Study: Northeast winters warming fast

[TCD]

Dr. D got post #200!!! Nice. ("I missed it by THAT much...")

I hesitate to use the word stupid when talking about folks who went to school for more years than I did. But some of the folks generating material on this topic have gotten themselves so twisted up in alarmism, and in trying to prove a point, that they've lost track of the basic scientific reasoning we all learned.

Clearly some particularly delicate, or marginally surviving species will be made extinct by any large global climate change. Also, some species which only exist in a small habitat may be made extinct by a smaller or more localized change (for these species, extirpation equals extinction). But man is neither delicate, nor marginally surviving, nor localized to only a small habitat.

Clearly, a worst case AGW outcome could result in many people dying. Let's say, for example, that the sea level goes up 40 feet, and we don't mobilize the collective resources to allow the folks in Bangladesh to move to a new location. Then there might be many deaths. But remember, while 100 million deaths is a very negative outcome, it's less than 2% of the total population, which is not nearly enough to threaten the survival of a species. (For example, Mao is estimated to have killed as many as 60 million Chinese during the Cultural Revolution, which was over 2% of the total population at the time, and this went virtually unnoticed by most of the world.) For humans to be "extinct," we ALL have to die, without succesfully reproducing. That is not a likely outcome of any AGW scenario.

Potential causes of rapid human extinction (by rapid I mean within an evolutionarily short period, such as 200 years) include a large meteor or asteroid strike, a nearby supernova (Sirius?), or the emergence of a particularly virulent pathogen that proves resistant to all our antibiotic technology. We can't do much about the first two, and the last one has the potential to happen without any help from AGW.

Current legislative and international efforts on a lot of topics are inadequate. AGW is just one of them. Hell, we still have people hacking each other to pieces with machetes, and setting off bombs in marketplaces filled with women and children. We haven't learned to trust each other, and we are too busy taking advantage, or fearing that the other guy is taking advantage, to move forward together.

TCD

 

[DougPaul]

Last evening my wife and I watched Werner Herzog's 2008 documentary on Antarctica - Encounters at the End of the World thanks to Netflix.

What I most struck by was the sense that many (most?) climatologists and volcanologists have a pessimistic view of mankind's ability to survive the impact of global warming, and that extinction seems all but inevitable.

While I have no professional credentials regarding global warming, I am an avid reader on the subject. Personally, I think we passed the tipping point some years ago (20-25), probably about when the concentration of CO2 passed 350ppm.

I haven't seen the documentary and also don't have any professional credentials regarding GW but have read a good bit on the topic. IMO, you may be correct that we have already passed a tipping point.

And if we haven't yet, IMO we are very likely to do so soon. (We are likely to only recognize the event well after it has occurred...) The human population continues to increase along with our demands upon the earth and environment. Meanwhile we are damaging the general environment (which supplies us with air, water, and food), polluting water and air, degrading cultivated soils, damaging fish populations etc, all of which reduces the planet's ability to support us.

Global climate change will reduce the food and water available in some locations and may increase the food and water available in some other locations. Even if the total amount of available food and water is not reduced, the production and supply chain will be disrupted and will likely take far more time to adapt than for people to starve. (Look, for instance, at the starvation caused by the US diverting corn to ethanol production for an example of far-reaching effects.)

Increased competition for food, water, fuel, and other resources are more likely to increase rather than decrease strife.

I personally don't expect that these changes will result in the extinction of the human species, but I do expect that they are likely to result in potentially massive population collapses if we continue on our current path. (Look, for instance at the population cycles (booms and collapses), of lynx as their population grows until they eat their way through the snowshoe hare population that they starve (the lynx population drops by 99%).
http://www.pz.harvard.edu/ucp/curriculum/ecosystems/s6_res_lynxhare.pdf,
http://lynx.uio.no/jon/lynx/nwtlynx.htm)

I hope the above doesn't happen, but the math--increasing human population and demands on a finite planet--cannot be ignored.


