babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Normals are set every 10 years, so the current 30 year period for establishing normals is 1971 to 2000. The year isn't over yet. but it appears to be the coldest year globally since 2000, but still warmer than 1999 and any previous year in recorded history prior to 1998 (2005 and 1998 are not statistically different). A short term leveling off of temperatures due to natural variability is not inconsistent with a general warming trend due to the enhanced greenhouse effect from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and there are forecasts from the Hadley Centre and others that anticipated this leveling off, with significant warming to come in the next decade. The long-term trend is still up, and statements by the denialist fringe that global warming has totally reversed are just so much bullshit.
Heavy snowfalls can occur with both above normal and below normal temperatures. The warmer the airmass is the more moisture it can hold, and thus greater precipitation is associated with warmer termperatures. However below normal temperatures may result in the precipitation falling as snow rather than rain. Snow generally results from the interaction of ice crystals, supercooled water droplets and water vapour within clouds, but can also result from evaporation cooling of raindrops below the cloud.
Unfortunately I've heard a couple of people, due to the amount of snow we've gotten this year proclaim that this global warming thing must be a hoax cause look it's cold. Makes me want to bang my head against the wall. I wish that the phrase global warming wasn't the first phrase to describe whats happening to gain widespread usage. It's CLIMATE CHANGE so that means, warm, cold, rain, up, down and roundabout and generally more unstable weather patterns not just a warming up so we can plant palm trees. Sorry this is a real pet peeve of mine right now. :)
I'm not an expert in all the technical stuff regarding the how and the why it's all happening but I sure am an observer of how the weather patterns affect what's happening on the ground, in the ground and with what comes out of the ground. I haven't been in this specific area long enough to have any personal longterm obeservation of trends but I'm connected with people who are. Specifically gardeners. For instance, you don't have to know one bit of technical info about how weather and climate works to observe that plants that 20 years ago would not survive in this area over the winters now do. It's so much of a trend that even garden centers are now carrying new plants or relabeling plants as perennials to this zone rather then annuals. I've been to several talks directed at gardeners where the main topic of conversation is about how the difference in the seasonal climate is affecting gardening in general. It's common to hear questions like, 'well I've been gardening for 30 years and I haven't seen this before what do I do or what does this mean?'
Most talks tend to focus just on the positive however. Things like it's great now we can grow all these neat new plants. Very few unfortunately focus the negative or the differences that can cause new problems though I was at one that talked about changes in water patterns. My main concern or worry has to do with changes in insect patterns, particularly the pollinators. Another concern is how potentially larger fluctuations between warm and cold in the winters can affect the ecosystem or plants as a whole. Getting a bout of spring like weather in February might be great for us but it can really screw with plants natural cycles. While it's normal in terms of long term trends to have such a thing happen it isn't normal to have it happen every year. Plants are adapted to survive a certain amount of less then normal yearly differences but if those differences become 'normal' we're going to see long term changes.
It's probably not a big deal to most people if a certain flower or forest plant kicks it in whatever area they're in. Most won't even notice. Some animals that depend on it, or say the insects that depend on it might though. However when it comes to growing things like food it could have an effect. While there could be a postives like the extension of the times between frosts which could lead to longer growing periods the problem comes with the unpredictability. While there is always a certain unpredictability in weather, especially in the spring most old time gardeners I know have said that over the past ten years that 'normal' unpredictability has become less predictble. The outside parameters are changing.
Last year we saw an example of what can happen if the weather changes back and forth so quickly. We had a bout of warmth and the apple trees woke up, at least enough that they went into flower. Then as usual the insects started waking up. Then suddenly, overnight, it got really cold again. On the north side of the trees most of the flowers froze and fell off. The insects went back to sleep and some just died. My neighbor and I both found a lot of dead bees in our respective yards. So then we had a situation where we had flowers but no pollinators. We ended up with some apples but they were all small and deformed. Over the entire season I also noticed less wild bees then the previous year. The apple harvest in the area orchards was really poor last year so it had an economic effect for people who make a living growing apples.
