Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Pig Pen]

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

I am a global warming skeptic but I don't feel like I have enough knowledge to competently argue the point here. I would like to thank forestgnome for being willing to carry the torch for his point of view.

My only thoughts (and I am in no way trying to represent these as FG's views, he may disagree) are that I am very doubtful that humans can do much to change the climate of the entire planet and I am dubious of any predictions of what the weather will be 50 years from now. The climate has been changing since before history and will continue do so as long as earth exists.

I also have doubts about the seriousness of the global warming advocates for a couple of reasons. One is the continuing vehement opposition to nuclear power, a mass energy source that produces no emissions. I realize that nuclear power has some problems but I thought that this was an "emergency". And the other reason is that every time the UN or some organization comes out with a proposal to fight global warming they always exempt what will be the world's largest greenhouse gas producer for many years to come; China.

Just saying.

 

[dr_wu002]

I also have doubts about the seriousness of the global warming advocates for a couple of reasons. One is the continuing vehement opposition to nuclear power, a mass energy source that produces no emissions. I realize that nuclear power has some problems but I thought that this was an "emergency". And the other reason is that every time the UN or some organization comes out with a proposal to fight global warming they always exempt what will be the world's largest greenhouse gas producer for many years to come; China.

Just saying.

I've never had strong opposition to nuclear power. Fuel for nuclear plants is also a limited, non-renewable resource however, as far as I know there is still a large amount of research into nuclear energy & so on. There are environmental problems associated with nuclear waste, which I assume is what you're talking about when you say "problems." I have never had this irrational fear of a "nuclear meltdown" like what happened in Chernobyl and I blame the media for creating this fear-mongering environment across the country. The problem is the world "nuclear" is scary to people... I had a professor once who was heavily involved in the development of NMRI's and he said for years they couldn't use the "N" in NMRI because the public was freaking out worrying that they were going to be bombarded by Nooculer Particles or something.

I'm not going to argue with you about global warming. I started out as a skeptic and even did some (limited) research when I was an physics undergrad trying to play a part in disproving what I thought was a bogus theory. Over the years though I've changed my opinion and now it's an important issue for me. I have little doubt that we are in a warming trend. However, if evidence starts to show that it is not man-made I'll believe it. But until then most of the evidence I've seen points towards global warming being a man-made phenomena, for the most part. The evidence that I've seen to the contrary was either non-scientific, limited in scope, or suspicious in nature.

-Dr. Wu

 

[Peakbagr]

"I'm still getting more nasty personal attacks."

I suggest that whoever is doing this, stop it. Forestgnome, pls forward these to us and let us deal with them if you want.

 

[Grayjay]

Do we realize how large the human presence is on this planet? If we kept that in mind, instead of looking at our immediate surroundings and thinking that this can't cause global warming, then it would be MUCH easier to believe. We have overrun our own terrarium.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Two recent items to revive this thread

This past week, PBS showed a 2-hour Frontline film titled "Heat." The producers essentially accepted that recent global warming (GW) is human-induced, and explored ways to mitigate GW with various modifications in energy use.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/

Also, in this week's Science News, Sid Perkins reported on a study debunking the purported "consensus" on global COOLING in the 1970s.

The common link in both items is paleoclimatologist Stephen Schneider, now at Stanford, whose 1971 paper in Science magazine, published when he was a grad student at Columbia, suggested that a four-fold increase in atmospheric aerosols could increase global cooling sufficiently to trigger the next ice age, which was almost immediately dismissed by the scientific community. Between his time at Columbia and Stanford, Steven Schneider spent over two decades at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder where his research group published a lot on GW using the NCAR GCM (global circulation model). Steven Schneider maintains his concerns about GW in the Frontline film.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gen...ooling_climate_‘consensus’_of_1970s_never_was

 

[moonrock]

A couple of thoughts:

1) There are global warming adherents, some very well informed, some not; not everybody has science education, and many people - whatever their politics - are "followers" (for example: I am NOT an economist). But I believe that the informed consensus is genuine - and not some anti-corporate or politically correct "conspiracy" (ala Michael Crichton).

2) A true skeptic rightfully says, "show me the evidence and differentiate cause and effect to the point where I can see and UNDERSTAND the proof". Alas, their job is confounded by the politicization (and cherry picking of data) that affects the debate. I believe that genuine skeptics are critical thinkers who form a continuum with critical thinkers in the first group.

