Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
June weather in March
RichardH
Veteran
The Climate change issue is complicated by the impossibility of attributing any particular weather incident to a larger climate picture, ... but the weather this winter is giving pause for a few people around these parts..
Here in southern Canada there has been very little snow this year and no ice cover on the shores of lake Ontario. Recently... starting in February, there have been Tornado outbreaks to the south and west of here. These were not just freak winter tornadoes, but strong storm systems dropping well organized funnels that lasted for an hour or more in some cases. The average temperature here for this time of year is a low of 25F and a high of 39F .....current forecast daytime temperatures in this region are in the low 70's F until next Thursday...and this is after a long week of warm humid weather that has set spring ahead by two months. The forecast low tonight is 45 F.
Here in southern Canada there has been very little snow this year and no ice cover on the shores of lake Ontario. Recently... starting in February, there have been Tornado outbreaks to the south and west of here. These were not just freak winter tornadoes, but strong storm systems dropping well organized funnels that lasted for an hour or more in some cases. The average temperature here for this time of year is a low of 25F and a high of 39F .....current forecast daytime temperatures in this region are in the low 70's F until next Thursday...and this is after a long week of warm humid weather that has set spring ahead by two months. The forecast low tonight is 45 F.
0
Comments
I think our climate is changing quite rapidly, that is pretty evident. Even here in Thailand people have noticed some changes, but why it is happening is still under debate. Is it our doing, partly our doing, are we speeding it up, or is it totally a natural occurring thing.
That is why attribution of local conditions to global climate shifts is almost impossible.
It's happened before , the global climate has swung all over the place during it history... this time we are nature's new twist. Life will muddle along.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115464/Scottish-farmer-lose-15m-early-daffodils-pickers-England.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
i think everybody's right, and nobody's any more 'wrong' than anyone else....
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/science/news-if-you-hear-hoofbeats-think-zebras-fresh-look-global-warming
It just adds to the problem.
and the warmer the planet gets, the more methane will be produced.
almost getting exponentially worse
methane from farm animals, cars, + Carbon dioxide from cars and burning fuels = bad news
I think it has been fairly established at this point that co2 emissions are causing changes that can be separated from the noise of natural fluctuations .. but we on the ground looking at the weather cannot do that.
The last one seems to show some correlation so I looked up the source. So I think that they feel there is some contribution but not enough to give those resistant to change much ammo.
The thing about global warming is that it's not so simple as consistently causing warming. They say it causes more anomalies than before, so "ice age"-type weather is part of it, excessive flooding is part of it. But the bigger picture is that southern weather is moving north, flora are changing in response to that, flowers are blooming earlier which is adversely affecting some animal species, all these things are already upon us.
One thing that was predicted when global warming was first discussed, back in the 1970's, was that the changes will hit a point where they become exponential, and feed on themselves. So warming will produce a drier climate which will cause forest fires, which in turn will cause accelerated warming, the melting permafrost will release methane, further accelerating warming, and the spiral goes up and up. It seems like we're on the cusp of that.
1) Isn't warmer weather generally better for societies and populations? The Medieval Warm Period saw a boom in Europe's population, while the cold centuries following the decline of the Roman Empire saw much famine.
2) How would you convince a skeptic that this particular bout of change in climate is an unnatural, man-made phenomenon where as the changes in previous centuries were all natural with man playing no role.
3) Isn't "Climate Change" the term dubious since it would seem to imply that any weather at anytime would be "proof" that the climate is changing?
4) What is the solution to climate change if it does exist? I have heard calls for the regulation of car emissions and taxing of carbon output. But it doesn't make any difference in the grand scheme of things if only the US adopts these policies and China and India don't. No?
2. I would throw relevant articles at him/her.
3. Who uses the term "Climate Change"? Never heard of it. Is that a Bushism?
4. The solution is to consume less, recycle, build better office buildings, that don't require much fuel for internal "climate control", develop renewable energy resources, develop and implement an economic model that includes the cost of environmental degradation in the business expense sheet, recycle water, develop public transportation, design more energy-efficient appliances, etc. etc. In order to pull such plans off, first corporate control over the political process would need to be addressed. That's why all these things weren't done already 30-40 years ago. That's why we're still at Square One.
OK, Richard and person, your turn.
2. Relation of Carbon in the atmosphere to global average temperature:
Atmospheric carbon dioxode:
Global carbon emissions:
3. Climate change isn't measured in single weather events. Its measured by the overall pattern of weather. Like a contractor that gets paid by the job, you can't look at one job and say what his yearly income will be since the number of jobs isn't known.
4. I'm rather pessemistic about a solution myself. The consequences are too far removed from most peoples experience. At some point though I do feel that we will feel the concrete effects of warming and then the consequences of releasing greenhouse gases will noticably outwiegh the costs of curbing their use.
There are plenty of ways to reduce emissions, what is lacking is the will.
