Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[forestgnome]

OK, I'll try one more time, but I doubt there's really a problem with my point.

We're talking specifically about the temp in the NORTHEAST. People say they notice that winters are warmer. According to the latest GW claim by Dr.D, the whole planet has warmed by half a degree since 1980.

Statistics on temps in NE show an increase of much more than that, right? If, GW has warmed the NE by only a half degree since 1980, then something else is responsible for the rest. I call it 'nature'.

 

[Puck]

Statistics on temps in NE show an increase of much more than that, right? If, GW has warmed the NE by only a half degree since 1980, then something else is responsible for the rest. I call it 'nature'.

The one dgree increase is a mean. The warming is much greater at the poles and at other places there has been a cooling. But overall everything averaged together the earth has mean temp has risen by one dgree.

"Nature" has been factored into the causes. These natural causes are not strong enough to account for the change leaving GHG as the chief culprit. Many of the links already provided could help.

 

[Puck]

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.


Brian

Your analogy is a bit backwords. The examples you cite are not representative of the GW issue. What you mentioned is a theory that challenges the existing paradigm. The new theory is based on discoveries and observations that show an anomaly in the existing theories. The old gaurd is resistant to the new information. However the diolog is usually held in peer review circles. The new theory ushers in a paradigm shift and knowledge advances. Take the recent Judah Folkman. His ideas were scorned. he kept up the work and now angiogenisis and VEGF are household terms. The resistance from the old gaurd is based on ego...they do not want to be shown that they were wrong.

In the GW issue the paradigm has already shifted in the scietific community. See the references above on the ICCC documents and 2200 plus signatures from the scientists. I have followed the issue for awhile and found that the "Skeptics" an extremly small yet loud group, have misrepresented information, come form a funded bias or thier credentials have run out or a combination of all three. I would love to find an exception. This group is not taking thier fight to the peer reviewed journals but to the press. There efforts are a PR campaign and not science. Because of the politics the GW issue is writting a new chapter in the history of science.

The GW issue is an orchrestrated PR campaign against science by oil and coal special interests. It is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The popularity and success of thier efforts are based on some hooks in the poplulace: people still don't trust science, people are still science illiterate and people don't like a fire alarm when there is a fire. (I think Outside magazinehad a good article on Lindzen's appeal that covered these points IICR)

I am not saying that there is total agreement within the community. They disagree on how bad things are.

We can't do classic experiments. How does one create an atmosphere in an erlanmyer? Clamate changes is based on stats and measurements.

http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.php

 

[Mattl]

I agree, the changes are most evident where it is the coldest, mostly northern hemesphere. Strangely enough Antarctica is cooling right now, but the north pole is warming. For places like Greenland, its a very complex thing. There isn't just straight melting of the icecap there, its more that fissures open up beneith the ice and then melting cuts into it leveling off a huge chunk. This can even happen if it's cold, because if you get a warm time to get one of those undercuttings a year before, it can impact the future. The other thing for the opposite end is that the warmer air is bringing in more moisture to Greenland, what happens is unique to only a few places on earth. The warmer air rides up over the huge glacier and cools in the interior causing it to snow. Now what does that have to do with New England? Greenland is a major controller of our weather in New England. Anyone heard of a Greenland Block? It is one of the biggest factors to getting large snows here and keep cold air over North America. Melting freshwater into the Atlantic is also going to have tremendous impacts on the Gulf Stream in the future, we just don't know when. Thats a long topic though....-Mattl

 

[DougPaul]

I agree, the changes are most evident where it is the coldest, mostly northern hemesphere. Strangely enough Antarctica is cooling right now, but the north pole is warming. For places like Greenland, its a very complex thing.

Yes--the changes due to GW are/will be very complex--some areas will get colder, some warmer, some wetter, and some drier. GW is not something that can be understood by looking at only one area.

There are also factors like possible disruption of the Atlantic Deep current (a cold, deep current that flows from the Greenland area to the South Atlantic and eventually becomes global). Its disruption is believed to be a major factor in climate changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Deep_Water

In the GW issue the paradigm has already shifted in the scietific community.

I second your comments. As I understand it, the mainstream science jury has returned a finding that GW is happening and the anthromorphic (human caused) contribution is very significant. And certain groups, such as the fossil fuel industry, have conducted a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) campaign that has been fairly successful in preventing the lay public from understanding and accepting this conclusion.

Doug

 

[dr_wu002]

There are also factors like possible disruption of the Atlantic Deep current (a cold, deep current that flows from the Greenland area to the South Atlantic and eventually becomes global). Its disruption is believed to be a major factor in climate changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Atlantic_Deep_Water


Doug

Conversely, there is some evidence of a disruption to the Gulf Stream which could leave to temperature drops in areas like England and Iceland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

-Dr. Wu

 

[Kevin Rooney]

... This can even happen if it's cold, because if you get a warm time to get one of those undercuttings a year before, it can impact the future.