"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Pogo (Walt Kelly), 1970.
http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogo_(comics)

Doug

 

[Paradox]

CFL’s have been mentioned several times in this thread both in the positive and negative. “CFL” is the abbreviation for Compact Fluorescent Light. Which means it is the application of the glassblower’s art to the typical 2’, 4' or 8’ fluorescent tubes into a spiral shape for use in the common screw-in lamp fixture found in our homes. Most of us have made use of the T-2, T-6, T-8 etc., tubes in our basements, garages, and schools. It is also used for roadway lights and in places of employment. It has been in common use since the late 1930’s. So common that “By 1951 more light was produced in the United States by fluorescent lamps than by incandescent lamps.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_tube. Our predominate use of fluorescent lighting for well over 50 years has escaped vehement attack until recently.

For over 50 years the criticism of fluorescent lighting has centered on two objections: flickering and color rendition. Cheap +/or old ballasts are the cause of the flickering problem and the solution is trivial. Color rendition is improved with the use of different phosphors. Phosphors have always been added to fluorescent lights to improve the hideous green light of the mercury discharge into a more pleasant color. (The yellow colored sodium vapor lamps are far less common.) The color quality of some commercially available fluorescent tubes has been improved to the point where I and most all dentists use it exclusively for color matching of crowns and other restorative esthetic dentistry.

The mercury that has always been in fluorescent tubes is a relatively new concern. According to General Electric’s literature, on average about 5 mg of mercury is in a given tube. This is much less mercury than is found in the smallest of amalgam dental fillings. Is it toxic? The simple answer: yes. However, both dental amalgam and fluorescent tubes contain elemental mercury and it is the vapor emitted from them which leads to toxicity. Hence, it is breakage of the glass tube that can release the vapor from the 5mg of contained mercury. It should be noted that other mercury compounds such as methyl mercury are far more toxic.

I will now conjecture on how much mercury vapor we could be releasing from the billions of discarded tubes in the next 50-100 years. I can base this only on my experience, because I cannot find any other data. I break much less than half. Most of them start flickering and I get rid of them. I recycle very few, most going into the ubiquitous plastic trash bag. No vapor from the unbroken ones and what little vapor from the broken ones is contained in the bag. This goes to the landfill, eventually getting a clay cap further containing vapor from unavoidable subsequent breakage. I have not been able to find evidence that landfills in general are a significant point source for mercury polution. My conclusion: very little.

We as consumers have been using mercury based lighting products as our predominant lighting source for over 50 years. We should consider how much additional mercury we will be adding to the environment by switching to CFL’s and eventually adding them to landfills. According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(element) about half of the atmospheric mercury comes from volcanic eruptions. Of the remaining 50% about 3% (or 1.5% of the total) comes from waste disposal. “Waste disposal includes municipal and hazardous waste, crematoria, and sewage sludge incineration. This is a significant underestimate due to limited information, and is likely to be off by a factor of two to five.[15]”. Much of the mercury released from crematoria is from dental amalgam, a further reason why I don’t place them unless specifically asked. The same Wikipedia entry states “65% from stationary combustion, of which coal-fired power plants are the largest aggregate source (40% of U.S. mercury emissions in 1999).[16] This includes power plants fueled with gas where the mercury has not been removed. Emissions from coal combustion are between one and two orders of magnitude higher than emissions from oil combustion, depending on the country.[15]” . Or about 20% of total U.S. atmospheric mercury exposure.

IMHO, on a national or global scale the switch from incandescent lights to fluorescent lights has already been accomplished for over 50 years and the addition of CFL's to the consumer market will only be a small amount of the remaining total. On an individual scale from available data, fluorescent lighting in general, and CFL’s specifically, are a better alternative than incandescent lighting for selecting the color temperature of light I wish to be bathed in, reducing my neighbors exposure to atmospheric mercury, reducing my electric bill, and thereby the amount of fossil fuel I consume.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I hesitate to use the word stupid when talking about folks who went to school for more years than I did. But some of the folks generating material on this topic have gotten themselves so twisted up in alarmism, and in trying to prove a point, that they've lost track of the basic scientific reasoning we all learned.

Clearly some particularly delicate, or marginally surviving species will be made extinct by any large global climate change. Also, some species which only exist in a small habitat may be made extinct by a smaller or more localized change (for these species, extirpation equals extinction). But man is neither delicate, nor marginally surviving, nor localized to only a small habitat.

