Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[Chip]

Wikipedia is getting better and better, but there are much new Antarctic ice core data available since this entry was made..

That was the link to the data I used, they obviously didn't produce it. The more current data confirms the original.

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.

Right. So why argue the degree of impact we're having on the current epoch ? The earth appears to give itself an enema every 100,000 years regardless. The Global Warming debate is a distraction adopted to polarize voters, IMHO.

I'd like to end fossil fuel use, regardless. I'd like cleaner air, water and woods for my children and their children, regardless.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Right. So why argue the degree of impact we're having on the current epoch ? The earth appears to give itself an enema every 100,000 year regardless. The Global Warming debate is a distraction adopted to polarize voters, IMHO.

A lot of fellow scientists feel that way, but a lot of other scientists still think that we have a chance to avoid a "superinterglacial" with its 6+ m sea level rise, and I guess that I fall into that camp, as the forever optimist. I agree with those IPCC scientists who claim the GW debate is over, but I agree that the ongoing debate by those such as Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh is polarizing.

 

[forestgnome]

I welcome warmer/shorter winters in New England for two basic reasons. I believe it's natural and I live in the mountains, which means winter is longer for me than it is for most others on this bb. Life is harder here in winter, especially for those of us who work to survive and struggle to pay bills. Winter is much more expensive.

How ironic it would be if heating my house was causing the temperature to rise, which would decrease the need to heat my house.

The theory claims a half degree increase over the past century for the whole planet. So, only a fraction of that could have happened in the past 50 years. If NE has warmed more than that, then it got colder elsewhere. Therefore, it is senseless trying to link a drastically warmer NE to human CO2 emissions instead of nature.

Believers agree that the planet would be warming without humans, but slightly slower. So what? What difference does it make if the climate of the year 2250 happens in the year 2249? Those climate conditions are coming anyway.

What bothers me in all of this is the threat of pollution. Air pollution is no longer sexy as a cause, but it is real and disgusting. All the energies of the environmentally conscious are wasted chasing a pop science theory that makes for great calamity movies. A bill moves through our legislature to ban standard light bulbs, in favor of the CFLs which contain mercury.

Mercury is about the deadliest of all pollutants, but we are supposed to use CFLs for the sake of creating less CO2. What happens to the mercury in the millions of CFLs that will be tossed into landfills? CFLs cannot even be manufactured in the US because we have environmental standards. We will instead buy the mercury-laiden CFLs from China and India, where there are no standards. We will be forced by law to use a product that is illegal to manufacture. Then they will be thrown into our landfills. Great.

 

[amstony]

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.

Dr. D-

Your exactly right about ethanol. If your poor and living in Mexico you had to live through food riots because they can't buy tortillas - because the corn is being sent north to us so we can have "cheaper, better gas"!! The link is here, hopefully it works!

hhtp://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/02/02/the-story-you-didnt-read-mexicos-tortilla-riots/

The gist is below:

"As the U.S. adds more ethanol to its gasoline, the price of corn is surging dramatically, leading to extreme market volatility......but for now most U.S. producers seem to be eschewing sugar and other products in favor of corn. If that remains the case, corn prices will only go higher and the poor of Mexico and elsewhere will be further pinched"

Good for us, bad for Mexico and other poor countries.

This shows you how difficult the entire solution is.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Believers agree that the planet would be warming without humans, but slightly slower. So what? What difference does it make if the climate of the year 2250 happens in the year 2249? Those climate conditions are coming anyway.

All the energies of the environmentally conscious are wasted chasing a pop science theory that makes for great calamity movies.

Mercury is about the deadliest of all pollutants, but we are supposed to use CFLs for the sake of creating less CO2. What happens to the mercury in the millions of CFLs that will be tossed into landfills? CFLs cannot even be manufactured in the US because we have environmental standards. We will instead buy the mercury-laiden CFLs from China and India, where there are no standards. We will be forced by law to use a product that is illegal to manufacture. Then they will be thrown into our landfills. Great.[/

Based on nearly all paleoenvironmental records, the maximum warmth of the current interglacial [the Holocene] ended about 5000 years ago, and until the past century or so, the Earth had begun a gradual slow cooling into the next glacial cycle (i.e., the Little Ice Age of the 1400s-1800s may have been the precursor for the next ice age).

The climate scientists who founded RealClimate.Org cited earlier began their blog as a result of the Hollywood film "The Day After Tomorrow" for the very reasons noted.

The mercury in CFLs is indeed a real problem and the waste bulbs need to be sequestered in secure landfills, just as does spent nuclear fission materials from power plants, two of the many serious waste issues that we need to address. "No one said it was going to be easy." John Wayne?

 

[rocket21]

just as does spent nuclear fission materials from power plants

Fortunately, with modern nuclear power technology (which we don't have in the United States, the amount of waste from a large nuclear power plant would be around 3 m^3, thanks to reprocessing. This still is waste, but hopefully in coming years new techniques can be discovered to reduce that further.

 

[DougPaul]

One can also cite France, where almost 4/5ths of the power is from nuclear.

My understanding is that France has paid for this with radioactive contamination of a significant amount of territory. Not well publicized...

Doug

 

[rocket21]

My understanding is that France has paid for this with radioactive contamination of a significant amount of territory. Not well publicized...

Doug

Are you referring to the damage they did to South America during their nuclear tests a few decades back? (I'm doing my best not to make any French military jokes)

 

[DougPaul]

Your exactly right about ethanol. If your poor and living in Mexico you had to live through food riots because they can't buy tortillas - because the corn is being sent north to us so we can have "cheaper, better gas"!! The link is here, hopefully it works!

