In article HFZqc.33886$bS1.6212@okepread02,
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
.. .
On 5/15/04 3:54 AM, in article bVkpc.28314$bS1.4040@okepread02, "Gordon
Couger" wrote:

Bulls would need less hormones to gain than steers as well. That is a big
bone of contention between the US and the EU. I hope the rising prices will
go high enough to put an end to protectionism by all players. It would be
nice for agriculture to be really profitable for a while. At current
consumption with just a bit of help from the weather we may be able to keep
from producing surpluses for good while. I don't think we can count on as
good weather for crops as we had the last half the last century. That was
and exceptionally warm wet period of time for a lot of the world.

I remember the last time things were looking up for farming. The Freedom
to Farm Act was passed. The world economy was good and it looked like the
end of government subsidies for awhile. That didn't turn out too well. I
think it was the Japanese economy that tanked and the ripple effect put US
farmers back on the government teat.

All our lives farming has had the ability to produce more than we could
consume. The time many be coming that that may no longer true and the
countries that are poor in terms of farm land will have money to pay for
food. That will make farming an very nice business if it happens. Evan nicer
if nature gives use a hand. We are due one from her too.

A lot of that depends on what the climate does. Where I have farm I am
trying to develop irrigation to assure that whoever farm the place can make
a crop. It doesn't return a great deal more on investment than dry land
farming but the investment is so much higher that it is well worth it and it
not a boom or bust deal but a much more even stream of income.

I don't pretend to know what the limit will do in relation to the farms I
own over the next 25 year but loosing crops to dry weather is a sure bet
even if I take the best 25 years out of the last 200 and I don't expect to
do that well.

I have built a number of models and anyone trying to model climate and
extrapolate their forecasts beyond the end points of their data set is
blowing wind your skirt with thier predictions and I have more confidence in
picking a year at random from the last 15 years and using it than any model
I have seen. At least it will produce climate data that aggress with the
observed climate when you run it on the last 100 years several hundred
times. Something I challenge other models to do.

A fairly serious problem with a model based on past weather is that,
if we assume climate is changing, then the basis of the model is
largely irrelevant. Mind you, that mightn't matter so much in terms
of "averages" in the short term future, but when it comes to
predicting extremes (e.g. "100-year events" etc.) all bets are off.


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

A fairly serious problem with a model based on past weather is that,
if we assume climate is changing, then the basis of the model is
largely irrelevant. Mind you, that mightn't matter so much in terms
of "averages" in the short term future, but when it comes to
predicting extremes (e.g. "100-year events" etc.) all bets are off.


Cheers, Phred.

Phred, I'm not sure that is true. example: If a climate change is driven by
increased sea surface temperature, and SST is related to air temperature,
then the basic physics and physical relationships could remain unchanged.
If a pool of 35 C water were to occur off Oz, todays models should be valid
for those conditions/

"Phred" wrote in message
...
In article HFZqc.33886$bS1.6212@okepread02,
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
.. .
On 5/15/04 3:54 AM, in article bVkpc.28314$bS1.4040@okepread02, "Gordon
Couger" wrote:

Bulls would need less hormones to gain than steers as well. That is a
big
bone of contention between the US and the EU. I hope the rising
prices will
go high enough to put an end to protectionism by all players. It
would be
nice for agriculture to be really profitable for a while. At current
consumption with just a bit of help from the weather we may be able
to keep
from producing surpluses for good while. I don't think we can count
on as
good weather for crops as we had the last half the last century. That
was
and exceptionally warm wet period of time for a lot of the world.

I remember the last time things were looking up for farming. The
Freedom
to Farm Act was passed. The world economy was good and it looked like
the
end of government subsidies for awhile. That didn't turn out too well.
I
think it was the Japanese economy that tanked and the ripple effect put
US
farmers back on the government teat.

All our lives farming has had the ability to produce more than we could
consume. The time many be coming that that may no longer true and the
countries that are poor in terms of farm land will have money to pay for
food. That will make farming an very nice business if it happens. Evan
nicer
if nature gives use a hand. We are due one from her too.

A lot of that depends on what the climate does. Where I have farm I am
trying to develop irrigation to assure that whoever farm the place can
make
a crop. It doesn't return a great deal more on investment than dry land
farming but the investment is so much higher that it is well worth it and
it
not a boom or bust deal but a much more even stream of income.