3) But I think we should differentiate the true skeptics from the global warming CYNICS (like Limbaugh) who have a political/economic stake in denying (human-induced) global warming, no matter where the entirety of evidence leads. The latter are the "young earth creationists" of the issue. The analogy is apt in that, as the evidence for rapid climate change has amassed (like that for the earth's antiquity), the argument has shifted from denying warming altogether to denying human involvement (like the shift from literal interpretation of Genesis to "Intelligent Design").

My acceptance of Global Warming comes not from local/anecdotal experience, but from looking at the bigger picture - like the loss of arctic ice, coupled with a photographic history that clearly documents rapid recession of a majority of alpine glaciers.

My acceptance of human involvement comes from the undisputed (to my knowledge) recent historical increase of atmospheric CO2, to concentrations higher than during glacial or interglacial periods - and perhaps for millions of years .
In Ice Age paleoclimate graphs, CO2 levels fluctuate closely with glacial/interglacial temperature cycles. This pattern always troubled me, since the global temperatures (and glacial periods) already fit well with the Milankovitch model, which suggests that cyclic changes the earths orbit/tilt, modulate the planet's solar energy budget and thereby modulate the ice age climate. In this context CO2 appears to be secondary, and it's unclear (to me) whether ice age CO2 levels are cause or EFFECT of global temps.

But if the evidence is correct, atmospheric CO2 concentration is now MUCH higher than it has been during recent geologic (including ice age) history. And the rapid onset coincided with human expansion and industrialization. This suggests a separate climatic regime, where "some" new source pushed CO2 level across a threshold to where it became a predominant CAUSE of climate change.

One thing that blows my mind is the fact that there are more individual people currently in existence than there are years in known geologic history !
I am very pessimistic that societies can enlist voluntary cooperation from such a large, chaotic population sufficient to do global damage control/repair. Even in the US, it's hard enough to get folks to recycle shopping bags or beverage containers, which does not bode well for CF bulbs. And consider how many dutifully recycled computers/electronics wind up overseas, spewing pollution as they are "cooked" in alleyways for their toxic components.
I think only strong economic incentives (e.g., container/bulb/other deposits) could put a dent in this.

I think that both nuclear fission and CF technology are tactically advantageous, but should not be used as strategic solutions; rather as bridges to better technologies (e.g., LEDs). But one way or the other, I think the ultimate issue will always be the Earth's population.

my 2c

 

[Barbarossa]

But I think we should differentiate the true skeptics from the global warming CYNICS (like Limbaugh) who have a political/economic stake in denying (human-induced) global warming, no matter where the entirety of evidence leads. The latter are the "young earth creationists" of the issue. The analogy is apt in that, as the evidence for rapid climate change has amassed (like that for the earth's antiquity), the argument has shifted from denying warming altogether to denying human involvement (like the shift from literal interpretation of Genesis to "Intelligent Design").

Attempting to marginalize those that disagree with you doesn't help to convince that your argument is correct.

But since you are an expert on plumbing human motives, what was Al Gore's intent when he declared

The debate is over, people!

?

 

[moonrock]

Attempting to marginalize those that disagree with you doesn't help to convince that your argument is correct.

I was NOT; I was simply trying to distinguish Rational SKEPTICS from Political CYNICS.

Since you are an expert on plumbing human motives, what was Al Gore's intent when he declared Quote: The debate is over, people!

You quote that without context - from your snippet, one cannot know whether he meant climate change or human culpability.
BTW I am not an "expert" on "plumbing" human motives (I ditched psychology long ago, in favor of natural science). But even as a psych lay person, I know politics when I see it.

 

[Grayjay]

What is the HARM in a movement to lessen carbon emissions? Automobiles are about as natural as pink twinkies in a healthfood store. This age of petroleum addiction has begun to warm the environment. I think the problem lies in taking personal responsibility. Barry Lopez, who's writing goes beyond the two sides of this arguement, says that nobody is innocent, that we all are part of the problem. That's where the hesitation lies, in the illusion that
individuals are not part of the problem.

 

[Puck]

Here is an absract from this weeks PNAS.

Because of the time span I think there are two things in play. Global climate change as a natural cycle as well as AGW occuring currently.

