Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Somebody

missed

the memo.

The last of the three links is the more interesting to me, because if the article is correct that about 60% of Brits are GW skeptics, it is curious that their GW mitigation legislation passed with only three dissenting votes (at over 600, the largest legislature on Earth, even larger than New Hampshire's House of Representatives!).

 

[Stan]

The Big Thaw

A bit distant from New England but with potential impact here, too.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/sepoct/features/siberia.html

 

[Kevin Rooney]

A bit distant from New England but with potential impact here, too.

http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2008/sepoct/features/siberia.html

Fascinating read, Stan. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Article in recent Nature Geoscience says humans responsible for GW in polar regions

I have not read this article yet, but it has been picked up by a few of the news media. I will try to obtain the article on Monday and report further.

http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=109415

 

[Chip]

If this article is correct we may have the required time to wean ourselves off fossil fuels afterall.

Feel free to tell me what's wrong with the article; suspect author, Geophysical Research Letters is a Lush Limbaugh front, etc.

 

[DougPaul]

If this article is correct we may have the required time to wean ourselves off fossil fuels afterall.

Not necessarily. He is talking about a short-term change in a noisy long-term trend--if you look at a yearly graph of the global avg temp, you will see lots of short term variations. And his comment about the next 30 years is speculation.

It is about like saying one unusually cold (or warm) day makes the entire winter colder (or warmer) than normal.

Feel free to tell me what's wrong with the article; suspect author, Geophysical Research Letters is a Lush Limbaugh front, etc.

I don't see any obvious signs of a political agenda, but I don't know anything about the author and individuals that he quoted.

Doug

 

[Chip]

It is about like saying one unusually cold (or warm) day makes the entire winter colder (or warmer) than normal.

Doug

The article was careful to make that point;

"But climate is known to be variable -- a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn't mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades."

If we do get this "break" from warming for 20 or 30 years, it'll give us the time needed to get off the oil spigot and into clean technologies.

 

[jniehof]

Feel free to tell me what's wrong with the article; suspect author, Geophysical Research Letters is a Lush Limbaugh front, etc.

GRL is a reliable peer-reviewed journal of the American Geophysical Union. However, it is a "fast publication" journal, intended for quick reporting of items of interest that may represent preliminary analysis. Here is the AGU position on anthropogenic climate change--there is no requirement that papers be consistent with the position, but one can assume that most reviewers would agree with at least its broad outlines barring substantial new evidence.

No citation is provided in that article (at least not on the first page...the second isn't loading for me). Searching GRL shows up no 2009 papers with an author lastname of Swanson (the only information given). The only 2008 hit is "False causality between Atlantic hurricane activity fluctuations and seasonal lower atmospheric wind anomalies."

 

[DougPaul]

No citation is provided in that article (at least not on the first page...the second isn't loading for me).

Page 2, if it is of any help: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause-02.html

No refs there either.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

If we do get this "break" from warming for 20 or 30 years, it'll give us the time needed to get off the oil spigot and into clean technologies.

IMO, that's an awful big, dangerous, and unsupported if.

We have also demonstrated a very short attention span--if the immediate pressure is off, we tend to ignore the problem even if it is getting worse in the long term. Recall how much we learned from the gasoline shortages of ~1974... More SUVs etc.

Doug

 

[Chip]

IMO, that's an awful big, dangerous, and unsupported if.
Doug

I don't follow how it's so dangerous. Cooler temps (more consumption) should help spur alternatives as oil reserves dwindle. That and the new administration raising fees and taxes and eliminating subsidies for Big Oil will drive up prices for fossil fuel consumption. Warmer temps could help reduce consumption and delay the inevitable.

 

[DougPaul]

I don't follow how it's so dangerous.

Historically we have been very poor at maintaining our resolve if the pressure is reduced. If we slow our transition away from fossil fuels we will most likely be in a worse situation in the long term.

"We have met the enemy and he is us". Pogo (Walt Kelly)

Doug

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

GRL is a reliable peer-reviewed journal of the American Geophysical Union. However, it is a "fast publication" journal, intended for quick reporting of items of interest that may represent preliminary analysis. Here is the AGU position on anthropogenic climate change--there is no requirement that papers be consistent with the position, but one can assume that most reviewers would agree with at least its broad outlines barring substantial new evidence.

