Two weeks later the snow was gone again. At least, gone from all of central Maine except our house in Troy, where before Friday’s rainsnow there was still an icy crust under the firs and spruces.
As noted here before, it has snowed this winter, but the catch has been that immediately afterward it gets so warm the snow disappears. It’s unusual for this to happen so completely so frequently in these parts. No one knows whether this particular mild January is telling us anything about global warming (as it used to be called until too many people were incapable of understanding what the phrase means and the descriptor was tweaked to “climate change”), but it sure seems likely to be part of a trend to overall warmer weather which has been under way for some time now.
Several readers, with helpful intentions I’m sure, reassured me earlier this month with a few pats on the head that climate change, if it’s even happening, is a natural occurrence that’s nothing to do with us and moreover, to jog me out of naivete, that global warming is a hoax. Don’t worry, be happy, we were sagely advised in the 1980s.
Here are some of the points I’ve heard that are meant to reassure me there’s no need to worry about climate change or global warming:
• It still gets cold in winter.
• Earth’s climate has always changed and always will change.
• Global warming is just a theory.
• There is no proof the exhaust from my car hurts anything.
• Scientists are often wrong.
• Scientists fake climate research findings.
• Global warming is not mentioned in the Bible.
• There was no Y2K disaster.
The problem I have with these arguments is that I believe in the existence of computers, cellphones, penicillin, bone marrow transplants and internal combustion engines. I also believe in photosynthesis, DNA, infrared light, blood types, viruses, the theory of relativity and the vibration A440, even though I have never seen any of these actual items or processes with my eyes.
What I mean by this is that the same method of study — namely, what we call “the scientific method” — led to microchips, life-saving chemistry, instant communication and so on. So that method has a certain high reliability. It has been applied to Earth’s climate, and so the findings of climatologists are very likely to be in the same range of reliability.
Now, if the climatologists were disagreeing about the findings, then we would have a situation where the research was incomplete, the matter was not fully understood and global warming would be “just a theory.” In other words, the scientists would not yet be sure whether the proposed explanation was completely accurate to reality or not. Scientists are often wrong about their theories. That’s why they keep compiling, analyzing and checking data until they agree on an accurate explanation.
When they agree, a theory is no longer a theory but a fact. In the case of global warming, the vast majority of tens of thousands of climate scientists agree that the Earth’s climate overall is warming. For all intents and purposes, global warming is not a theory, but a fact.
Global surface temperatures have been rising fairly steadily since about 1900 — which is to say, around the time our greenhouse-gas-producing activities kicked into high gear. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, the decade 2001 through 2011 included the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, ninth, 10th and 11th warmest years since records started being kept in 1880; 2005 and 2010 tie for the warmest years ever. The coolest, 2008, was still the 13th warmest year out of the last 131.
Whether the warming will continue to increase, and how severe its effects will be, is still debated. There is something like a consensus among scientists that the warming will increase, though some think it may have topped out in the last 10 years. Many agree the effects of warming are likely to be dire — taking the form of melting glaciers (vanishing water supplies), increases in extreme weather (severe hurricanes, tornadoes and floods) and droughts (famine in East Africa), all events that are seen to be increasing recently — but there is not complete agreement on this. So we can’t call these “facts,” but predictions based on the analysis of extensive data. Which is science’s fundamental goal and method.
The causes of the warming, by most scientific accounts, include human activities. A minority say that contribution is negligible, so the causes of global warming are not yet well enough understood to be called “factual.” NOAA, though, expresses the predominant scientific view: “It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind’s input of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
These conclusions were not drawn from glancing over a few Wikipedia articles once or twice, like a horse racing sheet, and a winning theory picked. Global warming is not a hasty prediction based on a poorly understood or remote statistical possibility, like the Y2K scare or like the minuscule possibility that the detonation of a nuclear weapon could trigger the sudden combustion of the whole atmosphere. It is not based on a few glances at the thermometer on the window sill. Conclusions about warming result from tens of thousands of climate scientists compiling and analyzing information in minute detail for decades, all checking and rechecking each other’s work all the time. It is still being checked. You have to ask yourself, based on a general knowledge of human nature, how this many people could have kept a hoax on this scale a secret for this long.