TCD

And, here lies the real problem in my view. In your earlier reply you noted that the human species with less technology survived more dramatic climate changes in the past, so humans will survive AGW. But, ironically, it is our increase in technology that got us, but more important thousands of other innocent species, into this mess. From the standpoint of causing other species to go extinct, humans are the vilest in the history of the planet, by orders of magnitude. A humanist I am not.

But, here is some good news from New Hampshire, which is closer to the original topic of this thread, and reason for some optimism.

http://rssnews.renewable-energy-sou...ets-25-percent-renewable-energy-boston-globe/

 

[Paradox]

Should humans do what we can to change the trend?

We need to be careful there. Humans brought the bald eagle back and now the bald eagle threatens the great cormorant population http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30044. Every action has a reaction and we should fully understand the reaction to anything we do to make sure we don't make an even bigger mess.

For sure, we don't want untoward results from actions taken. However, I am more optimistic about what humans can and will do to reduce climate change. My background includes a childhood of summers on the Canadian shore of Lake Erie. Phosphates, principally in laundry soaps, fertalized rapid algea blooms in May and June, which would die as the lake warmed in July. From my earliest memories until 1973 the months of July, August, and September yielded a stinking muck that extended 100 yards and more into the lake, thousands and thousands of dead smelt would be mixed in and more covered the sand.

In the late 1960's and early 1970's it was not hard to hear people criticizing pollution control measures. I remember my eighth grade science teacher telling us we should be going to West Virginia to get our laundry soap because the consequences of dirty clothes was economic collapse and, yes, the fear of Communism (ie. politics) was part of his rant. The message had always been "Don't EVER eat the fish!" (If you could manage to find one to catch.). I heard adults say "Lake Erie is a dead lake.” and “In a few years it will be a swamp with a river down the middle."

By the late 1970's Lake Erie was swimmable, didn't stink, the shoreline muck stopped appearing... it was nice. "Don't eat the fish!" became "Don't eat the fish more than once a month" and now once a week http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/o...reat_lakes.htm . Today, it is a beautiful lake.

We have to be smart about it of course. But to use elemental mercury bound to phosphors, much of it sealed in a glass tube, in a plastic bag, buried under a clay cap, where leakage is not found as an argument against fluorescent lighting is not what I consider scientifically informed on the issue at hand. We should also be informed that volcanoes are responsible for about half our mercury exposure. I hesitate to call mercury exposure “natural”, but it appears half of it is.

 

[Paradox]

.... But to use elemental mercury bound to phosphors, much of it sealed in a glass tube, in a plastic bag, buried under a clay cap, where leakage is not found .....

I did find this:http://www.mswmanagement.com/november-december-2003/mercury-landfill-gas.aspx

 

[DougPaul]

I did find this:http://www.mswmanagement.com/november-december-2003/mercury-landfill-gas.aspx

Reasonable as far as it goes, but it only covers air emissions. Ground water could also be an avenue of escape.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Now on PBS is showing a story entitled "Ocean Tipping Point?" this week. Worth watching, IMO. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/527/oceans-climate-change.html

Synopsis:
One possible tipping point:
The oceans are currently absorbing much of the excess global heat. The temperature rise in the oceans is being held in check because the oceans are transferring the heat to melting the polar ice caps. Once the (currently rapidly disappearing) icecaps are gone, the ocean temps will rise much more rapidly. The increased ocean temps will have unpredictable effects on the world's weather.

Doug

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

NOAA report, June 2009

I am prepping for classes this fall, I came across this NOAA report from a couple of months ago. Lots of good links here also.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090616_climatereport.html

 

[Barbarossa]

I prepping for classes this fall, I came across this NOAA report from a couple of months ago. Lots of good links here also.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090616_climatereport.html

Among the main findings are:

* Heat waves will become more frequent and intense, increasing threats to human health and quality of life. Extreme heat will also affect transportation and energy systems, and crop and livestock production.
* Increased heavy downpours will lead to more flooding, waterborne diseases, negative effects on agriculture, and disruptions to energy, water, and transportation systems.
* Reduced summer runoff and increasing water demands will create greater competition for water supplies in some regions, especially in the West.
* Rising water temperatures and ocean acidification threaten coral reefs and the rich ecosystems they support. These and other climate-related impacts on coastal and marine ecosystems will have major implications for tourism and fisheries.
* Insect infestations and wildfires are already increasing and are projected to increase further in a warming climate.
* Local sea-level rise of over three feet on top of storm surges will increasingly threaten homes and other coastal infrastructure. Coastal flooding will become more frequent and severe, and coastal land will increasingly be lost to the rising seas.