Now of course a bad apple year due to circumstances like these isn't unknown. It happens occasionally according to the apple growers I talked to. However they did say that over the past few years due to overall changes in weather patterns the worry about whether the crop will get fertilized properly each year has grown. It's always been a worry but it's much more of an issue now then it was ten years ago. Farmers have always had to deal with weather changes and some crops are more adaptable then others in terms of times planted etc etc. Things like fruit crops however are not. If the weather isn't right enough during the the fertilzation window there's nothing really that can be done.
If for instance what happened last year becomes more common say every two or three years or worse most years then this whole area will simply become less viable for growing those sorts of foodstuffs. Of course other that right now stink at growing apples might become more viable. Unfortunately an apple grower can't just easily pick up their trees and just move. :)
I guess the main point of my ramblings is just to give a small illustration of how the abstract talking about temperature changes and weather does or could have a real effect at an ecological level beyond just what the weather is like outside.
I have to laugh at climate change deniers. Dudes or dudettes seriously, go out at take a look around you, talk to people whose lives or hobbies actually work with the natural world and have real experience to see the weird changes. Ask about things like invasive species for a start. It might be ancacdotal but those sorts of anecdotes tend to add up. I could even introduce you to a bug that's been in my garden for two years now , who the old time gardeners have never seen before in their whole lives, which every scientific natural bug manual for my area says shouldn't be there because it's habitat is way to the south. Took us ages to figure out what it was because of that. It shouldn't be living here but it is now much to the chagrin of some of my vegetables. Big deal some might say, it's just a bug. Well it is a big deal because so far the natural predators that help keep the balance in the insect world on my little plot of land don't seem to have figured out if they can eat it or not. I managed to keep it in check using mechanical means (which meant daily picking off and drowning in water) but my neighbor lost her entire zucchini and other vine crops for two years in a row now. Nothing she did worked.
The climate is most definately changing. My belly or better said the plants and complex systems that they live in, that fill my belly are telling me so.
oh, sorry policywonk... I was referring to the graph in this thread that relates the month of november and october to 1961-1990 means. Somehow that thread is in the babble book lounge forum though. hehe. They'll use 1971-2000 once we hit 2010.
Though... Where are you getting this year as the coldest since 2000? I would agree with coldest since 2003 atleast.
Great post ElizaQ, it was a good read.
Hadley Centre. Actually 1997 was warmer too, but I assume it was part of the same El Nino event as 1998.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
Comparing month to month is not particularly useful as there is much more statistical noise.
I know how you feel. Aside from pointing out that they are talking about weather, not climate, I tell them that year-to-year and decade-to-decade variation, even extreme hot and cold weather events, have always happened in cool and warm eras alike, even in the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age--even in the last actual Ice Age! Then I ask them what in the world makes them think that those variations would vanish simply because global average temperture is increasing, or that it would negate the effects of Earth's axial tilt, i.e. winter?
Remember, your goal is not to convince or convert the global warming/climate change heckler/denier/obfuscater, which is a total waste of time, but rather to turn it into a teaching moment to reach those watching the discussion who are not knowledgeable enough to know who is telling the truth, you or the heckler/denier/obfuscater. The best way to do that is to make the heckler/denier/obfuscater sound like an ignorant fool without insulting them and calling them an ignorant fool, which would certainly put off others viewing the exchange. Do it with facts, wit and humor, not rancor and insult.
Nature 457, 459-462 (22 January 2009)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/nature07669.ht...
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Eric J. Steig, David P. Schneider, Scott D. Rutherford, Michael E. Mann, Josefino C. Comiso & Drew T. Shindell
Abstract:
Assessments of Antarctic temperature change have emphasized the contrast between strong warming of the Antarctic Peninsula and slight cooling of the Antarctic continental interior in recent decades1. This pattern of temperature change has been attributed to the increased strength of the circumpolar westerlies, largely in response to changes in stratospheric ozone2. This picture, however, is substantially incomplete owing to the sparseness and short duration of the observations. Here we show that significant warming extends well beyond the Antarctic Peninsula to cover most of West Antarctica, an area of warming much larger than previously reported. West Antarctic warming exceeds 0.1 °C per decade over the past 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring. Although this is partly offset by autumn cooling in East Antarctica, the continent-wide average near-surface temperature trend is positive. Simulations using a general circulation model reproduce the essential features of the spatial pattern and the long-term trend, and we suggest that neither can be attributed directly to increases in the strength of the westerlies. Instead, regional changes in atmospheric circulation and associated changes in sea surface temperature and sea ice are required to explain the enhanced warming in West Antarctica.
