Extreme weather (climate even?)

Remove all ads!

I have noticed that here, the characteristic weather of each season seems to go even more extreme each year. For the last 10-20-30 years (and earlier), as far as I know, it was relatively same each year, with lesser fluctuations. For example, usually, snow regularly fell each winter, but in the recent years, it is very little snow and it melts very soon. And the temperature stats are extreme too, summer is good example.
IIRC last summer (2003), and in 2002,2001 too I suppose, the highest temperature measured was greater than records measured more than 20 years ago! And weather is unpredictible.
Old sayings which predict weather changes, e.g. according to weather of a day (example: if it rains on this day, it will rain for 40 days) proved right earlier; now they seem to break down!
The reason is Global Warming by all means.

This tendence can be seen in several other parts of the world. I suppose many people have noticed this or something similar in his/her homeland. Could you share your opinions, experience?

 

Same here in Scotland.

The effect is Global Warming.

 

I loved this summer, nice and warm weather for a long period. Hottest and longest summer ever here in Holland; just give me more of that this year.

I think it is too early to say this is a result of global warming. Just because last summer and the few summers before were a little bit warmer, doesn't necessarily mean that the world is heating up. The summer of 2004 can just as likely be a colder summer. You would need data of a hundred or maybe even more years, to conclude that the weather has permanently changed.

Don't get me wrong, it is of course possible that the weather is changing permanently, and the earth is heating up. But people just scream 'global warming' to quickly.

 

Yes a fact, but random chance has to be factored in as well. It is statistically possible for one to have several abnormally warm (or cold) seasons in a row. Take the U.S. The summer of 2003 was one of the most mild we've ever had. We had a few weeks of really hot weather, but from June-August, temperatures were regularly in the mid-70's, which is unseasonably cool for this area. Plus the winter of 2002-2003 was one of the coldest we've seen, and as I can attest to 2004 thus far, it's been damn cold here, with unseasonably cool temperatures and already we've had several major snowfalls (about 8 inches more this weekend).

So, based on a couple of years of cold weather, should I conclude that the U.S. is entering an Ice Age? Of course not - that's just silly. What I am saying is a string of several consecutive years of hot weather is not enough to conclude it's getting hotter. Even the differences between now and 100 years ago are minor. The average temperature increase world wide is less than 1 degree Celcius.

 

WHile I do think that the overuse of fossil fuels is having an effect on various parts of the world and the delacate balance of nature, one must look at studies done. Most scientists know that the climate is changing over the world, but they dont know why, nor do they think that the end effect is global warming. Frankly, from what I've read, know one knows what is really happening for sure. There are studies out there that point to the fact that for the last 300 years the world has been cooler. its good for us to speculate, but in the end we (as a global community) must become eduacted about all the information out there rather than jumping to ill informed conclusions (not that I am saying any one in this thread is ignorant) hit the net, get out and read more. Look on Salon.com for more info

 

The climate is changing, it is always changing. We have just given it a little shove these last years.

As for here in Sweden it seems like that darn global warming is giving a more even temperature around the year. Colder and wetter summers and warmer and wetter winters. There are no real distuingishable breaks between the seasons.

 

Just to stir the pot a bit...

There are some people, including members of these boards (I won't say whom I refer to, but I will say his avatar's green, his name starts with an "F" and ends with an "alstaff" ), who think the very idea of Global Warming is laughably false. I for one haven't completely made up my mind about it, but it's pretty hard to ignore the evidence that supports it.

So...who thinks global warming is bogus?

Posting links to any kind of scientific study would be appreciated, for either the for or against arguement.

 

I actually know this, and I found out that the Dutch weather reports go even further back, than I had first thought. They started measuring in 1706.

I actually do not doubt that the use of fossil fuels and modern day industries are warming up the earth. Even though the Earth would probably be heating up by itself, until certain air currents disappear, and the Earth could be thrown into a next ice age. Fossil fuels are just accelerating this process, not necessarily causing it.

This is a graph of the average summer temperatures in Holland. I took the liberty of looking up some basic statistics. These are statistics of which a conclusion can be made, and even though I can't see something special in this graph, experts might. The point in my previous message, despite the poor use of words, was that without evidence over a long period of time (a hundred, but preferably even more years), people should not conclude to much. Too many people say: "This is a hot summer, this is all thanks to global warming."

