Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Tuco]

Today I can't believe with any degree of certainty the 72 hour local weather forecast. How am I to believe on a global scale what the weather will be 100 years from now?

I have always wondered this. Can we really understand the impact over a few hundred years of climate change in the grander scope of the amount of time the earth has been around?

And based on Chaos Theory, could a tiny change in the future send the average temps back in the other direction? Butterfly flapping its wings in the wrong/right spot? Maybe changes by our behavior, who knows. But I bet there have been many drastic hanges in temps over the times of man in which man could not have had the ability to effect the change or didn't understand that he could (too busy learning how to build fire).

brain going dormant again.....zzzz

 

[Puck]

I'm old enough to remember in the mid '70's both Time and Newsweek magazines ran front cover feature articles on "Global Cooling". The environmentally conscious of that day where predicting the coming of the next Ice Age. It was a major theme of the early Earth Day events.:

This topic has been thrown out by skeptics to refute Clobal Warming. It is a very valid point. Check out the real climate link above. Also http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

Those headlines probably sold magazines however what what being discussed in the journals was a different matter. Like Dr Wu said it is hard to get good scientific coverage in the press.

Today I can't believe with any degree of certainty the 72 hour local weather forecast. How am I to believe on a global scale what the weather will be 100 years from now?

I'm just glad that past global warming(s) melted that pesky mile thick sheet of ice that once covered the NE451.

Please heed the words of DR Dasypodidae. There is a difference between meterology and climatolgy.


I understand you are happy that the glaciers are gone from New England but don't you miss the mamoths?

 

[gaiagirl]

We may all be glad the glaciers are gone from New England, but I am a bit more focused on what will be gone 50 years from now --- best guess would be maple trees, reliably snowy winters, and large portions of Cape Cod. Humans have effected and are effecting climate in ways that disturb me. And the ways that we are doing it have other negative ramifications, ie species loss, human disease and suffering, habitat destruction, and on and on. I for one am not "waiting to see". I have no kids of my own, but I am willing to give up luxuries, do without certain things, cut back on my energy consumption, and help others understand why it's the right thing to do for a million different reasons in order that my friends' and neighbors' great-grandchildren inherit an Earth that is not vastly more imperiled than the one I was born into.

 

[Chip]

I thought the only debate left was if the climate change was caused by man?

bob

I'm all for reducing fossil fuel use and our dependence on foreign oil. I'd like to reduce, reuse, recycle and bathe in the glow of solar and wind produced electricity as much as anyone. The Global Warming issue, sadly and unfortunately, has been politicized, creating the reason threads like this usually get shut down pretty quickly.

I'd like comments on the Vostok Ice Core data presented here. Unless this info is seriously flawed, we are in an Inter Glacial period currently, as has happened about every 100,000 years for, at least, the past half million. I believe it's info like this that people like Rush Limbaugh are referring to when they declare "Global Warming" a hoax.

I wish everyone would drop the Global Warming "argument" and just concentrate on the level of impact we've had on the environment, in general, in the last 200 years. The level of impact we've had on the warming can be debated, to death, if the Ice Core data is correct. The fact that it's substantially warming now than it was 50,000 years ago (or 150 or 250,000 years ago) appears obvious, as is the fact that we're dumping millions of tons of cr@p into the environment.

 

[rocket21]

I think we (Americans, not we as in forum users per se) are wasting our time trying to debate global warming. It really comes down to personal choice in the meantime.