I don't pretend to know what the limit will do in relation to the farms I
own over the next 25 year but loosing crops to dry weather is a sure bet
even if I take the best 25 years out of the last 200 and I don't expect
to
do that well.

I have built a number of models and anyone trying to model climate and
extrapolate their forecasts beyond the end points of their data set is
blowing wind your skirt with thier predictions and I have more confidence
in
picking a year at random from the last 15 years and using it than any
model
I have seen. At least it will produce climate data that aggress with the
observed climate when you run it on the last 100 years several hundred
times. Something I challenge other models to do.

A fairly serious problem with a model based on past weather is that,
if we assume climate is changing, then the basis of the model is
largely irrelevant. Mind you, that mightn't matter so much in terms
of "averages" in the short term future, but when it comes to
predicting extremes (e.g. "100-year events" etc.) all bets are off.

Having been involved in 4 100 year events in my 60 years of life I question
the system of clasifiction.

Gordon

In article H69rc.35326$bS1.7614@okepread02,
"Gordon Couger" wrote:

"Phred" wrote in message
...
In article HFZqc.33886$bS1.6212@okepread02,
"Gordon Couger" wrote:
"Dean Hoffman" wrote in message
.. .
On 5/15/04 3:54 AM, in article bVkpc.28314$bS1.4040@okepread02, "Gordon
Couger" wrote:

Bulls would need less hormones to gain than steers as well. That is a big
bone of contention between the US and the EU. I hope the rising prices will
go high enough to put an end to protectionism by all players. It would be
nice for agriculture to be really profitable for a while. At current
consumption with just a bit of help from the weather we may be able to keep
from producing surpluses for good while. I don't think we can count on as
good weather for crops as we had the last half the last century. That was
and exceptionally warm wet period of time for a lot of the world.

I remember the last time things were looking up for farming. The Freedom
to Farm Act was passed. The world economy was good and it looked like the
end of government subsidies for awhile. That didn't turn out too well.
I think it was the Japanese economy that tanked and the ripple effect put
US farmers back on the government teat.

All our lives farming has had the ability to produce more than we could
consume. The time many be coming that that may no longer true and the
countries that are poor in terms of farm land will have money to pay for
food. That will make farming an very nice business if it happens. Evan nicer
if nature gives use a hand. We are due one from her too.

A lot of that depends on what the climate does. Where I have farm I am
trying to develop irrigation to assure that whoever farm the place can make
a crop. It doesn't return a great deal more on investment than dry land
farming but the investment is so much higher that it is well worth it and it
not a boom or bust deal but a much more even stream of income.

I don't pretend to know what the limit will do in relation to the farms I
own over the next 25 year but loosing crops to dry weather is a sure bet
even if I take the best 25 years out of the last 200 and I don't expect to
do that well.

I have built a number of models and anyone trying to model climate and
extrapolate their forecasts beyond the end points of their data set is
blowing wind your skirt with thier predictions and I have more confidence in
picking a year at random from the last 15 years and using it than any model
I have seen. At least it will produce climate data that aggress with the
observed climate when you run it on the last 100 years several hundred
times. Something I challenge other models to do.

A fairly serious problem with a model based on past weather is that,
if we assume climate is changing, then the basis of the model is
largely irrelevant. Mind you, that mightn't matter so much in terms
of "averages" in the short term future, but when it comes to
predicting extremes (e.g. "100-year events" etc.) all bets are off.

Having been involved in 4 100 year events in my 60 years of life I question
the system of clasifiction.

Thank you for that observation, Gordon. Proves my point nicely.

Mind you, in slightly longer experience, I can't claim the same;
though in the past decade the local creek has achieved three of its
highest five or six floods in nearly 100 years of records. (But it's
not only climate that may have changed fairly dramatically in this
catchment. No doubt farming and urbanisation have also taken a toll.)


Cheers, Phred.

--
LID

"Phred" wrote in message
...
Mind you, in slightly longer experience, I can't claim the same;
though in the past decade the local creek has achieved three of its
highest five or six floods in nearly 100 years of records. (But it's
not only climate that may have changed fairly dramatically in this
catchment. No doubt farming and urbanisation have also taken a toll.)

yes in the UK we have seen a lot of flooding events due to unwise building
on the flood plain etc altering catchments. As this is all overseen by the
planning authorities it isn't really a good advert for the planning system

Jim Webster

On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:55 GMT, (Phred)
wrote:
In article H69rc.35326$bS1.7614@okepread02,
"Gordon Couger" wrote:

"Phred" wrote in message
...
..
A fairly serious problem with a model based on past weather is that,
if we assume climate is changing, then the basis of the model is
largely irrelevant. Mind you, that mightn't matter so much in terms
of "averages" in the short term future, but when it comes to
predicting extremes (e.g. "100-year events" etc.) all bets are off.