The fact that some findings were, or may have been, faked does not imply that all the findings were faked. It’s like saying that since one student cheated on a test, therefore all students cheat on tests. Not only is it illogical, it’s ridiculous.
And for those who state that they do not believe in anything that is not mentioned in the Bible, I can only wonder what they think is happening when they use a cellphone, drive a car or take an Advil. The absence of cellphones in the Bible doesn’t mean the Bible is false. It just means there is more in heaven and Earth than is dreamt of in our philosophy, and we have found some of it out since the books of the Bible were written 2,000-plus years ago.
Global warming is a fact. It seems reasonable to think that this snow-melting January is a symptom of that fact, though I don’t know for sure and neither do the scientists because they would never draw such a conclusion that hastily. Meanwhile, it snowed on Friday so the don’t worry, be happy folks can go comfortably back to sleep. I find I am not sure what course of action, here, is noblest in the mind. The divinity that shapes our ends will hear no objections from me if this snow melts off my driveway later this week.
Dana Wilde’s collection of Amateur Naturalist and other writings, “ The Other End of the Driveway,” is available electronically and in paperback from Booklocker.com.
Good read. I’m not a scientist but I’ve noticed a noticeable difference in the permafrost in Alaska over the years. I don’t need a PhD to tell me its thawing.
Regardless, whether or not its been accelerated from man its irrelevant to me. It needs to be studied just to be sure as this isnt something that can be easily dismissed with a quick wave of the hand. Yet the ” I hate all Gov. Spending” crowd has incorporated this into their agenda and turned it into a political issue.
Never a good thing for humanity when Science is under assault.
It’s been thawing for 30,000 years. There were continental glaciers covering most of North America not that long ago. Of course the climate changes. It has been doing that for the last 4.5 billion years.
Here, compare Arctic ice for yourself, everyone, from this page at the University of Illinois. Check your reaction, as well. In science, we don’t stomp our feet like children and call names when we encounter data that doesn’t fit our theory.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=15&fy=1980&sm=01&sd=15&sy=2012
There is no doubt that arctic ice is decreasing. It has been doing that for tens of thousands of years. I used to live in Madison Wisconsin. Ten thousand years ago the ice was 5000 feet thick over where my house was. Trained as a glacial geologist I understand the ice ages. This interglacial period is just about the same as the five previous ones. For most of the planet’s history both the arctic and antarctic were ice free. Ice at the poles is unusual in earth history.
Your credentials are impressive and relevant. I too used to live in the glaciated Midwest and am quite appreciative of their effects and history. But it’s quite apparent that AGW is accentuating whatever natural upswing we may or may not be experiencing and a faster rate and more constant trend than the last several thousand years have shown.
Actually, when compared to the temperature curves for the previous interglacial periods this one has nothing to distinguish it, other than being a little cooler. The rate of warming looks nearly identical to the previous interglacial periods toward the end of the cycle.
Of course it is accentuating is increasing. As the ice sheets recede more land is exposed. That means that less & less solar energy is being reflected back into space and more & more is being absorbed. Explain what caused the ice sheets to stop advancing and began to recede. We humans had nothing to do with that accentuation, did we?
Once again, consider the dynamics, rates, and lack of constancy.
Constancy has never been a process that survives on the planet. The only constant is change. The dynamics and rates of change are all within less than a single standard deviation of the previous interglacial temperature curves.
“Science is under assault” from those who put emotion and political goals into the process, and who dismiss the “skeptic” in an effort to silence her, when in fact skepticism itself is the very basis of science. Why does it thunder? No, it is not angry gods as the Mayans thought, but if you dared say so you were a heretic.
You do not get to say what “science” is, and you should run in the other direction from anyone who tells you they have that power. Such people often reject the very theories that turn out to be facts. Witness the rejection of the theory that bacteria caused ulcers. The scientist in question couldn’t get anyone to publish his piece, until he finally swallowed a vial full of the bacteria and — you guessed it — gave himself an ulcer.