 

Everybody can think what (s)he wants, but as Tal said, it is a fact. The world's average temperature increases more than, if I remember correctly, 1°C (Celsius, but we could use any other unit since this is a delta(change)).
It still has, and *will* have more serious consequences.

Some links:
http://pewclimate.org/
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/
http://www.climatehotmap.org/

 

Well, since Death Rabbit has invoked me, I will stick my head in the door and yell for a while.

Also - let me make the distinction now between "environmentalists" and "environmental activists." I am an environmentalist (hell, I'm a druid), and I respect and want to preserve the natural beauty and resources that we have, but I also believe in the power of nature and the earth to sustain itself - it's done so for a long time and will continue to do so for a long time (even if we all nuke the crap out of each other). When I say "environmental activists" here, I am talking about "greenies" - people who overreact and blow up situations concerning the environment that really aren't that bad at all - "environmental activists" are more concerned with national politics than national parks.

"Global Warming" is not the first (and probably won't be the last) global climate scare. Indeed, in the 1970's, there was a massive "Global Cooling" scare that cited environmental data that pointed towards another Ice Age. Sometime in the 70's - 80's this trend reversed, and so a "Global Warming" scare began.

The fact is, if we look at the geologic history of our planet, we can find some interesting results: Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles - small scale cycles of approximately 40 years within larger cycles of about 400 years, within larger cycles of 20,000 years, and so on and so forth. The Earth has had many Ice Ages and warmer times in between (interglacial periods) - we just happen to be living during one of those "warmer times."

The planet is CONSTANTLY warming and cooling itself, due to a number of reasons - solar variablity, the tilt and orbit of the earth, the "wobble" in the earth's orbit, and the elliptical shape of the earth's orbit. This, combined with continental drift, sea floor spreading, and the natural activities of volcanos, ice caps, and the natural "greenhouse effect" (which is not as terrible as environmental activists would have us believe), leads to a constant and perfectly natural and normal (for the Earth) change in temperatures - we can think of them as "geologic seasons" much like our annual seasons (spring, summer, winter, fall).

Most of the scare comes from data that only looks at a few decades, rather than a few centuries (or even millenia). Indeed:

We are NOT in the hottest period of the Earth's history (not by a long shot - the hottest period, the Holocene Maximum, was about 7500-4000 years ago). CO2 in our atmosphere has been steadily rising for about 18000 years (well before aeresol and smokestacks, I believe). And human contributions to the "greenhouse effect" only consist of about 0.28% of the entire greenhouse effect - the rest is completely natural.

Essentially, the warming temperatures are nothing new at all, and are really just used as a scare tactic for fundraisers and ultra-liberal propaganda.

Here is an interesting (and telling) quote from global warming theory advocate Stephen Schneider:

I think that just about says it for me - the "global warming" scare is just that, a scare, and naught more than a drum that researchers adn activists can beat upon to raise money and to further their own personal politics.

source - http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

(The author here also provides a number of helpful links that it would only be repetitive for me to post here.)

 

I claim no specialist scientific knowledge. Most of the scientific arguments seem logical on their own (even though they contradict themselves when looked at together).

What I will throw into the pot is this: Most of us average people receive our information through the popular media. Popular media is a business and has to provide 'interesting' information in order to grab our attention (and make us buy newspapers etc). Therefore, through these media we are only likely to hear the most spectacular and scary theories. A headline of "Nothing Much is Happening to the Climate Today" would not sell any newspapers.

So, while I do not discount any of the warnings, we must be aware of the motivations of those who broadcast them.

Just a thought to consider.

 

OK Falstaff...but I think you are missing a very important point. A car generates a massive number of gaseous molecules, most of which are pollutants. If you held a garbage bag up to a car's exhaust pipe, it would inflate almost instantaneously. There are literally millions of cars driving around just as I write this now. Add on to that the belching smokestacks of industry and electrical plants and you have a significant influx of polluting molecules, on the order of millions of tons, being poured into the atmosphere each year. They do not disappear from there. This certainly must have some effect upon the atmosphere, even if we cannot quantitatively measure it. That does not, however, mean the effect does not exist.

For example, in most major metropolitan areas they plant a tree by the name of ginkgo beloba. You have probably heard of this tree because it is an over-the-counter herb which is believed by some to improve memory functions. Do you know why they plant this tree? Because it is highly resistant to airborn polution and can survive where most other trees would die. That same air which kills the other trees does not remain hovering over the major city, but of course diffuses with the rest of the atmosphere. The gradient of harmful polution in the atmosphere as a whole is rising. It will continue to do so, with the effects being more pronounced and thus more harmful.