For instance, when I hear bellyaching about gas prices, I can't help but laugh - it's going to take high gas prices, driven by the market, to get some people to produce and buy more efficient vehicles. I like driving stick, for instance, but seeing that Toyota's automatics are getting a mile or two more per gallon than sticks, that in part will likely lead me to buy an automatic next vehicle. I also don't need the lights on at night when I'm watching television and/or on my computer - hence, I don't turn them on unless I'm reading or have some other use that requires more light than the screens produce. I do like KFC and McDonalds and at this point am not willing to cut those out of my diet in order to curb pollution. Again, personal choice and freedom.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Interesting article re: climate in the Northeast:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080112...r_winters_1;_ylt=AtBv2bcFM5LGIzI4sEEOtEUE1vAI

I don't know if it will persist, but there is a video link on that news item to a story about a couple that survived an unexpected night in the woods and ended up calling 9-1-1 for help.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

This topic has been thrown out by skeptics to refute Clobal Warming. It is a very valid point. Check out the real climate link above. Also http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

......and the last sentence of this article about the cooler temperatures in the 1950s and 1960s being a climate myth reads "According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity (see Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind)." Indeed, Stephen Schneider and the rest of us have learned a lot about climate in the past 30 years. One idea to explain the transition from cooling (caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere) to warming (allowing greenhouse gases to take over) beginning in the 1970s was the Clean Air Act, which obviously was a good thing healthwise.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I'd like comments on the Vostok Ice Core data presented here. Unless this info is seriously flawed, we are in an Inter Glacial period currently, as has happened about every 100,000 years for, at least, the past half million. I believe it's info like this that people like Rush Limbaugh are referring to when they declare "Global Warming" a hoax.

Wikipedia is getting better and better, but there are much new Antarctic ice core data available since this entry was made. I feared that you were going to take the GW skeptics view that global temperature slightly leads CO2 levels, which they appear to do in Antarctic ice core data. This apparent contradiction to the GW doctrine led Al Gore to refer to the relationship between CO2 and global temperature as "complex," which it is. The main take-away point from paleoclimate scientists is that CO2 is primarily a "feedback" effect, such that as oceans warm up (the southern oceans in particular), even more CO2 is released to the atmosphere. One big question is whether our current Holocene interglacial epoch will become a "super-interglacial" epoch with a 6-m higher global sea level, which has happened at least once in the past half million years. More alarming, and perhaps a warning, is that we have not seen an Arctic Ocean free of permanent sea ice in almost a million years, and it appears that our modeling predictions for rates of disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic were far too conservative. An ice-free Arctic Ocean will cause another major climate feedback effect because water is almost on order of magnitude less reflective of incoming radiation than white sea ice. Moreover, the modeling results of some glaciologists for a possible collapse of the Greeland Ice Sheet, not included in the recent IPPC reports, could have been equally too conservative.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

......and the last sentence of this article about the cooler temperatures in the 1950s and 1960s being a climate myth reads "According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity (see Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind)." Indeed, Stephen Schneider and the rest of us have learned a lot about climate in the past 30 years. One idea to explain the transition from cooling (caused by particulate matter in the atmosphere) to warming (allowing greenhouse gases to take over) beginning in the 1970s was the Clean Air Act, which obviously was a good thing healthwise.

On particulate matter and warming - I watched a fascinating (and alarming) show on TV about a month ago (might have been Nova) which dealt with examing the relationship, if any, of increased particulate matter and whether it caused either warming, cooling, or no impact at all. What scientists are concluding is that high particulate matter keeps the atmosphere cooler by several degrees. This means that humankind has to balance the reduction of particular matter (especially in countries like India and China due to the size) in order not to accelerate global warming. Rather ironic -

I'd also like to comment on a couple of points rocket21 made -

I disagree that increasing gas mileage will have no impact. It seems to be accepted knowledge that increasing gas mileage an average of 10mpg means we are no longer dependent upon foreign oil, and that's a pretty big deal. It would also reduce emissions.

And, as far as the arguments that taking steps to reduce global warming will hurt the economy and increase joblessness - the usual scare tactics we've come to know and love and I just don't buy it. Consider the 10's of thousands of jobs which would be created if we began a crash implementation of renewable energy generation using solar, wind and geothermal.

Most European countries require manufacturers to recyle equipment they manufacture, whether it be TV's, refrigerators, computers, whatever. At first business fought it, as it meant rethinking their entire business models. Now ... yup, you guessed it - they're big supporters of it, and it's good for their business. And needless to say, it reduces emissions, conserves resources, etc.