You should also never use your anecdotal experience to draw global conclusions. Your life is but a blip to the earth. You’ve heard people say that cool weather doesn’t disprove global warming. They’re right about that, but unfortunately they’re the same people who scream any hot day proves it.
Again, that’s not science.
To my comment of “Science is under assault”
Its certainly goes both ways, counter science is just as heavily attacked. Its just bad for science when anger enters the fray.
-To anyone who is misconstruing my mentioning of the thawing permafrost as “evidence” to global warming. Come on now, I said no such thing. I just said it is visibly thawing, which it is. But I do understand that the majority of internet users and posters are high school children, and as such its easy to assume I might be one of those. Alas, I’m not. So there’s no reason to try to educate me with “It’s been thawing for 30,000 years” I know that as well as most adults.
Speaking of Alaska it’s -50 in Fairbanks and -61 in Tanana. I’m sure those folks might easily look out at their driveway and declare an ice age is coming.
http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/17324885/article-Temperatures-fall-to-50-below-in-Fairbanks–small-air-carriers-cancel-flights?instance=home_news_window_left_top_1
And, again, you don’t get to decide what “science” is or call it an “attack.” The very basis of science is asking QUESTIONS. The real assault on science is those who insist things like “The debate is closed” and that there’s a “consensus,” as if scientific fact is decided by a majority vote.
They’re not saying the debate is closed. However, the uninformed denialists claiming there’s no such thing (and making it a polical issue, a litmus test of your conservative lavel) are closing the door and putting on the blinders. Skepticims is fine and welcomed but bring a good case.
You and johnhay may be to tough on each other. He doesn’t seem to be the typical uniformed denialist.
As for your exemple, the scientist who discovered the effects of H. pylori on ulcer formation has continued to study it and has backed off a bit on the theory. (Check out his article and citations in Scientific American a couple of years ago.) H. pylori does contribute to the formation of ulcers but with over half the poplualtion having it in their guts but not all of them having ulcers, you can see that it’s not the sole cause. In fact, it may be beneficial in some respects.
Samples of one are what human caused climate change is built on.
Funny they post rules about being civil and no name-calling, but the article is a really tiresome and muddled description. I also enjoy the use of the old “I don’t know anything,” which is supposed to inoculate the writer against any and all foolishness that comes later. As a scientist, I’ll confine my comment to one thing: The earth goes in cycles, and a true scientist bends his theory — and it is a theory — to fit his data, not the other way around.
You may not, as example, rename your theory “climate change” when the warming stops, as NASA finds it did 15 years ago. It’s cute, once again ’cause you’ve said you’re ignorant, to say the name was changed because people didn’t understand global warming — calling them dumb, a violation of the rules you set down for other.
We were told the earth would get warmer and warmer and warmer. When that failed to materialize, rather than applying that data, proponents simply changed the name. After that, everything that happened — even wildfires set by arson in Texas — was attributed to “climate change.”
Another shame of this is the continual likening to anyone who pokes the theory to a Holocaust denier. A true scientist welcomes the “skeptic.” In fact, the scientific method demands several things of which the paid hack scientist and dull columnist looking for something to write about and sound smart consistently fail to employ.
Look at the ice in Nome, Alaska, at the moment for example; or the map of Greenland that the cartographers recently admitted had been drawn deceptively to lie about ice cover. These are not examples of science. These are classic bending reality to fit your case.
Thus we are where we are today: Snows too much? Global warming! Snows too little? Global warming! Rains, hails, drought, flood, hurricanes, no hurricanes, tornadoes? Global warming all!
And if everything proves your theory, then nothing does.
Finally, I will ask — since I mentioned hurricanes — where all the ones we were warned about after Katrina happened to go. Remember, we were told there’d be many Katrinas a year. There have been one, and since 2005 we have had the quietest period of hurricanes since the American Civil War.
This is why, when you say “only those who know the facts” know what will happen, you betray foolishness and hubris. Nobody knows what will happen. The dire prediction of many more and stronger hurricanes is only one example of where the predictions were way, way off.