We have got to find a way to exist outside of fossil fuel consumption or it is going to make the lives of the life of this planet a rather grim existence. That is not alarmist, that is fact. Airborne lead is not good for life. Ozone depletion is not good for life. Carcinogens are not good for life.

As I am writing this I am planning to go smoke a cigarette afterwards...so I realize what a hypocrite that makes me. However, you can be a hypocrite and still be right.

 

@Late-Night-Thinker - yes, I agree that human consumption of fossil fuel is something that pollutes the air that we breathe, the food that we eat, and the water that we drink. My point is this:

Yes, pollution sucks. Yes we should do something to reign in our consumption of fossil fuels and other natural resources. But, as I said before - only 0.28% of the greenhouse effect is caused by human activity. (Take a look at the bar graph and other charts here .)

My point is that when we are talking about the Earth, we have to talk about the Earth on its own terms, and that means with respect to Geological Time and Global Climate (not just the Global Climate now, but how the Global Climate of today compares to the GC of 100 years ago, 500 years ago, 2000 years ago, 200,000 years ago, and so on). Human activity has only a negligible effect on the environment, if we look at the greater scale. Our little contribution is NOTHING compared to the amount of natural gases and vapors that Mother Earth contributes herself.

I am not arguing against preservation of natural resources, or against reduction in fuel consumption, or against discovering new, more environment-friendly ways of creating, storing, and managing engergy. What I am against is the foolish argument that we are all going to boil to death because of aeresol cans and SUV exhaust fumes.

[Edit: Hell, maybe what I am trying to say is this: Argue for the good of Humanity (although if it was really THAT bad, we would probably be dead already), but not for the good of the Earth - she can take care of herself!]

 

I do not agree with your fact. According to my chemistry manual, the two leading causes of the greenhouse effect are water vapor and carbon dioxide.

Water vapor is the greater of the greenhouse gasses as water has one of the highest specific heats known. Specific heat, for you non-chemists, is the amount of heat required to raise or lower the temperature of a pure substance. Water can absorb great amounts of heat without raising its temperature much, adversely it can also release great amounts of heat without losing much temperature.

The nature of the bonds between the oxygen and hydrogen in water and the carbon and oxygen in CO2 is what causes them to be greenhouse gasses. These bonds strongly absorb infrared radiation. Water also has the added benefit of being able to store very large amounts of heat it absorbs which becomes transmitted to the rest of the atmosphere.

Now here is the kicker...water vapor concentration in the atmosphere has not changed much but the concentration of CO2 has increased by more than 20% over the past century. The greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is minimal, but when it causes a change in the concentration of water vapor...then the second and much more massive shoe will fall. Just because the effect has not been catastrophic up to today does not mean it will not become much worse tomorrow. We are not dealing with a straight line graph.

 

Yes, that is true...

BUT - most water vapor and CO2 production is natural and has been going on for millenia.

Again - when you're talking about the earth, you've got to go further back than just a century - you've got to talk BIG.

 

Edit: Oops, Falstaff, I just realised, that with your icecore measurement you linked, you obviously are the opinion, like me, that climateresearcher have a huge data covering thousands of years at their proposal, when they come to their conclusions, which are not fact of course, only speculation. Which indices lately that support the possibility.

Edit2: Oops, it was there in English too.

http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/e/articles/sciencelife/klimainterview.html

[ January 27, 2004, 00:08: Message edited by: Iago ]

 

We come here to the real crux - the tenativeness of current research. On either side, we really don't know EVERYTHING - we can only go with what science can tell us today.

Also, it depends on what we are using our arguments for... If we are discussing health-concerns for the next generation, then yes, current data matters more. But if we are talking about the total destruction of the Earth by humans, then we need to look more at long-term geological and environmental data, and not just the last hundred years or so.

In my honest opinion (you may or may not agree, that's fine - it's my ideology) humans are a very tiny, insignificant thing in respect to this planet. THe things that we do are not much more than scratches on the surface of the world that we are so presumptuous, selfish, and arrogant to call "ours."

 

The problem for me is, that I live on a spot of the earth which is quite vulnerable to changes of climate. Scratches are quite hurtfull here. On the other hand, I've read somewhere, that if this is true, the mid-western plains will become a desert, while Texas a green-paradise, not unlike Europe today. Lucky bastard.

 

Aaaah - I see - so you're just jealous?!?