Phylogenetic patterns of species loss in Thoreau's woods are driven by climate change Charles G. Willisa, Brad Ruhfela, Richard B. Primackb, Abraham J. Miller-Rushingb, and Charles C. Davisa,1
+Author Affiliations

aDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University Herbaria, 22 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138; and
bDepartment of Biology, Boston University, 5 Cummington Street, Boston, MA 02215
Edited by Michael J. Donoghue, Yale University, New Haven, CT, and approved September 19, 2008 (received for review July 3, 2008)

Abstract
Climate change has led to major changes in the phenology (the timing of seasonal activities, such as flowering) of some species but not others. The extent to which flowering-time response to temperature is shared among closely related species might have important consequences for community-wide patterns of species loss under rapid climate change. Henry David Thoreau initiated a dataset of the Concord, Massachusetts, flora that spans ≈150 years and provides information on changes in species abundance and flowering time. When these data are analyzed in a phylogenetic context, they indicate that change in abundance is strongly correlated with flowering-time response. Species that do not respond to temperature have decreased greatly in abundance, and include among others anemones and buttercups [Ranunculaceae pro parte (p.p.)], asters and campanulas (Asterales), bluets (Rubiaceae p.p.), bladderworts (Lentibulariaceae), dogwoods (Cornaceae), lilies (Liliales), mints (Lamiaceae p.p.), orchids (Orchidaceae), roses (Rosaceae p.p.), saxifrages (Saxifragales), and violets (Malpighiales). Because flowering-time response traits are shared among closely related species, our findings suggest that climate change has affected and will likely continue to shape the phylogenetically biased pattern of species loss in Thoreau's woods.

 

[Chip]

What is the HARM in a movement to lessen carbon emissions?

Absolutely nothing. It makes perfect sense for the environment and national security. But then "you" need to be FOR some alternative, like nuclear or wind farm (Not in "MY" backyard !). That's where "The Argument" collapses.

EDIT: Reviewing this thread I realize I've stated my "IMHO" regarding the global warming debate no less than 3 times. As per my own suggestion I will now turn off my computer and go recycle something.

 

[Remix]

I dislike elevating 'man' to the point of thinking in terms of 'man versus nature'; it sounds very much like the old dogma that asserted earth was at the center of universe, because 'man' was somehow special.

Everything we do- wars, pollution, reclamation, farming, industry, global warming- occurs under the direction of nature, if not its blessing. As far as consequences that are negative for mankind, I just think its nature's way of getting us to spread out.

Not my original argument.... but the proof, I believe, is applying Darwinism to being altruistic. Why hasn't evolution ensured that those with more altruistic genes are the alpha-elite in the general population?

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Thoreau is rediscovered as a climatologist

Here is Cornelia Dean's piece in the 27 October 2008 New York Times on the research published in PNAS noted by Puck in the above post; there was also an interview with Richard Primack this morning on NPR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/science/earth/28wald.html

I think that this recent study in Concord, Mass., nicely fits with the original work that Kevin Rooney posted to begin this thread almost a year ago.

As far as Al Gore's comment "The debate is over, folks," I have heard Al Gore speak on the topic of GW many times, and although I was not able to attend, he gave a plenary talk at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco last December in which he probably used similar words to summarize the scientific consensus that there is no longer a debate about whether humans are responsible in large part for GW over the past century. There is, however, still great debate about what to do in response to GW, such as various mitigation strategies available to us, with some more pessimistic scientists now suggesting that adaptation might be the only viable solution.

Jim Hansen, one of NASA's leading paleoclimatologists, who provided one of the early GW warnings to Congress in the summer of 1988, gave a plenary talk at the recent Geological Society of America meeting in Houston last month in which he answered a nuclear power question by stating that he is convening a work shop in the next few months to explore the viability of fourth generation nuclear power plants in which waste would be reduced by orders of magnitude. However, one downside of such power plants is that the nuclear fuel used would be the same that is so coveted by terrorists for manufacture of nuclear weapons.

 

[Puck]

I dislike elevating 'man' to the point of thinking in terms of 'man versus nature'; it sounds very much like the old dogma that asserted earth was at the center of universe, because 'man' was somehow special.

I agree that the Man v Nature is a paradigm that has its short comings. It personifies two entities as if they have studied each other, watched game tapes and are now facing off in a cage fight, hell bent on the other’s complete destruction. ‘Nature’ is a dustbin of concepts and ideas that can be both religious and scientific. ‘Man’ is not a cohesive organization that can have an explicit agenda. We have come to the understanding in Western culture that man is not the center of the universe. Or have we?

