Have you read the US National Climate Assessment report?

Question

Well okay, maybe not but I'm sure you've heard about it since it's been splashed across the corporate news networks the past two days. And it ain't good. For example:

"Deadly Heat Waves, Flooding Rains, Crop Failures Among Climate Change Plagues Already Afflicting Americans" http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deadly-heat-waves-flooding-rains-crop-failures-among-climate-change-plagues-already-afflicting-americans/

I had to look at the data:

Hurricanes: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/gw_hurricanes/fig33.jpg
Tornadoes: http://www.ustornadoes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/violent_tornado_days_by_year.gif
Heat waves: http://sarcozona.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/hwindex.jpg
Corn and wheat yields: http://sustainablog.org/files/2009/08/cornwheat1.jpg
Floods/drought: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/sotc/drought/2014/03/Reg120_wet-dry_bar01000314.gif

The above data simply does not match the content of this report. If you ask me, it looks like the 30s in the US was the worst time for extreme weather.

Has anyone got any different data that supports the main themes of this report?

Answer 1

I went on the site to try and it must have been made by the same idiots who created the Obamacare website. It wasn't very user friendly. It would give like a sentence and prompt you to another. It seemed to be meant for 6 year olds and probably was. It was pure propaganda IMO....well like all good propaganda, it had a sprinkling of facts but it was a very sparse sprinkling in this case.



Thanks for the chuckle Raisin

Answer 2

Here's the HWI through 2012:



http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/indicator_figures/high-low-temp-figure1-2013.gif



Now I suppose you could argue that nothing has changed and there is no evidence that the trend in HWI is up over the last couple of decades. But you would be an idiot for doing so because the trend is pretty clear, unless you are being paid to say there is no trend.



Here are violent tornado days just for Kansas over the same period as your original figure:



http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/ict/wxstory/2010/ADK_TOR%20STATS/Annual%20KS%20Tor%20Days.png



and again there is a clear increase over the last couple of decades. And here is all tornado days over the entire US:



http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lsx/torcli/Annual_All_Tornadoes_Days.gif



where again there is an increase over the past couple of decades. So what is happening, I suspect, is by averaging over the entire US you are missing regional differences in tornado trends, and in locations where there are *lots* of tornados, there are more, and stronger tornados over the last several decades.



So, what were you saying? Oh yeah, something about how you have no clue how to analyze data. Call the home office, tell them you are tired of this crap and need better analysis so you don't look like a fool.



edit: I forgot one. Here are wheat yields through 2013:



http://ksugrains.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/us-wheat-sd-frcst-my2013-14-yield-january-16-2013.jpg



Here are wheat and barley yields in the UK:



http://www.ecifm.rdg.ac.uk/postwa13.gif



where the flattening out of yield is shown to persist over at least a decade. The interesting thing, is if you are a climate skeptic looking at temperature and were shown this plot, you would say there had been no increase in wheat yields in almost a decade. Clearly, the increase in wheat production is decreasing, regardless of whether you think the trend is zero or not, so to argue that there is no evidence of the impact of climate change on food production is ridiculous.



Please, for all our sakes, get the hell out of the way. Go back to your bunker, suck your thumb, fondle your shotgun for comfort, and let the adults try to solve the problem. It's probably hopeless, but you will feel better if you give up now since it's only going to get worse for you from here on in.

Answer 3

The US National Climate Assessment Report is pure propaganda. Obama is on a mission.



gcnp58 is demonstrating his data analysis skills. Let's ignore for the moment that the US is not the world. The production figures from the USDA show that production is down from the 1980s. They say:



"U.S. wheat harvested area has dropped off nearly 30 million acres, or nearly one-third, from its peak in 1981 because of declining returns compared with other crops and changes in government programs that allow farmers more planting flexibility."



If we look at bushels per acre you can see that the rise in yield has been inexorable - in spite of climate change.

Answer 4

Data to support the report? Why would you need data? You must be one of those sick conservative types who want "data" and "statistical analysis". Your type makes me sick. You don't understand true science. True science is about a group of scientists working with politicians to coe up with a policy and an ideal to improve our world. It about consensus. If the scientists say it is true, it is true, because we are lowly pond-scum who are too stupid. And it is sikcos like yourself who likely drive a car, when you should walk 20 miles to get to work, that are causing problems, while our leaders who fly around in private jets are trying to save us. Now go bang your head against the AGW wall of enlightenment, until you see the error in your ways.



And another thing. Obama promised transparency. That is exactly what he delivered. The data backing these claims are so transparent, they're invisible. What more do you want?



Edit:

Listen to GNCP.



You need to look at a small portion of the US, like Kansas, when dealing with tornadoes, while you need to ignore the US winter and look at the entire world. It would have all made perfect sense if you would ahve banged your head on the wall like I told you.



Furhter you don't look at the occurrences of violent tornadoes., you look at the number of days of tornadoes. And you don't look at the number of hurricanes, you look at the violent hurricanes. DUHH!



And crop yields are not increasing as fast as we think they should which clearly means that we are all going to starve to death because of AGW.



And OMG, C is right. You need to show all of the data like C did. Ummm like C was going to do. Umm. STOP QUESTIONING!!!!

Answer 5

Hmm this smacks of Ferdinan Marcos and his proclamation of martial law in the Philippines in 1972.

Is Obama going to declare AGW law and abolish the constitution, looks that way.

Answer 6

It would be useless. If Podesta had anything to do with it, it is totally garbage.

Answer 7

OMike interesting your heatwave graph stops in 08 and much of the drought concern is for primarily 2010-2014



OMike interesting your heatwave graph stops in 08 and much of the drought concern is for primarily 2010-2014



Tornadoes have actually been dow for the last 2 years but 2012 had a serious tornadoe season in the US



Western % wet dry area unfortunately won't show that in 2013 48 contiguous states had severe drought



Again stopping short for corn and wheat yields stopping at 2010



These graphs are harly a complete picture of anything current

Answer 8

maybe not herd about