Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[DaveSunRa]

Yes, I agree that there was no reference to data. What stuck me was the possibility that policies being made by governments might not have any real effect to halting climate change. I was also impressed by the list of list of signatories. So basically my question is: would preventing co emission by conservation have a positive effect towards global warming trend at this point of the game?

 

[dr_wu002]

Yes, I agree that there was no reference to data. What stuck me was the possibility that policies being made by governments might not have any real effect to halting climate change. I was also impressed by the list of list of signatories. So basically my question is: would preventing co emission by conservation have a positive effect towards global warming trend at this point of the game?

Without going into it (my last post was deleted), for my own personal feeling, several of the signers are 'suspect' or in my opinion, have "other motivations" for publishing something like this. That's my personal opinion. I guess it somewhat depends on your opinion of the signers as to how much weight you'll be willing to give the letter. But anyway, the assumption the letter is making is that climate change is purely natural which is futile to try and prevent (they also make a claim that scientists also say that it could turn into a cooling trend as well). To me, this would only be true if it turns out that global warming was not a man-made phenomena. So it comes down to, do you believe or not believe what they're saying in this letter.

The point is, I think the letter could/should be taken as a prompt to look deeper into the issue (the UN Secretary General, the populace, you, me, whoever) into what scientists are saying on both sides of the coin. I wouldn't advocate using this letter as a basis for a reasoned opinion because it doesn't contain hard facts and/or citations.

Another problem that I have is that it kind of glosses over the consequences that a warming cycle, man-made or not, will have. They say "adapt" but that seems rather convenient to me. Treating the symptoms is not one of my favorite therapies if you have not truly exhausted an investigation the possible causes. The letter makes me think that they're saying, "it's not true, don't bother looking it any further... adapt instead" seems disingenuous to me.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Puck]

Understanding that we have been admonished to keep it science based, however there is a lot more in play with the issue so that the science is hard to see. The primary base of the "skeptics" is coming from "experts' with a financed bias and thier sole purpose is to confuse the issue. Why did this article run in a paper and not a peer reviewed journal? So be skeptical yourself...on both sides of the argument.

 

[Chip]

So basically my question is: would preventing co emission by conservation have a positive effect towards global warming trend at this point of the game?

Hoo Daddy ! Isn't that the Trillion Dollar question ? Or are you trying to get us in trouble here ?

Your source for the letter has their own agenda (hint; they're not an Al Gore fan.);
"Signed by more than 100 specialists from around the world - many are leading figures in their fields, from climate science to economics to biology - the letter begins with the obvious: "It is not possible to stop climate change." "

I don't think anything is ever obvious. That's part of the problem.

 

[forestgnome]

Well, I should know better by now to stay out of these threads. Via PM, I have been red-sqared and insulted for being "selfish" because I like the warmer weather. Emotionalism and ignorance leads to intolerance.

As I stated, that's because I think it's natural. If NE is noticeably warmer while the whole planet has only warmed by a half degree over a century, then the local warming has to be natural, and it has to be colder elsewhere.

If I thought it was unnatural, then I would not be happy about it. I will not try to convince emotional, juvenile minds of my love of nature. My life revolves around the forest more than anyone on this bb.

If this is what I get for sharing my sincere thoughts with the high-minded, then I'm no longer interested.

 

[TCD]

It's amazing this thread has evaded the moderators axe for so many pages! I've been following the debate for a long time. I have a reasonable science background, and part of my job is to review whether data supports conclusions.

There is so much uncertainty and political manipulation on this topic, that it's hard to be sure what's really up, but here's what I think:

The world is getting warmer: certain.

The warming is human caused: much less certain.

The warming is in excess of historical patterns: even less certain.

Now, given that, I still think we should reduce our use of fossil fuels. That's because fossil fuels pollute, they cause geopolitical turmoil, and they are important chemical precursors, so it's a shame to be burning them.

I also think that market forces will not make this happen. Oil will be cheaper than solar, etc., right up until the day the oil runs out. The change to other energy sources needs to be government driven.

But in the meantime, we should carpool to our hikes, and moderate our thermostats.

 

[Pig Pen]

There is one good thing about predicting dire weather disasters fifty years from now. You never have to admit you're wrong.

 

[rocket21]

As I stated, that's because I think it's natural. If NE is noticeably warmer while the whole planet has only warmed by a half degree over a century, then the local warming has to be natural, and it has to be colder elsewhere.

Great point.

Here's an interesting link in regard to where some temperature readings come from. I'm not saying these are used in temperature change analysis, but some could very well be:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

 

[Peakbagr]

"I have been red-sqared and insulted for being "selfish" because I like the warmer weather."
I'm sure the moderators would like to see the these.