It's human nature to resist change. When people try to prove their case using fear tactics it usually means their position is weak.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

On particulate matter and warming - I watched a fascinating (and alarming) show on TV about a month ago (might have been Nova) which dealt with examing the relationship, if any, of increased particulate matter and whether it caused either warming, cooling, or no impact at all. What scientists are concluding is that high particulate matter keeps the atmosphere cooler by several degrees. This means that humankind has to balance the reduction of particular matter (especially in countries like India and China due to the size) in order not to accelerate global warming. Rather ironic -

Perhaps this show might have been "Dimming the Sun" by Nova, which featured some serendipity following 9-11 when scientists already making high-precision atmospheric temperature measurements noticed a warming blip when jet planes were grounded for 3 to 4 days, reducing the amount of aerosols (i.e., jet contrails) into the atmosphere that reflect more incoming solar radiation.

And, as far as the arguments that taking steps to reduce global warming will hurt the economy and increase joblessness - the usual scare tactics we've come to know and love and I just don't buy it. Consider the 10's of thousands of jobs which would be created if we began a crash implementation of renewable energy generation using solar, wind and geothermal.

Speaking of wind power, the Cape Wind Project just got a boost by a favorable federal environmental review, which will make it more difficult for the usually environmentally conscious Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry to defeat this project (now there is some NIMBY irony).

http://www.projo.com/news/content/bz_cape_wind15_01-15-08_GE8K42T_v9.1abb477.html

 

[grouseking]

It's human nature to resist change. When people try to prove their case using fear tactics it usually means their position is weak.

Rant
Pretty much. Reading through the thread...this seems to be pretty representative to how the general population feels. There is a group who believes that human induced global climate change is a real threat, and then there are the skeptics. There usually isn't any middle ground, and if there is, they are rarely heard from. The believers and skeptics respectfully, and sometimes disrespectfully butt heads, and nothing gets solved. So we'll just continue to argue for the next 50+ years, while potential harm continues to occur, and before you know it, its too late.

I'm definitely on the better safe than sorry viewpoint of all of this. I mean, I'm 25 years old. I'm going to have to live through this, my kids are going to have to live through this, and my grandkids are going to have to live through this. I've heard people say...well I'm going to die in 20 or 30 years, so what do I care? I shake my head whenever I hear that.

Al Gore got a lot of flack because he's not a scientist, but at least he got out there and put some of this information out to the general public. It's commendable. Maybe it was political, but more of the general public know about global warming now than before he made "An Inconvenient Truth."

But as long as humans keep resisting change, I don't know what is going to happen.

End Rant.

grouseking

 

[rocket21]

Rant
Pretty much. Reading through the thread...this seems to be pretty representative to how the general population feels. There is a group who believes that human induced global climate change is a real threat, and then there are the skeptics. There usually isn't any middle ground, and if there is, they are rarely heard from.

I don't know if I agree with there only being two extremes being represented here. In my opinion, the extreme opposite of staunch believers in global warming is people who do not believe in global warming or any sort of impact of pollution, emissions, etc.

I'm not saying that I'm middle of the road on this, but I know that, since I am skeptical of global warming but believe we need to be more responsible ASAP, I don't really fit in with the fringe 'I'll be gone in 20-30 years who cares' non-believer group.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Perhaps this show might have been "Dimming the Sun" by Nova, which featured some serendipity following 9-11 when scientists already making high-precision atmospheric temperature measurements noticed a warming blip when jet planes were grounded for 3 to 4 days, reducing the amount of aerosols (i.e., jet contrails) into the atmosphere that reflect more incoming solar radiation.

Yes, that's it, Thom. Thanks for the reference.

Sometimes facts are scary. That's not the same as using scare tactics.

 

[giggy]

Much more important things to worry about for most people - its not that people don't care - its just not a priority for middle america if north conway is 30 degrees instead of 28.... or its raining rather than snowing.. In fact, most people love it when it rains instead of snows....