No citation is provided in that article (at least not on the first page...the second isn't loading for me). Searching GRL shows up no 2009 papers with an author lastname of Swanson (the only information given). The only 2008 hit is "False causality between Atlantic hurricane activity fluctuations and seasonal lower atmospheric wind anomalies."

Spot on. Here are links to the pdf's (paper in press, due out in GRL this week and 2008 hurricane paper) from Kyle Swanson's Website, University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, where he and co-author Anastasios Tsonis are mathematical modelers within an atmospheric sciences research group.

http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

http://www.uwm.edu/~kswanson/publications/2008GL034469.pdf

For what it is worth, I agree with DougPaul's comments above. However, the GW skeptics, Heartland Institute, etc., will love this paper, as they have earlier papers by these authors, such as the one above noted by jniehof, in which Kerry Emanuel, at MIT and probably the world's leading hurricane scientist, is cited but I doubt believes. I will be interested to see how the climate scientists at RealClimate.org respond to this paper in the next couple of weeks (at least Swanson and Tsonis are real scientists, rather than George Will, Rush Limbaugh, etc.).

 

[andrewb]

These studies have become so politicized its hard to see who is telling the truth and who isn't.

What are you saying politicians have been lying to us or something????

 

[andrewb]

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.

I saw the same statement about the mercury in coal a while back. I'd like to see if it was accurate. As for disposal, Home Depot will recycle them. http://www6.homedepot.com/ecooptions/pdf/CFL-RecyclingProgramRevised.pdf

 

[forestgnome]

Originally Posted by Dr. Dasypodidae
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.

Read this carefully. The idea that CFLs will result in less coal being burned is totally bogus. CFLs will most definately result in mercury pollution. But the idea that using CFLs will result in less mercury-emitting coal burning is fantasy, not even theory. The demand for energy is being purposely ignored. The demand for energy, the amount of energy being used and the obvious increase in demand cannot possibly be offset by CFLs and wind factories. This is simply fantasy.

Analogy: Your monthly bills are $4,000.00. You make $4,000.00 per month. Many of your bills are about to increase, and the increase will be steady for years to come. If you find a quarter on the ground, can you cut back on you hours at work?

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Originally Posted by Dr. Dasypodidae
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.

Read this carefully. The idea that CFLs will result in less coal being burned is totally bogus. CFLs will most definately result in mercury pollution. But the idea that using CFLs will result in less mercury-emitting coal burning is fantasy, not even theory. The demand for energy is being purposely ignored. The demand for energy, the amount of energy being used and the obvious increase in demand cannot possibly be offset by CFLs and wind factories. This is simply fantasy.

Analogy: Your monthly bills are $4,000.00. You make $4,000.00 per month. Many of your bills are about to increase, and the increase will be steady for years to come. If you find a quarter on the ground, can you cut back on you hours at work?

Try as I might, I simply do not understand this logic. Even if NO (zero) CFL's get properly recycled, there is a net decrease in mercury pollution by using CFL's as opposed to incandescent bulbs. We should strive to make sure that most CFL's get properly recycled and that their 5 mg mercury per bulb be recovered, which cannot happen for recovery of the equivalent amount of mercury in burning excess coal to light incandescent bulbs (scrubbing the mercury from coal at the power plant cannot be done, at least with present economics and technology). It is really pretty simple math, unless I am mssing something (see one example at link below).

But, as noted earlier in this thread, LED's are getting better and better, and eventually should eliminate the need for CFL's and their mercury issue.

http://www.energyrace.com/commentary/more_on_mercury_coal_and_cfls_updated/

 

[Chip]

Lots of good info in this thread...and it hasn't gotten shut down !

Couple of interesting articles this morning on how some of the proposed legislation is progressing;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124050061773748291.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124052841876150301.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124050774521848777.html

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Lots of good info in this thread...and it hasn't gotten shut down !

Yes! We are going for 10,000 Views on this one, in tribute to Kevin.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Yes! We are going for 10,000 Views on this one, in tribute to Kevin.

Holy schmolly, Dr. D - you may be right!

And as several have pointed - there's been lots of excellent info presented in this thread. And with the change in administrations, it looks like the U.S. will begin to take an active role on this issue.