the atmosphere with CO2 is causing the Sun to drop the number of Solar Flares causing the earths termperatures to drop.
Earth's global temperature averages haven't dropped.
Hmmm, thats what every small farmer wants to hear, "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
Just spit pepsi all over my keyboard! it's ruined! I bet farmers and forest owners are tickled fucking pink to have climate change dipshits crawling up their asses to help them with their resources. lol. Too damn funny what these guys dream up.
it's not so much the climate change dipshits they have to worry about, rather the bureaucrat dipshits who enforce the letter of the law passed by the politician dipshits and written by the lawyer lobbyist dipshits which have absolutely no scientific relationship to the claims that the climate change dipshits bitched about in the first place.
Until all the volcano`s are capped and the geo engineering that has been going on since the sixties is stopped,the total solar system heating up explained.(I could go on for days)You Climate change extremist are fucked.
The Cult does not buy your pile of bullshit and neither do those polar bears that did not drown.
P.S....... And the real biggie,' Fuckyoushima' is a total crime against humanity and all living things on the entire planet. Maybe you could get a real education and stop that first. Then try to get me to buy your vomited spew.
Until then Up yours )(^^$%(&%79_+(&*=975
Here's a Fact for ya: Last 17 years, no change in global temperature despite gigatons of C02 added..
Many are caught up in the "projections" of models, which have failed against real life observations.
Big hint: Temperature change due to C02 is much less sensitive than modeled.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/plot/rss/from:199...
You are aware that the C02 effect is logarithmic. Did you plot the way you did to demonstrate that you have no idea what you are doing?
This is what I get for a trend here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
1979 to present Trend: 0.158 ±0.044 °C/decade (2 sigma)
1979-1997 Trend: 0.110 ±0.121 °C/decade (2 sigma)
So how the fuck did adding the last 17 years increase the trend value if the temperature has not changed as you claimed?
Righto, if you use the Satellite RSS data, which has no built in fudge factor, you get a trend of -0.010 ± 0.225 °C/decade.
Which is actually a cooling trend.
At any rate even a trend of 0.110 °C/decade works out to a whopping 1 °C/century.
BFD.
What interval are you fitting? And why would you not quote it:
By the calling your fit a cooling trend is quite a reach....
Fit RSS from 1979 to 1997
Trend: 0.071 ±0.170 °C/decade (2?)
Now fit RSS from 1979 to 2014 Trend: 0.125 ±0.069 °C/decade (2?)Do you see a problem with your hypothesis??? The trend has increased since 1997
Your blantant cherry pick doesn't stand up...
Let me make this a bit more clear:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1850/plot/rss/from:1850...
No doubt there has been a temperature increase, but in spite of the massive increase in C02, the global temp has shown a plateau from at least 1997 onward. How to explain this?
That is the big question, which even the IPCC admits. Their models have not been able to predict this. If there is added heat, where is it going? The oceans? Increased albido? Whatever. Is the Earth self regulating? These are major questions which need to be addressed before any cavalry rides out to save the day.
We have an extremely small amount of human collected temperature data available to analyze. Everything else has to estimated by proxies.
Like quantum physics, the closer you look , the more fuzzy the data is. Stepping back a bit, the perspective changes.
In the long term historical range, this current change is just a blip:
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/tempco2570mlefttoright.png
Stop with your Heartland Institute propaganda bullshit. Temps have NOT plateaud in 1997. We've been having the warmest years in history since 1998.
We need more research yes, and once the computer models have predicted everything with 100% accuracy, and when not a single question remains, and when we have all the data humans will ever be able to amass, then let's have a meeting to see what might be done. Meanwhile, business as usual. ok got it. The risks must be ignored because data is the all-important thing, and besides, everything is going so well now who would be the least bit interested in changing the status quo anyway? Can't see the forest for the trees, Answeris42, that is very clear to me. Your approach was growing old 25 years ago, "it don't hunt no more". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfE8wBReIxw
I just fit the data using an unbiased least squars estimator of the trend and you counter with saying it "shows a plateau".. Ok demonstrate with rigourous math and you may have a point, otherwise you are a clown begging the question...