Corn from ethanol is also a poor energy bargain--it requires almost as much energy to produce as you get from it. Ethanol from sugar cane, as is produced in Brazil, is a much better bargain. (Ethanol from cellulose may also be a decent bargain, but the technology does not yet exist to produce it on an industrial scale.)

Ethanol is also a less dense fuel than gasoline--a gallon contains less energy (and a car won't go as far on a gallon). Other disadvantages are that it is hydroscopic, corrosive, and is probably about as polluting as gasoline when burned.

There is a good article on the topic in Jan/Feb 2008 (print) issue of Technology Review. There is a version at http://www.technologyreview.com (the article requires free registration).

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Are you referring to the damage they did to South America during their nuclear tests a few decades back? (I'm doing my best not to make any French military jokes)

I thought that was a island in the South Pacific.

No. I was referring to the French mainland.

Doug

 

[amstony]

I thought that was a island in the South Pacific.

No. I was referring to the French mainland.

Doug

No testing was ever conducted in France, also no public knowledge of any major leaks or that type of event in France. But where do they store the waste??? Rough guess is Africa.

France conducted nuclear testing in Algeria until 1966. They switched over to French Polynesia and conducted roughly 200 nuclear tests on the islands Mururoa and Fangatuafa- where they managed to make Fangatuafa totally uninhabitable with the first device! Depending on who you talk to they have 200 to 350 nukes available.

 

[DougPaul]

No testing was ever conducted in France, also no public knowledge of any major leaks or that type of event in France. But where do they store the waste??? Rough guess is Africa.

It has been a number of years since I read the article (IIRC, it was in an IEEE publication), but IIRC the contamination was due to leaks, etc.

Doug

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Dust and the western snowpack

It is not all GW, but the effects of dust on the snowpack in the West is also probably human-induced.

http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_7964216

 

[Grandaddy]

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

Lighten up...These points are not laid on a foundation of ignorance. As of this time, solar/hydro/wind are currently weak. There needs to be some serious R&D and implementation of the aforementioned. That fact is...there is a need for more power than can be reasonably achieved by those methods.

There is alot of ignorance when it comes to nuclear power. Unfortunately, there hasn't been an approval for a new power plant since the 70s. A bit of fear mongering, maybe??? It hasn't helped that Washington has dragged its heals on the subject of waste, also. It just dosen't pay for the pols to have a little bit of foresight. If nuclear power is good enough for Europe (France 78%, Sweden 52%, Germany 32%, UK 20% of power generation) vs. 19% in USA, (2004) it's good enough for us

 

[hikerfast]

there is a great book called 'the health hazards of NOT going nuclear.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Lighten up...These points are not laid on a foundation of ignorance. As of this time, solar/hydro/wind are currently weak. There needs to be some serious R&D and implementation of the aforementioned.

This statement is hear/read frequently, but ... I don't agree with it, or at least all. I'd agree that large scale hydro is complete, at least in this country, and I don't know enough about about small scale to comment. Solar and wind, OTH - while efficiencies will continue to improve (and Europe is WAY ahead of us wind-wise), these forms of renewable energy are being implemented in many areas, particularly the Far West. When you factor in ALL the costs of non-renewable energy, including the costs of military excursions and environmental cleanup, renewables become more economically viable.

Small solar has reached the commodity level - the various components are nearly at the home-owner level for 'net metering' systems.

 

[dr_wu002]

This statement is hear/read frequently, but ... I don't agree with it, or at least all. I'd agree that large scale hydro is complete, at least in this country, and I don't know enough about about small scale to comment. Solar and wind, OTH - while efficiencies will continue to improve (and Europe is WAY ahead of us wind-wise), these forms of renewable energy are being implemented in many areas, particularly the Far West. When you factor in ALL the costs of non-renewable energy, including the costs of military excursions and environmental cleanup, renewables become more economically viable.

Small solar has reached the commodity level - the various components are nearly at the home-owner level for 'net metering' systems.

Germany has enacted some interesting (progressive?) legislation regarding renewable energy and new homes. If anyone missed it, the last episode of Science Friday had some compelling discussion on wind power (amongst other renewable energies.

Regarding solar power, I believe that roll coated thin film solar panels will provide cheaper and more efficient solar power in the near future. I don't agree that (not with you, Kevin, but the more general sentiment) that solar/wind energy is either dumb or impractical or too costly. In their current states, possibly, but as a society we move forward and I think it's important for America to invest in new scientific & technological breakthroughs. As we continue get larger and hungrier, energy consumption becomes an important topic to deal with, including it's connection to the environment and/or global warming (I guess if you accept it or not). Historically though, without past investment in novel ideas we most definitely wouldn't be where we are today in terms of technology.

-Dr. Wu

 

[DaveSunRa]

Being a person with limited science background; It sure is difficult to interpret and read between the lines of comments and of published reports. I always try my best to view all opinions from all sides and digest all.

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

 

[David Metsky]

<moderator hat>
Please keep this discussion focused on the science, and the impact on hiking/outdoors. Any off-topic politics will be deleted.
</moderator hat>

-dave-

 

[dr_wu002]

Being a person with limited science background; It sure is difficult to interpret and read between the lines of comments and of published reports. I always try my best to view all opinions from all sides and digest all.

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

The big problem that I have is that there aren't any real citations. I need to see more compelling evidence than just rhetoric and spin.

Also, the letter seems divided to me... on one hand they're essentially denying man-made global warming. On the other hand they're saying it's futile to try and fix it and that we should try to adapt instead. Those to me are two separate issues.

-Dr. Wu