Having been involved in 4 100 year events in my 60 years of life I question
the system of clasifiction.

Thank you for that observation, Gordon. Proves my point nicely.

I think 'prove' is a tad strong, Phred, but assuming Gordon's
observation is correct, it would seem to indicate some climate
change. A back of the envelope calculation gives me that the
probability of four or more 100 year events within 60 years is only
about 1 %. However, before jumping to conclusion we'd better ask:
what is Gordon's event-type and can he show us the data?

Phred writes

Thank you for that observation, Gordon. Proves my point nicely.

sniff

But you didn't make any comment on my efforts on energy balance of
ethanol from maize and canola for motive power.

sniff

Don't know why I bothered ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.

BTOPENWORLD address about to cease. DEMON address no longer in use.
Use (whitelist check on first posting)

From: "Torsten Brinch"
: On Fri, 21 May 2004 13:31:55 GMT, (Phred)
: wrote:
: In article H69rc.35326$bS1.7614@okepread02,
: "Gordon Couger" wrote:
:
: "Phred" wrote in message
: ...
: ..
: A fairly serious problem with a model based on past weather is that,
: if we assume climate is changing, then the basis of the model is
: largely irrelevant. Mind you, that mightn't matter so much in terms
: of "averages" in the short term future, but when it comes to
: predicting extremes (e.g. "100-year events" etc.) all bets are off.
:
: Having been involved in 4 100 year events in my 60 years of life I
question
: the system of clasifiction.
:
: Thank you for that observation, Gordon. Proves my point nicely.
:
: I think 'prove' is a tad strong, Phred, but assuming Gordon's
: observation is correct, it would seem to indicate some climate
: change. A back of the envelope calculation gives me that the
: probability of four or more 100 year events within 60 years is only
: about 1 %. However, before jumping to conclusion we'd better ask:
: what is Gordon's event-type and can he show us the data?
:
They were all 8 inches of rain fall in 24 hours on the same watershed. One
was 7 inches in an hour and 12 inch in 12 hours that I got caught out in
driving for the one hour it rained 7 inches. I forgot to include the 500
year flood that two of the rains 10 day apart caused.

I don't think it is climate change. I think that there are not enough
scientist in the areas that these kinds of rain fall events happen. I can
see old trash lines from long ago flood that are higher then anything recent
that show these are not new just not noticed or reported. They happen when
the jet stream is bringing water from the south west causing a rare monsoon
condition and a stalled cold front sets up slow moving thunder storms. The
thunder storms are no larger then they were 50 years ago when we had one
blow out in the stratosphere and cause it to be cloudy for over a week. We
have not hat that happen since.

Predicting thunder storms is not a very exact science. I act as one of the
net controls for tornado watches and take the late night shift and in the
very short term T storms are fairly predictable but on a year in advance
basis they are not predicable at all. The last year was the longest Oklahoma
has ever gone without a tornado and it had been forecast to be an active
year.

In the flood cropping practices have a large effect on the floods. We have
no urbanization problems. If a large percentage of the land in the water
shed is in cotton the flooding is substantially worse. With the change to no
till that will be reduced a good deal but cotton will still be worse than
wheat, corn, alfalfa or grass. But no till cotton will be better than
conventionally tilled corn or wheat after harvest and tillage.

"Oz" wrote in message
...
Phred writes

Thank you for that observation, Gordon. Proves my point nicely.

sniff

But you didn't make any comment on my efforts on energy balance of
ethanol from maize and canola for motive power.

sniff

Don't know why I bothered ....


I don't think that using farm crops for motive power has a place in and
energy plan in a world that is using more grain than it can produce already.
Inefficiently using food to make fuel when fuel is at an all time low price
is senseless.

Gordon

I think there might be a problem when you assume a 100 year return is
actually a 1 00 year return


I think 'prove' is a tad strong, Phred, but assuming Gordon's
observation is correct, it would seem to indicate some climate
change. A back of the envelope calculation gives me that the
probability of four or more 100 year events within 60 years is only
about 1 %. However, before jumping to conclusion we'd better ask:
what is Gordon's event-type and can he show us the data?