Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Aussie on New Video : “Cooling Or Warming?”
- Disillusioned on New Video : “Cooling Or Warming?”
- Jeffk on White Men Caused The Little Ice Age
- Disillusioned on Extreme Weather of 1976-1977
- Phil. on White Men Caused The Little Ice Age
Archives
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- January 2015
Email Subscribe
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Like Ike warned us, publicly funded scientists WILL TRY to change public opinion to assure their “research” funding streams keep coming in.
Even more obvious is how Iowa depends on corn ethanol crop yields, another conflict of interest when they warn about climate quackery.
Great one, Tony! Keep it up! The belief in credentialed experts is at an all time high. If there ever was a True Believer he had to have been a leftie.
Tony, I Love how you have the graphs in all your videos they are great visuals that show all your work!
I would love to use some of these in a presentation I’m doing, Are they yours, do you have the source if not? Can you limit your data set by state and/or Lat/Long?
My presentation will be semi local to NY, and north of N42 Lat? You can email me using the email I posted below if you would like.
Thanks for all the hard work
Hey Jk! You may want to download Tony’s software for analyzing the temperature record. He makes it open source and freely available.
https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-windows/
https://realclimatescience.com/unhiding-the-decline-for-linuxmac/
Although I am not interested in this topic I must admit you have a very smoothing voice Tony and are well spoken.
Andy
Tony, my hypothesis for the reason the Midwest has become more temperate over the past 125 years is due to man spreading water.
Hear me out.
We are seeing less extremes in temperature over time in the Midwest. The data you have presented on this site show this. We are seeing higher low temperatures and lower high temperatures. Thus temperate.
Why?
Because man is spreading water throughout the Midwest by irrigation.
Water evaporating during the day removes energy from the local atmosphere. It specifically removes 2256 kJ/kg of energy per unit mass of water. Evaporation is an endothermic process it removes energy (aka, heat). With more water in the Midwest due to man irrigating Midwest farmland more heat is removed during the day time hours thus we see lower high temperatures as the volume of water increases in the Midwest.
The opposite is true at night.
Condensation occurs. Condensation is an exothermic process. As water condenses it releases the same energy (aka, heat) as it took up in the evaporation process during the day. The release of heat due to condensation is leading to higher low temperatures.
This is what the temperature data is showing.
There is a correlation with CO2 but CO2 is not causing the more temperate Midwest. That correlation (as CO2 increases Midwest temperature range decreases) is simply accidental and totally disproves global warming theory if you try to apply a CO2/temperature correlation.
A much more plausible explanation for the more temperate Midwest is due to water and what I just previously explained. It’s the same reason coastal cities and island nations are, well, temperate.
Keep doing the great work Tony. Much appreciated.
Cheers.
Hi Ryan,
Those are very interesting observations. I thought you might get something out of this:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=irrigation
A list of articles and authors who are proposing similar ideas.
Thanks for the link. I’ll check those articles out this weekend.
I would like to amend my initial post and clarify that this hypothesis (obviously not original given the link you provided) also includes evaporation of water from non-irrigated farmland. Simply, the addition of more vegetation and photosynthesis will increase the evaporation rate during the day from near surface water that would not normally evaporate if the farmland were not present. Also the increase of CO2 concentration (to healthier levels mind you) over time has added to more vigorous plant growth which increases photosynthesis during the daylight hours and increases evaporation (cooling the local high temps).
The point is, ironically the increased CO2 ppm potentially has more of a cooling effect (LOL) because it increases plant growth which leads to increased day time evaporation and cooling.
Water’s ability to absorb energy during evaporation and release energy during condensation far outstrips any effect of CO2’s ability to absorb radiation in the infrared spectrum. CO2 doesn’t even go though a phase change in our atmosphere like water. Water is the great capacitor.
I worked in one of the few irrigated fields in the Midwest, and it was actually warmer than the surrounding land. Only 6% of farmland in the US is irrigated. Cultivated crop fields get hotter than natural fields and forests.
You can literally drive for days across the Midwest and not see a singe irrigated field. The Midwest receives enough regular rain that farmers do not need to irrigate.
It is interesting to note that historical land use changes have also affected the climate of the Southeast. In Georgia, for example, around 1900 there were large areas of bare ground associated with cotton fields and other crops. By the late 1900s, most of Georgia (over 70 percent) had reverted to pine and deciduous forests once cotton was no longer farmed due to the boll weevil (beetle which feeds on cotton buds and flowers) and soil degradation. Some climatologists think that the slight cooling of the Southeast over the 1900s may have been due in part to the higher evapotranspiration and cooler conditions associated with forests compared to bare ground in cropland.
https://climate.ncsu.edu/edu/Vegetation
I’m not sure where you were driving for days across the “Midwest” and didn’t see any irrigation, but being from Kansas, I can tell you that vast portions of Western Kansas and Nebraska use center pivot irrigation systems. This is why the Ogallala aquifer was nearly pumped dry. Here’s a satellite picture from near Garden City, KS. Those green circles aren’t made by aliens :-)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/23356223@N00/3355517584/
I driven and flown across the Midwest many times. It is hard to see the irrigation driving. But I have, from St. Louis to Denver – right next to the highway. However, one must know what they are looking at.
Flying? Heck, the crop circles are much easier seen. They are everywhere. I don’t mean the alien type, either.
I lived in the middle of the Midwest for decades, and even worked on farms while in college. Yes, in the far west reaches of the Midwest you can see irrigation, because you are entering a more arid region of the country. But from southern Missouri to the Canadian border and from eastern Ohio to the far western fringes, there is no need for irrigation.
Roughly 56 million acres—or 7.6 percent of all U.S. cropland and pastureland—were irrigated in 2012. Nearly three-quarters of irrigated acres are in the 17 western-most contiguous States (referred to as the Western States hereafter).
Until you have spent as much time living among these fields as I have, and until you parse the numbers as I have, you have no idea how little land is actually irrigated in the Midwest.
So no, irrigation has not changed the climate of the Midwest in any measurable way.