On a very small scale, this delay is demonstrated in surface soil temps in New England. If you look at the soil temperature 5' down over the course of a year, it's warmest in winter and coldest in summer. Seems counterintuitive to us layman, but it has to do with the slow movement of change thru the soil.

 

[DougPaul]

On a very small scale, this delay is demonstrated in surface soil temps in New England. If you look at the soil temperature 5' down over the course of a year, it's warmest in winter and coldest in summer. Seems counterintuitive to us layman, but it has to do with the slow movement of change thru the soil.

Soil temp as a function of depth is the input for one method used to estimate the temps of the recent past. The deeper you go, the farther into the past you are looking and the more (time) smoothed the data.

Glaciers and ice caps have a compounding factor--surface meltwater can flow into the depths and alter the temp profile fairly rapidly.

Doug

 

[dr_wu002]

Soil temp as a function of depth is the input for one method used to estimate the temps of the recent past. The deeper you go, the farther into the past you are looking and the more (time) smoothed the data.

Glaciers and ice caps have a compounding factor--surface meltwater can flow into the depths and alter the temp profile fairly rapidly.

Doug

Last week the CBC Radio Show Quarks and Quirks had a segment dealing with scientists digging sediment from a pristine crater lake in order to map temperature profiles for North America for the last several 100,000 years. The unique property of this lake is that it escaped being carved out by glaciers during the last two glacial events. Click on the link and scroll down -- you can download the segment -- it's quite interesting and also makes me want to visit Northern Canada.

-Dr. Wu

 

[DougPaul]

Last week the CBC Radio Show Quarks and Quirks had a segment dealing with scientists digging sediment from a pristine crater lake in order to map temperature profiles for North America for the last several 100,000 years.

I didn't see anything about the use of depth vs temp profiles. The lake would tend to interfere with the temp signal. It is also possible that they used chemical, isotopic, and biological remains in the cores to estimate the past climate.

Info on depth vs temp profile vs past climate history:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070724045902AAgMLUd
http://geophysics.stfx.ca/public/borehole/box1.html
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/IHFC/climate.html

Doug

 

[dr_wu002]

I didn't see anything about the use of depth vs temp profiles. The lake would tend to interfere with the temp signal. It is also possible that they used chemical, isotopic, and biological remains in the cores to estimate the past climate.

Yes, I misread what you originally said. Yes, they used chemical, isotopic and biological remains to estimate past climates but this is a function of depth. There is a more detailed description here.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Impact craters such as Pingualuit in northern Canada and El'gygtgyn in northern Siberia offer great potential for paleoclimate records that could go back over a million years, but some of my glacial geology colleagues have already published about a lake on northern Baffin Island whose ancient sediments have also escaped glacial erosion. Luminescence dating of the sediments allow reconstruction of paleoclimate chronologies beyond the 30,000 to 40,000 year limitation of radiocarbon dating through the previous interglacial epoch over a 100,000 years ago. Chironimid remains (midges) are a primo paleoclimate proxy because these species are very sensitive to surface lake water temperature.

http://www.glyfac.buffalo.edu/Faculty/briner/buf/pubs/briner_et_al_2007b.pdf

 

[forestgnome]

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.

OMG. More theory and wishful thinking to offset reality.

That is truely pathetic. We will definately have the mercury from billions of CFLs leaching into the ground. That is not theory. The only defense is a theory about maybe perhaps this might be offset because less coal might be burned as a result of the use of the CFLs. This is crazy. I would love to see a link to all the research that shows less coal will be burned if energy is saved elsewhere.

The idea that saving energy will result in less coal being burned is absurd. Everyone knows that we barely produce enough energy to keep up. The demand is not static. We all know that demand will continue to increase. Any energy saved by CFLs cannot possibly result in less coal being burned. This is total bs. You can't hide this behind scientific language and core samples. This is just common sense.

The lack of concern about mercury poisoning by CFLs among GW advocates is very troubling, and very revealing.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

OMG. More theory and wishful thinking to offset reality.

That is truely pathetic. We will definately have the mercury from billions of CFLs leaching into the ground. That is not theory. The only defense is a theory about maybe perhaps this might be offset because less coal might be burned as a result of the use of the CFLs. This is crazy. I would love to see a link to all the research that shows less coal will be burned if energy is saved elsewhere.

The idea that saving energy will result in less coal being burned is absurd. Everyone knows that we barely produce enough energy to keep up. The demand is not static. We all know that demand will continue to increase. Any energy saved by CFLs cannot possibly result in less coal being burned. This is total bs. You can't hide this behind scientific language and core samples. This is just common sense.

The lack of concern about mercury poisoning by CFLs among GW advocates is very troubling, and very revealing.

Burning coal is the number one source of atmospheric mercury deposition, the most dangerous form of mercury for humans and probably other species as well. I am not sure why you call this fact "more theory" and "pathetic."

 

[rocket21]

OMG. More theory and wishful thinking to offset reality.

