I didn't get very far before I had to quit reading this drivel....
Maryland to Colorado is some commute for a second job.
Yes, and love is in the air.
OR after more than 100 years, nature favored plants that bloomed earlier.
One would hope a professor of biology would understand that many factors influence plant and animal behavior, and that there are short and long term cycles in plant and animal populations. And I would hope a person who claims to be a scientist would rigorously test their theories against reality.
How realistic is it to believe that a blueberry plant in Massachusetts reacts to a temperature at any other location than its immediate vicinity? Or perhaps at most the region that affects the pollinating insects it depends on. So if the blueberry plants at Walden pond are being affected by a change in temperature, the first question is what has changed in the micro-environment they live in?
The answer to that is probably related to the paved parking lot across the street, or maybe even the large cleared field with a solar power array right across route 126 from the pond.
Real data on blueberry maturation dates has been published by the Blue Hill Observatory, also in Massachusetts. That data shows how the maturation date varies widely on a year by year basis, and to the extent a correlation can be extracted reliably from that data, and the related temperature data, the rate of increase in temperature and the date of blueberry maturation aren't correlated.
As the Blue Hill Observatory data shows, the rate of temperature increase at the observatory is roughly the same since 1890 using the 30 year average. Blueberry maturation dates remained roughly the same through the 1970s, showing that rising temperatures don't necessarily even correlate with blueberry maturation dates. Of course, even deciding the date of blueberry maturation is likely to be hard to do accurately.
Looking at the Blue Hill Observatory data the greatest correlation is between the temperature change and the wind speed. Increasing temperature correlates to decreasing wind speed. That is the opposite of what climate change theory would predict, indicating that the wind speed change probably results from other factors. Like the change in forest cover in New England.
Of course we wouldn't expect a professor of biology to realize that the amount of forested land affects the plants and animals in an area would we?
It's a cycle.
PS: The sun is a variable star with a 0.1 percent variation every 70 years.
“These days, plants and animals are arriving at Rocky Mountain Biological Lab a week or two earlier than they were 30 years ago.”
Maybe the bus schedule has changed?
Globull Warming is here. It’s 95in Myrtle Beach today. Oh wait it’s f’ing June.
I’ve got a topographical map of Rhode Island and Narragansett Bay on my computer. Map was drawn in 1777 long before the industrial revolution, that started here. The salt water level in the bay hasn’t changed one inch in 241 years. When it does, I’ll start to worry.
Here's what that looks like:
In a couple of days it will be 30 years since Dr. James Hansen
famously testified before the U.S. Congress about Global Warming.
It has been a triumph of propaganda for these last three decades;
a lot of people actually believe that warmer weather, more rain,
longer growing seasons, and CO2 augmented agriculture constitute
a looming catastrophic disaster.