I am still not sure what all "catastrophic consequences" are due to global warming...


I am more concerned with:

Rising food costs
Rising fuel costs
Rising health insurance
Rising everything faster than your cost of living increase raise.
Declining property values
Credit Crunch
International business wants to be paid Euro's rather than USD
potential Pandemic
Iraq/middle east
Opec
manufacturing jobs shifted to Asia,Central America
Nuclear/Biological War - still could happen.....

 

[grouseking]

To Get this Back to New England....

Interesting ice out graph of lakes in Maine

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3002/

A very noticeable trend.

grouseking

 

[Grandaddy]

I don't know if I agree with there only being two extremes being represented here. In my opinion, the extreme opposite of staunch believers in global warming is people who do not believe in global warming or any sort of impact of pollution, emissions, etc.

I'm not saying that I'm middle of the road on this, but I know that, since I am skeptical of global warming but believe we need to be more responsible ASAP, I don't really fit in with the fringe 'I'll be gone in 20-30 years who cares' non-believer group.

Good points. A problem is that many of each viewpoint have a large financial interest!!!

There are too many politicians involved! Each extreme point of view is backed by major $$$. When viable alternatives to coal/gas/oil are offered, they are relatively weak (hydro, solar, wind) or perceived to be too dangerous (nuclear...which I support.) No one will take any leadership and the NIMBY's win. And yes, the NIMBY's will eventually win out on the Cape Wind matter, too.

The best things we can do induvidually is conserve resources. This can easily be done by recycling and turn the lights out after you leave a room, buying energy efficient appliances, etc. More extreme measures like carpooling can help for some (not me....yet) We just have to take it upon ourselves to do the small things to make changes. We also need to ask more of the people we vote for!

 

[dr_wu002]

When viable alternatives to coal/gas/oil are offered, they are relatively weak (hydro, solar, wind)

Fluffy statements like this require some thought as well as a dose of credible evidence or else they're meaningless. And just because a technology hasn't been realized thus far doesn't mean that it is a pointless endeavor to invest resources in. Both of these links for solar and wind energy contain info and links to a number of organizations performing a great deal of research and development in both fields. I think that regardless of anything a little scientific education is in order. This country is sorely lacking -- Countries like Germany far outpace the US in Alternative Energy Uses.

Regardless of what side you're on, ignorance of science is killing America. People need to understand science. A basic education in economics wouldn't hurt either.

-Dr. Wu

 

[rocket21]

Countries like Germany far outpace the US in Alternative Energy Uses.

One can also cite France, where almost 4/5ths of the power is from nuclear. I think modern nuclear power can make a tremendous difference in the United States, especially in conjunction with battery powered vehicles.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

We also need to ask more of the people we vote for!

Here is an item that I just received from MoveOn.Org:

"In the last year, the major TV networks asked the presidential candidates 2,679 questions. Pop quiz: How many were about global warming?
A) 514—after all, it's one of the top issues facing the country
B) 165—as many as were asked about illegal immigration
C) 3—the same number asked about UFOs

If you guessed 3, you're right: Reporters asked as many questions about UFOs as they did about the climate crisis—the biggest threat to our planet.

Can you sign our petition urging top TV reporters to ask the presidential candidates about global warming?"

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I am still not sure what all "catastrophic consequences" are due to global warming... I am more concerned with:
Rising food costs
Rising fuel costs
Rising health insurance
Rising everything faster than your cost of living increase raise.
Declining property values
Credit Crunch
International business wants to be paid Euro's rather than USD
potential Pandemic
Iraq/middle east
Opec
manufacturing jobs shifted to Asia,Central America
Nuclear/Biological War - still could happen.....

I believe that a lot of Giggy's listed concerns are indeed related to Global Warming and energy policy. For examples, we are now re-thinking ethanol as an alternative fuel for our fleet because it increases the costs of foodstuffs, and we are scared that Iran may use fissionable materials for bomb making instead of fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity.