Unusual Weather We’re Havin’, Ain’t It? August 8, 2006 zuzu Tell me why global warming is “controversial,” again? Manatee turns up in the Hudson River.
Climate is just an average of weather conditions over a long period of time. Unusual weather can be indicative of climate change.
This is about animals although not global warming. I apologize if you think Im hijacking – just delete this comment. http://twinklelittlestar.typepad.com/letter/2006/08/collateral_dama.html#comment-20802707
No, Phil Studge is right. The whole reason you’re commenting on the warm spell is because it is unusual. That is, not the norm. It isn’t indicative of climate change any more than the fact that it’s been cloudy (sometimes foggy) and cool here in Santa Monica lately means we’re headed toward another Little Ice Age. One of the most common mistakes with regard to Global Warming is to attribute local weather patterns to the entire planet. The US is just one small piece of the picture. It does not follow that a global mean rise in temperatures has occurred, despite the fact that you’re hot in New York.
I should add that I’m not saying that global mean rise in temperatures hasn’t occurred. Just that it doesn’t follow from a warm summer in New York.
I remembered reading about a heat wave all over Europe, as well, so I did a little googling. According to this article, the heat wave is worldwide. South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America are all really warm, too–with a few national exceptions.
One of the most common mistakes with regard to Global Warming is to attribute local weather patterns to the entire planet. The US is just one small piece of the picture. It does not follow that a global mean rise in temperatures has occurred, despite the fact that you’re hot in New York. It’s actually been a global heat wave. So there. The problem is that heat waves are departures from the established mean temperatures, yes, but such a deparature from the “norm” could also mean that the norm has shifted and we’re just not aware of it yet.
No, Phil Studge is right. The whole reason you’re commenting on the warm spell is because it is unusual. No, I’m commenting on the fact that there’s a FUCKING MANATEE IN THE HUDSON RIVER. The oceans didn’t warm up enough for that in the course of this month’s heat wave.
That’s just one localized manatee. It does not follow that there has been any wider change in the relative hostility of Hudson River waters to manatees. It might even be rabid or something.
Plus the story says it is unusual but not unprecedented. The manatee has nothing to do with global warming.
Well, it’s unusually warm (and dry) summer in Finland too, and the winters have been getting shorter and the summers generally warmer in my lifetime. The incidence of Colorado Beetle is higher, and it has spread much norther than it used to.
And now that you’ve got me thinking about Global Warming, I might as well answer your question. Tell me why global warming is “controversial,” again? Let’s first mention what’s not controversial: the greenhouse effect. We know that greenhouse gases (most especially CO2, CH4, and ozone) trap some heat emanating from the Earth. We also know that humans have increased the amount of these gases in the atmosphere (most especially by burning fossil fuels). So there is going to be some increase in temperature. The real controversial bit is not whether it happens, but rather how much it’s happening. And there are several reasons it’s controversial, but the most important is the fact that environmentalists had fooled us before, and early predictions of global warming turned out to be wildly inaccurate. Y’see, in the late 60’s and through the 70’s it was very popular among environmentalists to utter doom-and-gloom predictions about the future of the world (FYI and OT: literary types will recognize a simultaneous increase in apocalyptic, post-apocalyptic, and dystopia novels during this period). The most common of these predictions were that the world would be overpopulated in short order and that starvation would be common and widespread. Paul Ehrlich was the most well known of these types and continued to make his predictions of catastrophic collapse well into the 90s. These chicken-little types failed in the extreme to account for technological progress in farming which allowed for more efficient food production, the expansion of arable land, and vastly changed distribution networks. (They’re failure probably has something to do with the fact that they were anti-industry and couldn’t wrap their heads around the idea that technology was improving the planet instead of destroying it.) Following on the end of the Baby Boom, they can probably be forgiven for failing to predict the rapid decline in birthrates. In any case, their failure created a highly skeptical public. So when global warming became an issue during the 80s, people were unsure what to think. The global warming folks seemed to have a lot in common with the doom-and-gloomers that preceded them. They were (obviously) environmentalists who took a largely anti-industry stance. Their predictions also sounded a lot like those of Ehrlich and his type: starvation, collapse, catastrophy. But the skepticism would have faded. After all, temperatures were rising. The problem has occurred because the early predictions of global warming turned out to be very inaccurate. Now, in any field, it would be expected that developing a new science would necessitate a continuous refinement of theories and data. Unfortunately, Ehrlich and his type laid the groundwork for a deep and lasting exasperation with people who predict the end of the world. Moreover, most of the predictions from the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC are obviously and devastatingly unrealistic. The IPCC has created forty scenarios (forty possible futures) but has limited every scenario by requiring that potential reductions in greenhouse emissions not be caused by fear of global warning. In fact, the scenarios also fail to consider already signed treaties on global warming. Hence, the skepticism continues.
Today’s lesson: Keep your mouth shut if you see a manatee, because otherwise you’ll have to deal with these guys.
They probably buy into Reagan’s theory that trees cause pollution. Gabriel, blame environmentalists all you want, but among climatologists not funded by the oil and gas industry there’s absolutely no controversy — which is incredibly rare in scientific circles. The “controversy” is purely a political and economic one.
Tuomas notes that winters have been getting perceptibly milder within his lifetime. That also is indisputable. Again, the problem comes when people attempt to lay all (or most of) the blame for changing climate on greenhouse gases. From about 1000 to 1900 temperatures decreased all over the planet. However, before that downward trend became too severe, mean temperatures were probably about what they were in the mid 20th century. It was that “Medieval Warm Period” which allowed Vikings to colonize Greenland and Newfoundland. By 1400, however, the “Little Ice Age” was in full swing and would remain so into the early 1900s. In fact, the first decade of the 20th century was one of the coldest in American history. Since then, two great increases in temperature have occurred. One which happened between 1910 and 1940 and a second which began in the 1970s and has continued. The second increase correlates with the increase in industry and greenhouse emissions. The first, however, is much more difficult to explain. Many people say it has something to do with solar flares and solar radiation, but that’s not very well known. What is known is that the increase is not just due to greenhouse emissions (because the emissions of the time were too small). The point is that there are more forces at work than just greenhouse gases and that these processes are not understood very well. While we have been having milder winters, it’s not the first time in human history this has occurred.
zuzu, your insistence that public skepticism of global warming can be attributed solely to the oil and gas industry is silly. Your claim that there is no dispute between climatologists as to the cause and amount of global warming is also obviously ridiculous. As for whether the controversy is political and economic, of course it is. There are important interests to be balanced. On one side, there is the continued development of third-world nations and maintenance of first-world standards of living. On the other side, there is the natural desire not to be melted. Both are important. Both should receive due consideration.
Presence of individual manatees as far North as Rhode Island is neither anomalous nor indicative of global warming. http://www.savethemanatee.org/tracking_manatees.htm
In any case, their failure created a highly skeptical public. So when global warming became an issue during the 80s, people were unsure what to think. The global warming folks seemed to have a lot in common with the doom-and-gloomers that preceded them. They were (obviously) environmentalists who took a largely anti-industry stance. Their predictions also sounded a lot like those of Ehrlich and his type: starvation, collapse, catastrophy. Actually there was a conservative one I believe–Charlton Heston, “Soylent Green.” Unless he didn’t write it and just directed it. What does drive me a bit batty when discussing global warming (which Zuzu didn’t do here but I have seen it) is attributed only to Bush’s policies, and only this Bush (meaning in the last 5 years and all the US’ fault). If anyone’s been to India and gotten sick from the air pollution there or from riding in one of the cars that emits, or been to Mexico City or China where they have to limit the number of cars on the road and have a daily smog report, then you realize that pollution and warming are a global issue. Also if it were just the US polluting, it wouldn’t spread that far worldwide.
Actually there was a conservative one I believe–Charlton Heston, “Soylent Green.” Unless he didn’t write it and just directed it. Right, er, my point wasn’t that this is a liberal vs. conservative issue. Rather, that “True Believers” in global warming ignore history when they attribute skepticism over global warming solely to the oil and gas industry. They make a similar, though much farther-reaching mistake when they act like climate variation is a new (and therefore, human-caused) thing.
Gabriel, it is possible to find the evidence in human-caused global warming persuasive without attributing it all to humans. These True Believers do exist, but I hope you’re not saying that Global Warming is a fraud because some of the alarmists are bit funny.
Tell me why global warming is “controversial,” again? Because there is money to be made in the destruction of the environment, just ask Dow Chemical and those stupid animals down stream from their Midland, Michigan plant that eat dirt. To be blunt, it costs more to be ecologically sound and not pollute. Which is why business associations such as the N.A.M spend so much of their time disputing global warming.
Presence of individual manatees as far North as Rhode Island is neither anomalous nor indicative of global warming. Manatees have been spotted as far north as RI before, but it is unusual. The presence of a manatee in an inland river this far north is even moreso. Not in isolation definitive proof of global warming, I must agree. But it’s not in isolation. Virtually no reputable geologist disputes that the earth is warming and that human activity is contributing to this warming anymore. Wish I’d seen the manatee. They sound so cute. I guess a manatee invasion might be considered an unexpected benefit to global warming.
Tell me why global warming is “controversial,” again? Because people with A/C don’t have to pay attention?
Umm…maybe rich people with AC don’t have to pay attention, but most of the rest of us do. Power bills are high, to say the least, and AC has a lot to do with that.