I love winter so I am annoyed by all this warm weather all winter. Right now it's 80 out and the only time it has snowed all season was in January and that only stayed for less than 2 days. Big difference from last year where we had a giant snowstorm.
Today started out with snow, then sun, then hail.... enough already!
Apparently you can't. For the most part it is business as usual, with a green label. That is what the OP is about. But science does not just look out the window, it gathers more and more data.. and builds a stronger case, an almost universal consensus at this point.. The way we live now, the way of endless economic expansion as the measure of good, and escalating resource use by a world wanting to live like middle class westerners, is unsustainable, because the global ecosystem is finite. We have come to that wall, and the crash is in slow-mo. To be honest I do not think we will act on time, and it is already too late. We will be chastened as a species, lose a lot, grieve, adapt when we have no choice, and carry on.
If the West can no longer afford to maintain environmental standards (such as they ever were), who will? Certainly not China.
Business were shut down, I don't remember the numbers, but I believe 250 000 to 500 000 people had no power, some for days without heat in freezing temps. We have wood heat, so we could cook and we were warm.
There hasn't been a water shortage in years.
This winter was very light. It was shorter and much milder than normal (still got damn cold, but it's all relative) Now we are consistently having weather that is sunny, refreshingly humid (not too much, not too little) and around 60-70+ degrees Fahrenheit. I can already smell spring in the air and life returning. Heck, the birds are back en force.
Water shortages are predicted for the NW under global warming, that was my point.
Courageous old woman who went through Hell = what really matters (i.e. not climate change)?
Don't follow.
The fairly certain fact that changes are under way in our physical environment, due to our activity, is not a zero sum fact that negates other real facts of the human experience. By presenting Gore=climate change, and old woman= profound human virtue that is not climate change , is a false dichotomy, and a bit of a shoehorn.
This is samsara. On a certain level, no matter how much things go "my way" sometimes, it sucks. That sucking includes Nazis and environmental misery. Greed, hatred, and delusion are at play in both.
If we follow the logic that man's contribution to climate change is a decidedly significant one - a fairly certain fact - then that is a rubric for "global warming's" (a la Al Gore) validity.
However, if we consider other contributors such as Earth's tilt and elliptical orbit, land mass distribution, sea floor spreading, solar reflectivity, and solar activity variability we see a complex set of variables that occur over hundreds, thousands and millions of years bringing about cooling and warming atmospheric and climactic changes.
The ever popular "greenhouse effect" effecting global heat retention is due to atmospheric gases, mostly water vapor (not droplets), carbon dioxide, methane and a few other gases. Human additions to these gases are approximately 0.2% - 0.3%. Attributing noticeable climate change in a few years due to such output is a false theory.
So, with 99.7% of the "greenhouse effect" being due to natural causes it doesn't seem too disingenuous to point out that an old Polish lady who saved the lives of 2500 Jewish children in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII was overlooked in favor of a failed presidential candidate (who now stands to be the worlds first carbon billionaire) spreading global warming hysteria for a Nobel Peace Prize.
The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate.
Offering Ilena Serena's story in juxtaposition was, perhaps an obtuse way of saying of global warming due to human contributions:
"I ain't buying it."
But I also can't buy the vanishing of human impact into a world of variables. That is just too much like how I would like it to be. "It's a big dynamic uncertain world. The climate is inherently unstable. It can swallow everything, and we are chugging along making no difference."
We will see... In the mean time.. I'm not a fan of Al gore and didn't see his movie or slide show..
Just like the mass hysteria surrounding the "opinions" about human contributions to CO2 emissions - it it is repeated enough - it is accepted as fact. Repetition of fallacy - repeat - does not make it factual.
Of the 186 billion tons of carbon from CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
At 380 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
Unfortunately, we tend to overestimate our actual impact on the planet. In this case the magnitude of the gas emissions involved, even by the most aggressive estimates of atmospheric warming by greenhouse gases, is inadequate to account for the magnitude of temperature increases.
@person, using the propaganda model of the greenhouse effect caused by humans creating global warming to support vegetarianism stating that abolishing the meat industry would solve all the climate problems is irresponsible, false and self serving.
I have a different perspective.... but don't feel that strongly about this issue, at least not enough to dig in my heels...
I can't see much at stake arguing it on this forum.
I am heading to Vancouver, BC and Regina, SK for business next week and am looking forward to a little less ice and blowing snow. Any wildflowers out in Ontario?
As to my link, the main point of it is that while man's contribution to greenhouse gases is small its enough to upset the natural balance pushing us towards warming. Like a scale with 500 pounds on each side, putting 5 extra pounds on one of the sides, while relatively small, upsets the equilibrium. About %40 of human emissions get reabsorbed by natural processes, the rest adds to the concentration of greenhouse gasses up over time increasing the ability of the atmosphere to retain heat.
I'm a weather geek.... when other kids were looking at Playboy, I was watching the play of light as the altocumulus passed under the high cirrus, and low dark scud raced ahead of a cumulonimbus incus, with an ominous hint of mesocyclonic twist. The pulse raced.