Creeping Closer to a Killing June Frost

The Chatham Daily News has more details, bur consider this:

Mother Nature’s icy grip on area farm crops and backyard plants and gardens over the weekend has resulted in a huge financial loss across Chatham-Kent and southwestern Ontario

This marks the second consecutive year that killing frost has had a major negative impact on the municipality’s multi-million dollar agricultural industry.

A sure sign of a next grand minimum little ice age is a June killing frost in the Northern Hemisphere breadbaskets according to my friend George, a dedicated systems thinker. We are getting closer and closer. Stay Tuned!

Advertisements

Author: Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

9 thoughts on “Creeping Closer to a Killing June Frost”

  1. Measurements by the German Meterological Service shows that winter temperatures have dropped on an average by around two degrees over the last quarter of a century.

    Hartmut Graßl says climate skepticism is primarily “charlatanism.” He stressed that most skeptics are laypersons and hard to find in serious scientific circles and communities.

  2. Russ,
    Did you happen to see this posting over at the Hockey Schtick? http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/05/new-paper-finds-another-non-hockey_28.html The primary point of the posting was to show that the current warm spell is not that different from the warm spells a millennium ago. Another concern from these papers should be how quickly the temperature averages go from warm to cool. If I am reading the graph in the posting correctly, the temperature anomaly in the late 13th century went from half a degree C positive to 3 tenths of a degree C negative is about 50 years. At the height of the little ice age, the temperature anomaly was only half a degree C negative. It’s not clear from the posting how the temperature reconstructions were done but from what I’ve seen, temperature reconstructions that go back a thousand years have resolutions that are a decade at best. Consider last spring that most people considered was quite warm. There was a late season frost at the end of April that destroyed much of the buds on fruit bearing trees in northeastern Ohio and parts of southwestern Ontario. It really begs the question, is there any way to determine the intra seasonal temperature variations going back before the instrumental record? It also make you wonder if there is data mining that needs to be done with the instrumental record that looks at large intra-seasonal temperature swings, particularly in the spring and fall? The insights may come from the daily temperature ranges rather than the averages or deviation from averages that most people look at.

  3. Ever wonder why the Spanish did not go into the United States? I read on another site a history of weather events back to 0AD. There were some Spanish explorers in what is now the USA. There logs showed a cold and foreboding place with snow and ice on the ground 6-9 months of the year at the latitude that grapes were grown in Europe.

    1. That’s fascinating, I never heard that before. My father’s side went from Spain to Mexico around 1585. How early is this presumed to have taken place?

      1. Hi Goldminer,

        It was in the 1520s you can download the entire history at breadandbutterscience.com.

  4. It seems a bit strange voting for a grand minimum, but if it helps break the CAGW misconceptions then I say bring it on, as I would rather take my chances with nature than with those who believe that they have the right answer for everyone’s well being.

    1. It’s not about voting. We don’t have a say, we can only adapt to what mother nature send our way. Some of thing like more efficiently using the energy we have makes sense no matter what the global temperature does but other things, like turning food or forests into renewable fuels will make even less sense in a cooler future than they do now.

      1. I fully agree with striving for efficiency with our energy usage. Adaptation is how we have made it this far. Whether hot, cold, dry, or wet human kind has mostly found a way to deal with the changes, or when all else fails they moved. Moving is not an easy option anymore. If the world enters a strong cold phase, then there could be significant complications rising between the needs of different populations.

  5. If you believe that planetary surface temperatures are all to do with radiative forcing rather than non-radiative heat transfers, then you are implicitly agreeing with IPCC authors (and Dr Roy Spencer) that a column of air in the troposphere would have been isothermal but for the assumed greenhouse effect. You are believing this because you are believing the 19th century simplification of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which said heat only transfers from hot to cold – a “law” which is indeed true for all radiation, but only strictly true in a horizontal plane for non-radiative heat transfer by conduction.
    The Second Law of Thermodynamics in its modern form explains a process in which thermodynamic equilibrium “spontaneously evolves” and that thermodynamic equilibrium will be the state of greatest accessible entropy.
    Now, thermodynamic equilibrium is not just about temperature, which is determined by the mean kinetic energy of molecules, and nothing else. Pressure, for example, does not control temperature. Thermodynamic equilibrium is a state in which total accessible energy (including potential energy) is homogeneous, because if it were not homogeneous, then work could be done and so entropy could still increase.
    When such a state of thermodynamic equilibrium evolves in a vertical plane in any solid, liquid or gas, molecules at the top of a column will have more gravitational potential energy (PE), and so they must have less kinetic energy (KE), and so a lower temperature, than molecules at the bottom of the column. This state evolves spontaneously as molecules interchange PE and KE in free flight between collisions, and then share the adjusted KE during the next collision.
    This postulate was put forward by the brilliant physicist Loschmidt in the 19th century, but has been swept under the carpet by those advocating that radiative forcing is necessary to explain the observed surface temperatures. Radiative forcing could never explain the mean temperature of the Venus surface, or that at the base of the troposphere of Uranus – or that at the surface of Earth.
    The gravitationally induced temperature gradient in every planetary troposphere is fully sufficient to explain all planetary surface temperatures. All the weak attempts to disprove it, such as a thought experiment with a wire outside a cylinder of gas, are flawed, simply because they neglect the temperature gradient in the wire itself, or other similar oversights.
    The gravity effect is a reality and the dispute is not an acceptable disagreement.
    The issue is easy to resolve with a straight forward, correct understanding of the implications of the spontaneous process described in statements of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
    Hence radiative forcing is not what causes the warming, and so carbon dioxide has nothing to do with what is just natural climate change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s