Jan '08 second coldest in 15 years

[qbee42]

Originally Posted by TimBikes

Got to love it. So no matter what happens, the AGW alarmists will be right!

It doesn't mean they are right, it means they can't be disproved by a little goofy weather. That's the problem with long term issues. Everyone wants to look at short fluctuations and extrapolate to the long term. It just plain doesn't work. The media is largely to blame for it, since your typical reporter or medial-flak-writer knows about as much about the climate and scientific method as does your typical Idaho potato. Still, it doesn't mean global warming alarmists are wrong either. It's a complex issue.

We have a similar thing going on with the levels of the Great Lakes. They are close to record lows at the moment. Some say it's global warming, some say it's the shipping industry, others blame Chicago, while many say it's just part of the natural cycle. We know that the Lakes go through ups and downs, and have done so through all of recorded history, but there is the problem: The recorded history of the Great Lakes is only about 150 years long. Anything longer than that is speculation or geologic evidence. From geology, we do know that the Lakes used to be much deeper, but then ten thousand years ago the location of my house was under more than a mile of ice. We get a lot of snow, but we are still somewhat short of the mile of ice figure. There just isn't enough data to work out conclusively why the Lakes are down. We will know eventually, but by then it will be history.

The same thing is happening with global warming. There is no question that temperatures have been on the rise. It's also easy to show that greenhouse gas levels have been rising in direct correlation to human activities. What can't be proved on the short term is how much influence our activities have had verses natural cycles, how much we want to do about it, how much we can do about it, and how it will all play out in the end. No one knows that.

Tom

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by qbee42

It doesn't mean they are right, it means they can't be disproved by a little goofy weather. That's the problem with long term issues. Everyone wants to look at short fluctuations and extrapolate to the long term. It just plain doesn't work. The media is largely to blame for it, since your typical reporter or medial-flak-writer knows about as much about the climate and scientific method as does your typical Idaho potato. Still, it doesn't mean global warming alarmists are wrong either. It's a complex issue.

We have a similar thing going on with the levels of the Great Lakes. They are close to record lows at the moment. Some say it's global warming, some say it's the shipping industry, others blame Chicago, while many say it's just part of the natural cycle. We know that the Lakes go through ups and downs, and have done so through all of recorded history, but there is the problem: The recorded history of the Great Lakes is only about 150 years long. Anything longer than that is speculation or geologic evidence. From geology, we do know that the Lakes used to be much deeper, but then ten thousand years ago the location of my house was under more than a mile of ice. We get a lot of snow, but we are still somewhat short of the mile of ice figure. There just isn't enough data to work out conclusively why the Lakes are down. We will know eventually, but by then it will be history.

The same thing is happening with global warming. There is no question that temperatures have been on the rise. It's also easy to show that greenhouse gas levels have been rising in direct correlation to human activities. What can't be proved on the short term is how much influence our activities have had verses natural cycles, how much we want to do about it, how much we can do about it, and how it will all play out in the end. No one knows that.

Tom

OK - I'm good with that Tom.

[tripp]

And this is where I think a risk management approach makes a lot of sense. We have some ideas about what might happen, but it's not clear what's actually going to happen. There are many critical processes that are quite poorly understood. So we have big error bars. That's bad, IMO. We should take steps to mitigate the risks without being too draconian at the same time. Then there are all of those other benefits that we get for taking steps.

[qbee42]

Good point, Tripp. We could say "Let's kill all the humans and then we will solve the problem", but then there would be no reason (from our perspective) to solve the problem. On the other hand, we can say "There is no problem", but if we are wrong it might be too late to do anything about it. Risk management is a good approach. Anything that is easy to do, and doesn't have a big downside, then do it. We should also fund and implement things that have other benefits, such as alternative energy. The free market isn't very good about long term planning. Those sort of issues have to be tackled at the level of society or government. Once the payoff is obvious, the free market will run with it, but don't expect any company to bet its future on something 40 years off (30, 20, 10 maybe?).

Tom

[FL_Prius_Driver]

One of the really big problems with the "Global Warming Problem" is the sudden arrival of "active measures" being discussed. Recent discussions of seeding oceans with iron to sequester CO2 bothers me greatly. (.....Hey Zeke, if we dump all this rusting building debris in the middle of the ocean, we can get paid carbon offset credits! I now like this global warming hysteria.....)

[tripp]

Tom, exactly. The market has a very short horizon and that's why we need policy.

FL Prius, yeah the active shit is scarey and the carbon offsets have a dark side for sure.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Just for those interested, here is one company trying to cash in on dumping stuff in the ocean:

Climos

Here is another:

Planktos - Offline

Planktos has already had a ship leave to seed. Note the following quote from Science issue of 30 November 2007:

"....California-based Planktos, set sail from Florida toward an undisclosed area in the equatorial Atlantic that it plans to fertilize. (The secrecy is due to threats from environmental activists to disrupt the mission.)..."

[F8L]

Originally Posted by FL_Prius_Driver

Just for those interested, here is one company trying to cash in on dumping stuff in the ocean:

Climos

Here is another:

Planktos - Offline

Planktos has already had a ship leave to seed. Note the following quote from Science issue of 30 November 2007:

"....California-based Planktos, set sail from Florida toward an undisclosed area in the equatorial Atlantic that it plans to fertilize. (The secrecy is due to threats from environmental activists to disrupt the mission.)..."

That is scary indeed. Rarely do we want to slow down or reduce, instead we think the best path is based doing something differently and faster.

[Godiva]

Hmm. It's 77 degrees here on Feb. 9. 80 degrees where my school is. Granted not our warmest February day.

Normal high is 67. Normal low is 52.

It's been around 45 every morning when I leave for work.

What I'm seeing is much wider fluctuations in temperatures and unusual temps "out of season".

That's climate change....right?

[TimBikes]

Interesting that January 2008 also had the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover since 1966.