I was involved early in the thread and cautioned one over the top posters to cut out the intemperate language. I've been out of town since then. Unfortunately, we can't watch everything and at the same time, there's the eternal hope that our members remember the rules of the board and act like adults.
When the moderators step in at a time some feel is too soon, we get knocked for censorship. When we wait out a discussion, then we hear complaints that we've waited too long, here and in PMs.

Dave and I gotta ask Darren for a raise.

 

[Stan]

Dave and I gotta ask Darren for a raise.

Money can't buy the value you all add to the Board. Thanks.

I'm with forestgnome at least once a month when I get my heating bill.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to keep politics out of such a discussion because it has been so politicized, much like homeland security, that it seems impossible to have an intelligent and constructive discussion because the battle lines have been drawn firmly.

Personally, I believe, on the basis of some signficiant experience in energy conservation, that much more can be accomplished in the short term through conservation than through heavily subsidized but marginally economic attempts to create an industry in solar and wind, at least in some parts of the country. Well, government handouts have always had an appeal and now is no different.

 

[NewHampshire]

It's amazing this thread has evaded the moderators axe for so many pages! I've been following the debate for a long time. I have a reasonable science background, and part of my job is to review whether data supports conclusions.

There is so much uncertainty and political manipulation on this topic, that it's hard to be sure what's really up, but here's what I think:

The world is getting warmer: certain.

The warming is human caused: much less certain.

The warming is in excess of historical patterns: even less certain.

Now, given that, I still think we should reduce our use of fossil fuels. That's because fossil fuels pollute, they cause geopolitical turmoil, and they are important chemical precursors, so it's a shame to be burning them.

I also think that market forces will not make this happen. Oil will be cheaper than solar, etc., right up until the day the oil runs out. The change to other energy sources needs to be government driven.

But in the meantime, we should carpool to our hikes, and moderate our thermostats.

This is a VERY good post. I have been reading Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Everything" which is basically a "laymans" history of science. One OVERWHELMING trend that is being pushed through is that despite everyone thinking science is some kind of magical cheat sheet into the world and universe, the real fact is that what we know for sure is that we know little. A couple examples are:

The theory that the dinosaurs perished in a mass extiction was denonced by paleontologists as a crackpot idea and denounced it even though a geologist found the "smoking gun" (resentful feelings played a part in this too, but thats not the point.)

Vulcanologists will be the first to tell you that while its their job to study volcanoes they know little about predicting when they will blow and what really makes them act the way they do. We know more about star systems trillions of light years away than we do whats going on below the surface of our own earth.

What this all means is that these "expert" scientists really can't be any more sure that global warming is human caused over natural warming. Add to the fact that our window of observation is so small (remember, humanity is merely nothing but a speed bump so far in the timeline of the earth) so how do we know the earth does not cycle through ever increasing temperate periods before reverting back to cooling trends.....no one can be certain.

Does this mean I endorse doing nothing? No. But my reasons are more political based than earth based. Oil/fossil fuels have been responsible for more problems in our history than a help. And putting aside the co2 issue fossil fuels have a nasty habit of wreaking havoc on places when containment is lost (i.e. Alaska/Exxon Valdez, etc.).

I have always maintained the position that humanity is pathetically short sighted (MODERATOR DELETION) and we have a rather poor problem of seeing into the future. Folks can claim that climatology and meteorology are unfair to comapre between, but seriously we can't overlook that the earth is so unpredictable that a weather person can't forecast weather with 100%, so why should we believe a climatologist can predict future trends any better when the farther into the future one tries to look the ever increasingly unpredictable things get?

Brian

 

[Mattl]

Im not sure warming will be the big deal everyone remembers..I think its causing much more extreme winters on the side of cold and warm and much larger storms. -Mattl

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I would be interested in opinions from people who are more knowledgeable then I from this open letter from the Secretary-General of the UN.

Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations dated Dec, 13th 2007

Thanks for posting this link, as I have been remiss in chasing down THE LETTER for the past month [TO, not FROM, the Secretary General of the UN].

This link to the National Post, Canada's most conservative newspaper, which has published a long-running series of op-ed pieces by GW skeptics, also can be used to obtain the list of 100 signers to THE LETTER (funny how that number was a round 100?). Also surprising to me was that most of the signers are or were research scientists (other well known anti-GW campaigns are signed primarily by M.D.s). However, many signers are emeritus (i.e., retired from academics) and no longer practicing scientists, and a few that I know personally are publishing simply bad science (yes, some poor papers get through peer review).

I will stick with the 2600+ climate scientists who authored and reviewed the IPCC reports, including the most recent fourth assessment, despite the hachet job of their work in THE LETTER, and the climate scientists who write for the RealClimate.Org blog; see for example, Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf's excellent recent article that I think clearly elucidates the differences between short-term (weather) trends and longer-term (climate) trends:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nd-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/#more-523

And, I will continue to read and study peer-reviewed science journals, as opposed to the National Post.