If you were anything but a mendacious shill, you would be aware of the following work, and you would understand what it implies:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022
or a related work this more recent work by
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12534.html
What it all implies is climate crow hype:
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-temperature-evolution-1979-2010/
“In conclusion, the authors say that, regarding the global temperature of the past three decades there is “no indication of any slowdown or acceleration, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/hiatus-global-temperature-explained/
Some media reports say that the Kosaka & Xie paper has solved this great puzzle and that it is down to a region of the tropical pacific which, thanks to a natural cycle of warming and cooling called the Pacific Decadal oscillation, has been moderating the underlying upward trend in global temperatures due to greenhouse gas forcing.
Except that it isn’t a complete explanation but a possible factor. This is what some environmental journalists should realize. Very few single papers published represent a definite solution. Over-emphasizing individual papers is called “single paper syndrome.” There are other explanations for the pause that this paper does not replace; it rather sits alongside these other explanations uneasily.
The calculations by Kosaka & Xie do not include stratospheric water vapor, so taking it into account with the natural climate variability they find we have two natural factors that taken together have the possibility to account for about 80% of the 1980-1997 warming, or over 0.3 of the 0.4 deg C increase of the period. Let’s say there is 0.1 deg left (over 2 decades) into which greenhouse gas forcing and other natural climate variability must be included. That’s 0.05 deg C per decade.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
You see, there really is no consensus.
What it all implies is climate crow hype:
http://www.thegwpf.org/global-temperature-evolution-1979-2010/
“In conclusion, the authors say that, regarding the global temperature of the past three decades there is “no indication of any slowdown or acceleration, beyond the variability induced by these known natural factors.”
http://www.thegwpf.org/hiatus-global-temperature-explained/
Some media reports say that the Kosaka & Xie paper has solved this great puzzle and that it is down to a region of the tropical pacific which, thanks to a natural cycle of warming and cooling called the Pacific Decadal oscillation, has been moderating the underlying upward trend in global temperatures due to greenhouse gas forcing.
Except that it isn’t a complete explanation but a possible factor. This is what some environmental journalists should realize. Very few single papers published represent a definite solution. Over-emphasizing individual papers is called “single paper syndrome.” There are other explanations for the pause that this paper does not replace; it rather sits alongside these other explanations uneasily.
The calculations by Kosaka & Xie do not include stratospheric water vapor, so taking it into account with the natural climate variability they find we have two natural factors that taken together have the possibility to account for about 80% of the 1980-1997 warming, or over 0.3 of the 0.4 deg C increase of the period. Let’s say there is 0.1 deg left (over 2 decades) into which greenhouse gas forcing and other natural climate variability must be included. That’s 0.05 deg C per decade.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting...
1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
You see, there really is no consensus.
and you're sitting here counting on nobody reading this knowing that a 2 sigma confidence level is basically SHIT!!!!
For generations, America's farmers, ranchers and forest landowners have innovated and adapted to challenges. Today, they face... said Vilsack .
While I will endeavour to learn more about the USDA's "broad commitment to developing the next generation of climate solutions", I find it very difficult to equate 'today's farmers' with the farmers of many past generations, when today there is a dwindling number of "farmers", as in farm owners, compared to generations past. Put another way, if you substitute 'media outlet' for 'farmer', they are saying they are going to help the media outlets "adapt" to getting squeezed and owned by a handful of corporations.
The businesses that sell to farmers spend half their time thundering up farmer's laneways to sell their latest innovation. I don't imagine guys selling tractors needed a fedgov guy to come along to convince the farmer to turn their teams of horses into glue. Apparently modern farmers have even heard of that web thingy <sarc>. I went to a trade show a year ago, hadn't been for a few years, and was shocked to find it had morphed into more of a flea market than a farm show. One longtime vendor who was there told me the Big Guys don't bother anymore because their Big Guy customers, who do the bulk of the buying, expect 'the show' to come to them. And it does.
