Jan '08 second coldest in 15 years

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.....)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

I believe the total human contribution to green house gases during a one year period, compared with all the other green house gases given out by natural causes is .28%.

Wildkow

 

Not here in Va Beach... it's been in the 60 and 70 jan/feb. but we still get the 30's too. but the temp is all over the place.

 

That is a few billion tons too much too isn't it? Yes, it is.

Think of it as a bathtub. You start with a bathtub who's level flucuates slightly. Sometimes the tub's water level is rising from too much flow and others the flow is exceeded by the drain. Then you start adding additional water, just a little compared to the main flow of the faucette but you are adding water. Now start partially covering the drain. The bath water will continue to rise. Cover the drain some more while adding even more water. Eventually you will overflow unless you unplug the drain and stop adding water to the system.

I think many people do not understand these systems enough to comment on them and as such make comments like Kow did and assume that since our portion of the pollution is so small that it cannot have any harmful impact. Bifurcation points or tipping points don't work that way at all.

 

I don't see that as too interesting. Wasn't that predicted? Snowy weather is not so out of reason. Now how long that snow sticks around is what's important. Bringing moisture laden air farther north is exactly what is to be expected when you have warmer equatorial temps and create more evaporation.

 

So what weather pattern in the northern hemisphere would not support man-made global warming?

 

Attribution PLEEEZE!

A big bubaboo with me about the web, and sites like this, is the proffering of information as fact without ANY attempt at attribution!

It is a very different statement to say " I think that the sky is blue" as opposed to "the sky IS blue" and "The sky is blue because,,,,(See Physics textbook so ad so page so and so).

I too am guilty of such opinion guised as fact, but if we are going to further the discussion and indeed further the truth I would hope that we all can back up our opinions with at least a bit of attribution.

Icarus

 

(I tried to edit, but it wouldn't work!)

As a bit of an apology to Kildkow,,, you did state "I believe,,," so indeed you state an opinion rather than present it as fact. My plea stands none the less for all of us , (including me).

I would however question where and how you came to that belief.

Icarus

 

Weather is noise. I'd base climatological opinions on trends of accumulated weather data. This is why I do not make comments regarding localized or current weather.

 

Dude...don't you know that global warming can also cause global COOLING (ya know, cause it causes everything else)?