Well maybe not the center of the universe but we think we own the place. What kind of neighbor would pave fields, drain wetlands, dump toxic waste into rivers, blow the tops off mountains, spill oil, deforest, and wall beaches on and on and on, all actions that destroy habitat and push other species to the brink of extinction. It is easy to see how fragmenting salt marshes can lead to the decline of species that nests there, welcome to ecology 101. But to imagine our actions of living in a modern world could melt the ice caps….That is just beyond some people’s conceptual framework. Sure there are other species that impact the environment but study these species in how they interact with their ecosystem.

We have thrived at the conquest of nature. Nature has not given any blessings or permission here. Our technology has allowed for human population to grow far, far beyond the carrying capacity of the environment. We have been locked into exponential growth. And we won’t be able to keep it up. We are looking at a major extinction event. There have been six of them before man existed, all caused by a global catastrophe, like meteor strikes. To think we can have that type of destructive power.

I find it interesting that there exists a counter ecology/conservation movement and that it has strong representation in the hiking/outdoor community. Excuse me I should just say hiking community because hunters and anglers have known for a long time that if there is destruction to habitat there is destruction to their pastime. That is why I applaud groups like Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited and many others. I am coming to the realization that the hiking community is not mainly comprised of “Greenies” and “Tree Huggers” like myself but is more indicative of a random sampling of society as a whole.

 

[McRat]

It's baaaaaa-aaack...

It's time to play, "Which is the most likely outcome of an internet climate change thread?"

a) Global unification on the issue leading to massive economic and political changes that effectively resolve the problem.

b) People change their beliefs on this issue based on calm, rational debate.

c) The politicization of the issue causes further erosion in the sense of comraderie between site members, while achieving nothing in the real world.

d) Everyone leaves happy.

 

[Puck]

It's baaaaaa-aaack...

It's time to play, "Which is the most likely outcome of an internet climate change thread?"

a) Global unification on the issue leading to massive economic and political changes that effectively resolve the problem.

b) People change their beliefs on this issue based on calm, rational debate.

c) The politicization of the issue causes further erosion in the sense of comraderie between site members, while achieving nothing in the real world.

d) Everyone leaves happy.

e) People can have an intelligent discussion and disagree without being disagreeable.

I suspect b), d) and e) has happened. I don't think a) will ever happen and I hope c) never happens.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...There is, however, still great debate about what to do in response to GW, such as various mitigation strategies available to us, with some more pessimistic scientists now suggesting that adaptation might be the only viable solution.

(emphasis mine)

I am increasingly being persuaded that adaptation might be the most realistic outcome of GW, although as I watch world leaders act/react to the current economic crisis it provides a ray of hope. By that I mean if they can work together on this immediate economic problem then maybe methods to mitigate warming have a small chance of being developed and accepted. But, that's still a long shot. Consequently, I've been giving more thought lately to practical matters, such as what climate changes are likely to occur over the next 5-20 in areas where my family and I live, and what concrete steps can I take to ensure our health and well-being. This also has the effect of changing the dynamic from a negative to a positive.

 

[Pig Pen]

We are looking at a major extinction event.

 

[moonrock]

Predictions are that traditional "bread baskets" could falter, while in other areas climate might become more favorable for agriculture. The effects on the former are a no-brainer. In the latter, increased land use for food production will place additional stress on natural ecosystems, and shift pollution and energy burdens. Food can be transported from newly productive areas to feed those in formerly productive areas, but also at energy cost. And what would those in the formerly productive areas do to earn a living ("Hello: This is Tech Support...") ?

The likely answer is that populations will have to relocate, either to maintain their livelihoods (agriculture - subsistence or otherwise) or their very existence (sea-level rise). An early example is the Maldives in the Indian Ocean; their pols are already looking at the possibility of buying up land in Sri Lanka for their population (the 2004 tsunami was no doubt an incentive as well).

Long term human migration due to climate change has happened before. Parts of the Sahara were fertile farmland thousands of years ago, as were parts of what's now Continental Shelf. But the changes that forced those populations to move on were (arguably) more gradual. The greatest impact from the current climate change is that it will happen relatively quickly (within lifetimes), giving species and cultures less time to adapt.

 

[Barbarossa]

The debate is over!

Somebody

missed

the memo.