That is truely pathetic. We will definately have the mercury from billions of CFLs leaching into the ground. That is not theory. The only defense is a theory about maybe perhaps this might be offset because less coal might be burned as a result of the use of the CFLs. This is crazy. I would love to see a link to all the research that shows less coal will be burned if energy is saved elsewhere.

The idea that saving energy will result in less coal being burned is absurd. Everyone knows that we barely produce enough energy to keep up. The demand is not static. We all know that demand will continue to increase. Any energy saved by CFLs cannot possibly result in less coal being burned. This is total bs. You can't hide this behind scientific language and core samples. This is just common sense.

Very good point. With the energy consumption in China and India increasing exponentially, we can't assume that usage of coal will decrease because of usage of a different type of light bulb.

And LEDs are still very very early in development - there are issues such as how warm the operate, how much light they emit, and the health problems they cause (there is a segment of the population that develops severe headaches from LED lights - some from just seeing LED brake lights on other cars).

 

[Tim Seaver]

The lack of concern about mercury poisoning by CFLs among GW advocates is very troubling, and very revealing.

Actually, there are numerous CFL recycling programs underway right now.

Here is the EPA page on CFL recycling:

State Mercury-Containing Bulb (Lamp) Recycling Programs

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The lack of concern about mercury poisoning by CFLs among GW advocates is very troubling, and very revealing.

Forestgnome -

A few comments:

1) I believe global warming is occurring - that seems to be a concensus view increasingly common among both layman and scientists. Does that make me an "advocate"? I don't think so - it makes me a realist.

2) CFLs use less electricity than incandescents, which translates to less electricity demand for lighting. If coal-fired power plants is the source of that electricity, then less mercury will be released into the atmosphere with lowered demand.

3) World-wide demand for electricity is increasing. If more CFLs are used for lighting then the rate of increase will be less, but it's still likely to increase.

4) I do advocate for recycling, regardless of the type of item, and the ability to recycle just about everything, including CFLs and batteries is available if you choose.

5) The sum total of mercury is not increasing, whether we choose to use CFLs or not (and it may not be a choice in the coming years). We're just moving it around.

6) Your point that for some GW is a benefit - lower heating bills, more rainfall, and other benefits - is a good one. With any change some benefit and some lose. Not a judgment - it's just the way it is.

Many of use share your passion for preventing potentially harmful chemicals from leaching into our environment. Recycle! (and please continue to share those great photos with us)

(Edited to add #6)

 

[Grayjay]

It's interesting that some have a really hard time with human caused global warming, naturally thinking that humans are afterall, a natural part of the earth's population. But when we dig and and suck things out of the deep earth that are supposed to remain down there, and spew their byproducts into the air, we are canceling out that natural place, and are on our own.

 

[DougPaul]

It's interesting that some have a really hard time with human caused global warming, naturally thinking that humans are afterall, a natural part of the earth's population. But when we dig and and suck things out of the deep earth that are supposed to remain down there, and spew their byproducts into the air, we are canceling out that natural place, and are on our own.

Life adapts to changing conditions. (This is the natural part...) It is just that humans (one of the species on the planet) are making/causing massive rapid changes that are causing mass extinctions of other species and are reducing the ability of the planet to support themselves. Our air, water, and food still come from the (somewhat manipulated) natural environment.

Localized population collapses have occurred in humans and other species (from both non-human and human causes)--we may be setting ourselves up for a planet-wide population collapse (of ourselves). If we screw the planet up, we have no alternative place to go...

Doug

 

[forestgnome]

Burning coal is the number one source of atmospheric mercury deposition, the most dangerous form of mercury for humans and probably other species as well. I am not sure why you call this fact "more theory" and "pathetic."

The "bs" adjective of my last post is wrong, for that implies willing misrepresentation. I'm sure you believe what you say. Sorry.

"More theory" and "pathetic" refers to the theory that a watt saved will result in a watt not produced at a coal plant.

If you reread the post quoted above, you'll see that this is the concept that is pathetic theory. This is because, again, we all know that we barely produce enough energy now. Demand is not static, but growing. Therefore, to argue that saving energy with CFLs will result in less coal burning is not believable. It makes no sense because we don't at present produce enough energy, and the demand is growing.

It is not even theory, but folly, to believe that these CFLs will be properly disposed. Follow Tim Seaver's link and read just how weak the effort is to cover this problem. Most towns have no plan at all. Many towns have a collection day once a year to recycle these hazardous materials. No sane person can expect that all, or even most, citizens will bother to conform. It is abusive to advocate CFLs with the disposal situation being what it is.

In reality, mercury put into the air by coal will not be reduced at all, while mercury is most definately going to be leaching out of landfills. We won't be "moving it around", we will be dramatically adding it.

I'll bump out of this one for now, but I'll read it until it dies. Via PM, I'm still getting more nasty personal attacks. But don't worry, I'm a thoughtful heritic. I won't assign the ignorance of one witchhunter to anyone else.

happy trails