North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

["Stephen Sadler" <Docshiva@Docshiva.org>]

I did check with the NSIDC, as you suggested.  Among other things, they cite shrinking and vanishing glaciers as evidence of global climate change. A quote from them: “These photographs constitute an important historical record, as well as a data collection of interest to those studying the response of glaciers to climate change. NSIDC is partnering with the NOAA Climate Database Modernization Program (CDMP).”

 

The NOAA and CDMP have thousands of papers detailing the empirical bases that definitively support a finding of human-influenced global climate change.  The NSIDC is just one of their many sources.  I find no evidence at all at NSIDC to contradict climate change.  I find no evidence anywhere.  There remains 100% agreement of all published studies. 

 

As far as “They only used data from 2 years 1950 and 1999"and “taken out of context,” have you reviewed the context?  If I were conducting a peer review I would certainly do that.  Baldocchi and Wong’s 2008 report (Climatic Change (2008) 87 (Suppl 1):S153–S166 DOI 10.1007/s10584-007-9367-8" examines California Central Valley winter chill hours utilizing the California Climate Archive and NWS coop database, using hour-by-hour measurements where available.  It clearly demonstrates that the numbers used by Leudeling et.al. are entirely in context. 

 

I think the problem is a popular misconception that climate change means the globe will warm everywhere all at once.  A citation of your interpretation of one chart at one conference and your report of a report of one area were chill hours may have increased are certainly out of context when compared with all verifiable studies - which, again, are in 100% agreement about climate change and the role of humans in it.

 

Although global temperature means will continue to rise, some areas will see cold trends and record low temperatures.  That part of the model does not contradict the overall model; the earth is large with many climactic influences having different effects.  One region of one state growing colder over a few years does not change the annual global mean temperature.  And no, they don’t just ‘take the temperature’ once a year - this is based on constant readings and observations.

 

You say that because “science” can’t predict tomorrow’s weather with more than 90% accuracy, we shouldn’t trust the long-term projections in this study.  This study does not purport to predict day-by-day weather, but, rather, predictable trends.  Trend analysis is easier.  I can’t tell you if I’m going to sneeze in the next 5 minutes, but I can predict that I will still have the cold over that time that I’ve had for the past few days.  I can’t tell you tomorrow’s exact high temperature, but trend analysis allows me to safely predict that in this part of the northern hemisphere January is likely to be colder than August; not with 100% certainty, but the trend suggests that pattern will continue. Given the simplicity of that prediction, imagine how easy it is to see winter chill hours trends?  There may be some models that would see a break in that trend due to severe disruptions caused by our ongoing global climate change.  The one shortcoming of models so far is having failed to appreciate how rapidly climate change would have occurred, (although some models were spot on)  and has since occurred. 

 

You needn’t believe in climate change, or evolution, or that astrology has no basis in fact.  You may believe what you want.  Your belief simply won’t alter reality, although your behavior can.  Even the most adamant denier might still do well to accept Pascal’s wager: Act as though climate change is occurring.  If it is, you’re doing the right thing, If it isn’t, conservation will do you no harm - in fact, it would lower your cost of living while preserving resources.

 

~ Stephen Sadler, Ph.D.

 

From: nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Richard Harrison
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 6:28 AM
To: North American Fruit Explorers
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] California’s tree crops are screwed, says new report

 

mIEKAL a ND,

      I read the report you cited as well as your article. Personally I wouldn't take too much stock in the conclusions for several reasons:

     1. The data and methodology used appears quite flawed. They only used data from 2 years 1950 and 1999. This is statistically VERY unsound. A reliable method to determine average chill hours is calculated on a number of years averaged together---rather than 2 years "taken out of context".  Recently, I attended a fruit meeting inwhich the speaker supported the global warming theory, but showed the most recent USDA zone chart---which indicated an INCREASE in the average chill hours received. It is based on a 10 year average. Also, his chill hour chart for Alabama showed an INCREASE in chill hours recorded in the last 10 years over the previous 10.

The other big flaw in this elite report is that the "experts" used several models to predict the chill hours for the next 100 years.  Science can't even predict with reasonable accuracy if its going to rain tomorow! So, why put ANY stock into a report predicting the "weathe a hundred years from now?

      Also, remember GW is a theory, not a fact. If you care to look at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, you can find plenty of evidence to refute the theory of Global Warming itself.

      The methods used by the authors of this report is VERY questionable at the very least.

                                                             Richard Harrison, NW FL

IF chill hours WERE decreasing, California(and Florida) has many low-chill varieties of fruit trees that they have developed and are developing more all the time.  Changing to them would be a theoretical solution--IF chill were decreasing.