Here is a much longer summation of the paper than the brief abstract:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/
Here's the skinny on the dangers of global warming:
Global temperatures have varied widely over time (up and down). There have been repeated period of time when nearly all of North America has been covered in hundreds of feet of ice and other periods of time when there has been no ice whatsoever at the poles (and ocean levels were very, very high--at least relative to today). All of those temperature swings occurred without human intevention.
In outcroppings on my sister's farm in Iowa, her kids routinely find fossilized sharks' teeth. So, obviously, there was an ocean once covering what today is the midwest USA.
Did the planet shrivel up and die because of those temperature swings? No.
If the ocean rises several meters because of a 4 degree increase in temps, will humans now living in coastal regions become inconvenienced? No doubt.
Will the planet die? No. No more than the planet was harmed by sea levels being several hundred meters higher than they are today because there was no ice.
It's curious that humans are fixated on what the temperature was in 1998 or 1997 (or 1898, for that matter). In the long-term scheme of things, a 4 degree temperature swing is meaninglessly insignificant.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Sven, you are conveniently ignoring the fact that every single thing that comprises human civilization developed since the end of the last glaciation. That includes cities, agriculture and all technology since stone and bone tools. The human species survived the last glaciation, perhaps even spread across the globe because of it, but human civilization did not because it had not yet developed. And that civilization is designed and built to cope with the climate that we have now, not the altered climate and geography that would be the result of a 4C increase in average temperature.
You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that the last natural climate change event brought about by a sudden increase in greenhouse gas levels resulted in a mass-extinction of marine life and an overturning of dominant land species. Look up the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Further back, an even more massive injection of greenhouse gases wiped out 90-95% of all life on earth. Look up the Permian-Triassic Extinction Event.
I quite agree that Earth and life itself will go on no matter what we humans do to the environment. It's our sorry asses that are on the line.
That would have been Pangaia days... There are also glacial boulders littering the midwest landscape. Earth has been close to a giant snowball and has been warm enough to have a tropical arctic pole. Yes the Earth can change independant of us... This does not mean that we cannot influence these changes.
Of course the planet will not die... But how will we fare? I forget, how effective was our agriculture back when the sea levels were that many meters higher?
Once again, in Earth terms yes. In our terms? You've got me curious now Sven, how many lives need to be at risk before you'll consider it meaningfully significant?
How sad for those poor people without airconditioning in Oz.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=australia-heat-wave-subsi
This is the worst case scenario; the greatest mass extinction of all. It will take more than a 4 degree increase, but the fear is that positive feedback mechanisms will make a 6 degree increase inevitable if we can't limit warming to more than a couple of degrees. It's not the absolute value of the increase, but the rate of increase.
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/review/325/One last chance to save humankind: James Lovelock interview.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
A 4C or 6C temperature rise would, indeed, be very, very bad. I do not, however, believe it would result in the extinction of humans, as humans are very adaptable.
That all being said: If global warming is an existential threat (and perhaps it is), then why the hell are we talking about anything else but global warming? Yet, "climate change" is lost in a veritable blizzard of other "pressing issues". And doesn't every discussion about a lack of affordable college tuition, insufficient arts funding, middle class wages, GMO foods, etc., etc., etc. only serve to suck vital energy and attention away from the one issue that everything else depends on? The one issue that, if not addressed, causes everything else to be irrelevant?
If life itself really depended on addressing that one issue, then I would think that people would say, "Let's put aside discussing A, B, C,...Z and focus our attention on addressing the one issue upon which everything else depends. Once that's solved, we can return to other issues." And, yes, I understand that some issues are inextricably linked to the issue of global warming...but most are not.
But, because most of those who are concerned about global warming simultaneously engage in discussing, protesting, and hand-wringing about a million other subjects, I am led to conclude that the very advocates of concern about global warming don't really believe that is is as serious as they claim it to be. Either that or they don't know the first fucking thing about actually getting something done.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Example: "Protests R Us" (the "Events by Issue" guide doesn't even list "Climate Change" as a major category—instead, it's buried under the generic (and unalarming) category name: "Environment").