Thanks for keeping this thread alive, moderators, and the discussion civil, all.

 

[David Metsky]

Dave and I gotta ask Darren for a raise.

You didn't get yours at the New Year? Oops, sorry, maybe I wasn't supposed to say that.

 

[Grayjay]

The scientists are right about what should be done to slow down climate change. And the bickering will go on as Greenland melts and polar bears starve and drown.

 

[Chip]

Ironically this thread illustrates my main concern regarding the Global Warming Argument/Discussion perfectly;
We've solved nothing, answered nothing, upset members (I'm sure there are members reading this who feel so strongly about the issue that their heads are about to explode) AND we all would have done more good for the environment if we had turned off our computers a week ago and went outside to pick up garbage.

 

[forestgnome]

OK, I'll try again.

NE is noticeably warmer lately, much more than a fraction of a half degree.

The cries go out "save our seasons from GW!!!"

GW theory claims a half degree over the past century. Only a fraction of that half degree could have happened during the recent decades when this terrible noticeable warming occurred.

It is not a fraction of a half degree that has alarmed so many people, because a fraction of a half degree is imperceptible, and does not result in less snow. Therefore, it's natural.

The GW advocates on this bb know exactly what I'm saying but ignore it. They will do nothing to dampen any flames of alarm, even when they know it's so obviously wrong.

Another ignored point is the mercury poisoning of groundwater by CFLs. This is already happening because millions have already been sold and there is no plan for their disposal. They have been touted and promoted by GW advocates, yet disposal has not been facilitated. There is no concern for the mercury poisoning that obviously will be happening.

Why would anyone who is concerned with the environment advocate billions of CFLs without first covering the obvious problem with disposal. This is large-scale environmental abuse. I am disgusted CFL advocates. Mercury is extremely deadly to million of organisms.

Before CFLs, environmentalists advocated getting rid of mercury thermometers. Now, CFLs are in vogue, so they just look the other way. Thermometers last for decades, and there was only one or two per household. CFLs will be used and discarded by the billions and the "environmentalists" have done nothing about disposal.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

OK, I'll try again.

NE is noticeably warmer lately, much more than a fraction of a half degree.

The cries go out "save our seasons from GW!!!"

GW theory claims a half degree over the past century. Only a fraction of that half degree could have happened during the recent decades when this terrible noticeable warming occurred.

It is not a fraction of a half degree that has alarmed so many people, because a fraction of a half degree is imperceptible, and does not result in less snow. Therefore, it's natural.

The GW advocates on this bb know exactly what I'm saying but ignore it. They will do nothing to dampen any flames of alarm, even when they know it's so obviously wrong.

Another ignored point is the mercury poisoning of groundwater by CFLs. This is already happening because millions have already been sold and there is no plan for their disposal. They have been touted and promoted by GW advocates, yet disposal has not been facilitated. There is no concern for the mercury poisoning that obviously will be happening.

Why would anyone who is concerned with the environment advocate billions of CFLs without first covering the obvious problem with disposal. This is large-scale environmental abuse. I am disgusted CFL advocates. Mercury is extremely deadly to million of organisms.

Before CFLs, environmentalists advocated getting rid of mercury thermometers. Now, CFLs are in vogue, so they just look the other way. Thermometers last for decades, and there was only one or two per household. CFLs will be used and discarded by the billions and the "environmentalists" have done nothing about disposal.

Actually, I do not "know exactly what [you] are saying," as much as I try. The latest NASA land-sea U.S. and global temperature reconstructions, corrected for the many abnormalities in station locations, etc., etc., indicate about 1.0 degree C (1.8 degree F) increase since about 1880, with about half of that amount since about 1980. And, I disagree that this change is imperceptible, as it appears to be one of the fastest RATES of temperature change, up or down, in Earth history. Hence, we are witnessing the probable demise of permanent Arctic Ocean sea ice for the first time in almost a million years and other Earth responses to this temperature change. Whether or not one accepts GHG's as the cause of this temperature rise or not, reduction of GHG's can certainly mitigate at least some of this warming.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

The arguments pro and con about CFL's are certainly worthy of debate, and the counter argument to excess release of mercury from improper handling or disposal of CFL's is that probably more mercury is released into the atmosphere by burning the equivalent amount of coal to light incandescent bulbs. Perhaps in time LED technology will save us from this dilemma.

 

[rocket21]

Here's one of my issues with this whole thing - at this point in time, and for the foreseeable future, there is no such thing as a global temperature. Heck, there is no actual town-wide temperature reading anywhere in the US.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Ok, good point, sorry, global AVERAGE temperature....