This SOTU type horse feathers! language from USDA is not meant for farmers consumption. I would say it's written for the MSM and USDA employees. Mostly, the F.I.RE sector that wants proof that taxpayer money is hard at work protecting their profits. Well whatever. I realize the USDA doesn't want panic to sweep the nation but when they look at the forecast they know climate change two, three, and four generations into the future means farming will be more radically different than today's scene is compared to distant past generations.
Bottom line? They are worried, more than they want to let on. Not unjustifiably so, but it has diddly to do with romanticized notions of generations of American 'family' farmers and everything to do with big business aka "national security" (think bailouts:farms to big to fail). If the USDA had any integrity they'd be sending a fucking 'hub' to Paris in 2015 to talk about industrial farming and climate change. Maybe they are, time to do some research...
Fendt Trisix Vario hubs! (mute sound recommended lol)
There are some references to the pseudo propaganda of 2 primary AGWers sites, Real Climate and Skeptical Science. If you want to find the real facts out go to icecap.us to cut through all the carbinista blunderbus.
The secret is density. If you look at the adiabatic atmospheric rates of the Venusian atmosphere vs Earths they are almost identical. When you get to the altitude point in the atmosphere of Venus where the pressure is at Earth’s, the mean temperature is almost the same. The primary warming element of earth is water. CO2 is far surpassed by convective forces and is too diluted to have any appreciative effect, even at 1% which it will never reach. A good perspective of this can be found at http://orwellsdreams.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/swedish-expert-says-co2-is...
“The average amount of water vapor is 30.000 ppm. So the consequence of that is that 95% or even up to 98% of the total greenhouse effect is water vapor while only 1% is CO2. Goldberg said even if human beings emit 100 ppm CO2, 98% of it will go into the ocean because of the chemical balance between the oceans and the atmosphere. The remaining 2 ppm will be added to the atmosphere which is negligible because there isn’t enough oil and gas in the world to generate enough CO2 to change the climate.”
“Goldberg explained that the ocean will absorb large amount of CO2. Once it is absorbed by the ocean, it will to some extent become calcium carbonate which is the same thing as limestone. Then the limestone will be building up at the bottom of the oceans. The whole island of Gotland which is the largest island in Sweden is formed of limestone. “It was built up at the bottom of the ocean because the ocean absorbed the CO2 and when saturated it formed limestone sediments at the bottom of the ocean. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has been shrinking continuously. A billion years ago, there was 80% CO2 in the atmosphere, now it is 0.038 %. It's been shrinking all the time, it is continuing because of the formations of limestone sediments in the oceans.”
“Goldberg said that solar activity has increased 3 times according to records from NASA earth observatory. This is something we can’t do anything about. “The activity of the sun shows the highest activity ever recorded in 2002.”
CO2 does not remain in solution in the ocean, it gets combined with calcium, via shellfish organisms, and ends up deposited on the ocean floor. These organisms need a slightly acidic ocean to do that. Eventually, if no more CO2 is admitted, the CO2 will be leached out of the atmosphere and deposited on the ocean floor and most carbon lifeforms will die.
Another fact the carbinistas omit is that most of the warming since the Little Ice Age occurred before the industrial period, not after. Warming claims are a farce by unscrupulous agents who have distorted the facts and data. Just do searches on archived subjects of temperature, ice and solar effects on the icecap,us archives for the last 3 years and you will learn the truth the carbinistas are trying to coverup or distort. And you will also find some good links to non politicized sites like NoTricksZone.com.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-obser...
This following graph shows the temperature of Hilo, Hawaii, the nearest station to Mauna Loa CO2 measuring station
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_5GH_GreenhouseGas_files/image01...
No correlation of temperature and CO2 increase!