July temperatures

 

[Paradox]

I just looked out my window and did not see any squirrels. Conclusion: squirrels are a myth.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

July temperatures

Very true that temperatures in the eastern U.S. were cooler than normal this July, but overall, temperatures are warming, and Arctic sea ice continues its dramatic thinning.

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_august.php

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Speaking of warmer arctic waters - World sets ocean temperature record

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

Speaking of warmer arctic waters - World sets ocean temperature record

Here is a related article on the return of El Nino in 2009/2010, which has the potential to top the warming during the extraordinarily strong El Nino in 1998. Article includes some colorful graphs and maps.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.pdf

 

[Barbarossa]

Arctic sea ice continues its dramatic thinning.

http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/report_august.php

It looks like the forecasts didn't pan out, but the researchers will get a chance to perfect their methodologies.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

It looks like the forecasts didn't pan out, but the researchers will get a chance to perfect their methodologies.

Yes, it is looking like 2009 may end up with only the third least extensive arctic sea-ice extent in at last few thousand years, if not tens of thousands of years, but still these three least extensive sea-ice extents have occurred the past three years. And, perhaps more important, what sea ice that remains each year is getting thinner than ever, so is less likely to recover thickness and extent. I think that the satellite surveillance methodologies are fine, but we are seeing some year-to-year variability in arctic sea-ice extent, like the cold wet spring and early summer in New England this year. Here is another link to a good resource site on arctic sea ice.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

 

[BobC]

A study on the belief that humans are a significant cause of global warming: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_3_118/ai_n31587143/

Those who believe that humans are a significant cause:
* <60% of Americans
* <50% of Americans think scientists agree
* 85% of Earth scientists
* 97% of well-published climate experts.

This says something about poor scientific literacy in this country and poor communication between the experts and the population at large... (And maybe the effects of commercial FUD.)

Doug

Just catching up on some months-old replies to this epic thread. One of the things I've wondered, and which continues to make me skeptical of AGW claims, is the last statistic listed above: "97% of well-published climate experts". I'd like to ask a couple of questions that may sound provocative, and I sincerely hope I won't be pummeled here for being a skeptic that's just looking for answers. I'm no wordsmith and so I don't know a better way to ask them. Personal attacks will be completely ignored, so please don't bother. Not trying to start an argument here, because I'm not a 100% skeptic, so maybe some reasoned responses will convince me to change my mind.

Just what is a climate expert? More specifically, what training, degrees, certifications, etc. qualify someone as a climate expert?

Who pays the salaries of these climate experts? In other words, what type of organizations would employ a climate expert?

Edit: Does a climate expert spend the majority of their time (or 100% of their time) researching the causes and effects of global warming? If not, what else would they do?

Assuming that the 97% statistic above is true (without yet having an answer to the first set of questions) I'd guess that a climate expert must at least have a master's degree, which generally means about 6 years of college. What would be the job prospects for someone that trained as a climate expert, worked for several years in the field, only to come up with the conclusion that GW doesn't exist, or at least that it isn't human-caused? Please don't say that because the "science is settled", that this isn't possible. Just look at it as a hypothetical question.

 

[Chip]

And, perhaps more important, what sea ice that remains each year is getting thinner than ever, so is less likely to recover thickness and extent.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

"The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC) exceeds 15%."

I didn't see where there are thicknesses measured, is there a "total ice volume" measurement/graph anywhere ? "Extent" seems almost pointless.

 

[Stash]

On a positive note....

Reduced ice has opened the North Passage more frequently. Ships passing through can save thousands of gallons of fuel vs. going th long way around. One could see negatives in this as well but I'd rather dwell on the reduced emissions...

 

[DougPaul]

<snip>

Science is evidence driven and the evidence is very strong and available in many places. One reasonable place to start is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming.

Doug