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
I quite agree, Sven. Even many self described "progressives" don't get just how serious climate change is going to be, and especially how long it will last: basically a thousand years or more.
For some insight you might want to listen to Gwynne Dye's three-part Ideas series Climate Wars. You can donload it as three podcasts here:
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/podcast.html
The thread title is "Prepare for global temperature rise of 4C"
Really looking forward to instructions for preparation. Where to start?
Old Jim Lovelock isn't really helpful by this time, eh, FM? But maybe the old fart is not perfect, has overlooked some natural response to rising ocean levels that will save the day? (Besides the culling, I mean). Some physical reaction.
What do these untrained, undisciplined, would-be biologists know, anyway? Right, Sven? (Thanks for the latest Lovelock interview by the way).
Global temperatures "will rise 6°C this century"
As posted at #21 above:
On a planet 4°C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinctionIs that cliff more than a metre high? If so, you're safe for now.
While true, it won't have much, if any, short term effect on global warming for two reasons:
1) We have yet to see the full warming impact from the CO2 that has already been emitted due to the thermal inertial of the ocean, and since that CO2 is not going anywhere soon it will continue to give its gift of warming for many decades to come, if not centuries.
2) Along with CO2, chimneys, smoke stacks and tailpipes the world over also spew sulfate aerosols and particulates, which reflect and block incoming sunlight, offsetting some of the CO2-induced warming, known as Global Dimming.
But as economic activity slows, not only less CO2, but also fewer aerosols and particulates will be emitted, and since both wash out of the atmosphere quickly, we can expect a sudden boost in CO2-induced warming when the aerosols and particulates of the so-called Asian Brown Cloud no longer mask part of the existing warming.
This is exactly what we saw after the collapse of East Block economies in the 1990s and after the aerosols and ash of Mt Pinatuno cleared in 1992-93. It's also no coincidence that the last 30 years of rapid warming commenced just as clean air legislation took effect in the US and Western Europe.
Unfortunately, silver linings are not always what they appear to be.
More bad news from Copenhagen:
A 2°C increase in global temperatures will result in the destruction of 20-40% of the Amazonian rainforest.
A 3°C increase in global temperatures will result in the destruction of up to 75% of the Amazonian rainforest.
A 4°C increase in global temperatures will result in the destruction of up to 85% of the Amazonian rainforest.
A 5-6°C increase (see upthread) will likely kill off the rainforest altogether.
Can someone please point me to one or more links showing recent and historical global sea level rise? I think these would be enlightening. A google search found only the Univ of Colorado for me.
That site shows sea level rising at 3.1mm per year since 1993 and it seems to me holding at that value i.e. not accelerating. This would result in a 30 cm rise over the next 100 years (a bit ove 1 foot). This is far below the projections I think. So: why has it not accelerated? I wonder if other sources give similar results.
Thanks
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faqIndex.html
Specifically 5.1 on sea level rise:
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-5.1.html
For actual papers and research on sea level check the sea level section footnotes of the ICPP report itself.
Keep in mind that the IPCC report is based on data prior to 2006, and that the IPCC explicitly stated that it assumed no increase in the rate of melting of Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets. Subsequent observations have clearly demonstrated that the rate of melt has increased. Here's a discussion of the newer research at RealClimate.org
And there is always Google Scholar:
http://scholar.google.ca/
nycndp, some area's will see colder temperatures in a warming globe...atleast in the short term...local patterns giving way to stronger global ones. Altering pressure systems and a changing jet streams will have that effect. If you look across most of Canada, we've been between 2.5-3 degrees lower for the winter (December to Febuary). However, if you go into Northern Canada and into the arctic, the temps there have been several degrees above average. The mainstay of Europe was a little cooler than normal, while the majority of China was over 4 degrees warmer than normal.
Transplant:
Does this make a technology to 'scrub' the atmosphere of CO2 that much more important? Not talking simple carbon capture to reduce whats emitted, I mean capturing and isolating CO2 that currently in the atmosphere.
And a side question... Is water vapour included in the global dimming discussion, or is that only focused on aerosols and particulates? I ferget.