Browse By

On Again Off Again Spring Is Wrecking American Farms & Gardens

It’s bitter cold again in the Northeast United States, after it was unseasonably warm, after it was bitter cold, after it was unseasonably warm, after it was bitter cold, after it was unseasonably warm.

This year’s rapidly fluctuating weather is causing severe horticultural and agricultural damage, as plants that have opened up tender buds during unusual mid-winter heat then have those buds freeze when temperatures return to normal chill for a few days. This cycle has repeated itself several times already, and many plants will be unable to recover from the damage.

One year with such a weather pattern would be regarded as a freak incident, but this isn’t the first year in recent times that it’s happened. Instead, it seems that unusual mid-winter warmth is causing early bud break in the northern United States once every two or three years. That’s not a change in weather. It’s a change in climate, and the erratic shifts are causing billions of dollars of damage to the economy.

With a Republican federal government that refuses even to acknowledge the reality of the climate crisis, there is no relief in sight.

6 thoughts on “On Again Off Again Spring Is Wrecking American Farms & Gardens”

  1. Al Hopfmann says:

    I think that we easily lose perspective about weather. For as long as I can remember (many decades), the weather where I leave in the Northeast has been quite variable and very difficult to predict reliably. Many people get all uptight or excited when a new low or high temperature is recorded for a particular day. But, do the approximate, simplified math. There are 365 days per year, so if only one new high or new low is recorded on any particular day, that would reflect one chance in 365. IF we had accurate temperature recording for the last 365 years (doubtful), you might expect each year now to have about one new high temp. and one new low temp. If reliable recording history is shorter, more would be expected. Project from there, and try to keep new “record temperatures” in perspective. Also, be cautious when trying to conclude from temperature trends of relatively short terms. Weather is always relatively random, and climate is always changing. Be cautious in conclusions.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Okay, Mr. Hopfmann, did you read the article? It cites a change in normal weather patterns over a number of years, not “relatively short terms”.

      Let’s not rely on your subjective, partial memories. Let’s look at the data. What data do you have to show that winters in the northeast are not warming?

      I’ll provide you with some data, if you don’t have any. Let’s consider the most northeasterly of the northeastern states: Maine.

      Here’s what that data shows: http://irregulartimes.com/2017/03/10/data-in-maine-mirror-national-and-global-data-showing-warming-climate/

      Thanks to Green Man for pointing us to this scientific information.

    2. Jim Cook says:

      You know, Al, you really should go look at NASA’s climate data. It provides all the answers to the questions that you have.

      1. Al Hopfmann says:

        Some NASA and NOAA climatologists dispute the veracity of the data to which you refer. One even assured me that much of it has been faked or not recorded in a scientifically honest way. I don’t know what the truth is. I would just like to see some honest scientific reporting done, instead of reporting what fits the political agenda and ignoring anything that questions it. I am really one of the scientifically inquisitive people who is in the middle on this issue and am interested in the real truth, not the truth as either Obama or Trump professes.
        BTW, do you have any comments on the writings of Paul Ehrlich?

        1. J Clifford says:

          Some? Some? How many is “some”?

          Who are they? Do you know any of their names?

          Where can we find these disputations you claim they make?

          One even assured you that much of data has been faked. Really? Who?

          Name names.

          Irregular Times has provided data.

          All you provide is an assertion that somebody once talked to you.

          You want honest scientific reporting? Why don’t you start with honestly reporting the truth about your claim?

          Put up or shut up, Mr. Hopfmann.

          1. Al Hopfmann says:

            Your barrage of questions reminds me of the technique used by prosecutors to harass witnesses who are questioned under oath while the prosecutors themselves are able to lie with misleading questions based on false presumptions and distortions. In the climatology debate, the biggest lie of all is the absurd assertion that “over 97% of all climate scientists agree…”. Until individuals get past that propaganda and seek the truth objectively it is ridiculous to validate their status as legitimate debaters.
            In brief summary:
            1. It is still debatable whether or not temperatures are trending up on Earth during significant time periods.
            2. It more certain that temperatures are trending up on Mars recently.
            3. If temperatures are indeed trending up on Earth recently, then point #2 automatically casts serious doubt on the theory that increasing temperatures here are caused by mankind.
            4. Coniferous trees and termites put more hydrocarbons into the atmosphere that all human activities do.
            5. Decaying vegetation (leaves, etc) put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all human activities do. And don’t forget volcanoes and other subsurface gaseous emissions.
            6. The energy from the sun is astoundingly enormous and slight variation with time can have huge effects, even 93 million miles away.
            My current conclusion is that debaters on the extreme edges of either position in the climate debate are not being very objective and should be more open-minded like those of us in the middle.

            “Peace out”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!