I’ll leave it to you to open your mind to the others.
Do you consider the article name calling and uncivil? My, my. Your response is civil compared to others (which resemble cuffs upside the head rather than head patting) but is still more like a denialist than a skeptic.
OK, so you’re a scientist and possibly more skeptic than denialist. I too am a scientist and I think you concetrate too much on weather “snapshots” (and locality rather than global) rather than climatic trends. Yes, even the latter have been going on for eons but they took place at a much slower rate than what’s happening now. Note that the best guess now is that we are (rapidly) exacerbating the age old trends. And, not every example of upward weather variations can be exclusively the result of AGW and knowledgeable scientists to make those idle attributions.
Today and article appeared regarding the use of two stimulants to help control kids with attention deficit disorders. For years scientists and medical researchers were touting the success of various drugs in helping these kids. Now other research proves that they were wrong—the kids do not benefit over the long haul but can focus for short periods of time. How, you may ask, does this comment apply to global warming? Simple, science and scientists sometimes JUMP to conclusions based upon faulty research or research that looks at a very short period of time.
This earth has been evolving for a lot longer than any of us can imagine. We have trouble imagining one million. Instead we are looking at a decade or two. That is nowhere near long enough to tell whether we are warming. Plus the warming may have actually begun many, many thousands of years ago. What I do know are that I don’t live with the dinosaurs some of them enjoyed a hotter more tropical climate nor am I living with the wooly mammoth which roamed a cold earth. Nor will this earth be able to protect every species that now exists—if it could, then where are is the T-Rex?
Most of us will not be around long enough to see where this is headed. By the way, what happened to all the talk of the holes in the ozone layer.
Those who want to scream and yell that the sky is falling should think before they yell.
I think the denialists are jumping to conclusions (for more on that, see Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow). Your examples (where is T-Rex) is not even in left field. The Antartic ozone hole is decreasing becasue CFCs are decreasing. We’re not screaming and yeling that the sky is falling or jumping to conclusions. The denialists are self-deceptively rock solid instea d (reaction persecution?).
Being realistic is an asset.
Aside from the ‘dog ate my climate records’ excuses that blew up the scandal, the ‘science’ on which those records were based is what blew it for me: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/ (just keep on scrolling)
I suspect that the big corporations that don’t want environmental regulations to reduce their profit, even by 1%, are behind the public relations efforts to deny global climate change. They’re very short-sighted, since their CEOs’ gated communities won’t keep out hurricanes, and they’ll still have to breathe polluted air as they rush from their climate-controlled mansion to their air-filtered car.
Some of the CEOs, yes, but even moreso the alleged journalist/entertainers (for there own profit or ego).
I haven’t heard many of the questions you mention. Most of the questions I hear are based on the growing evidence found in actual measured data that is contrary to what climate scientists had been predicting. Here is but a tiny amount of such questions.
Why are people ignoring dozens of recent peer reviewed papers that find that the Arctic was ALREADY ice free during much of the early Holocene?
Why is no correlation between CO2 and warming in the climate scientists’ models for the early 20th Century warming?
Why can’t we locate Kevin Trenberth’s missing ocean heat that was predicted, and why is Kevin Trenberth dismissing the latest peer reviewed study that the missing ocean heat might not be missing?
Why are the Argo floats showing a disparity between actual ocean temperatures and climate scientists prediction of rising ocean heat content?
Why is the just released MET Office global temperature data using 30,000 surface temperature readings showing only a .01 degC/decade warming for the last 15 years, when scientists predicted .3 degC to .45 degC per decade of warming? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/to/trend
Why are people ignoring the solar physicists that are warning of a 92% chance of a new solar minimum that could last 70 years or more and drop global temperatures by several degrees?
Why did sea level rise from 2004 on, decelerate to only .474 mm/year, according to measurement from the newest and most accurate satellite measurements, when scientists predicted accelerating sea level rise in the first decade of the 21st Century? http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/
Why has actual climate sensitivity been so much lower than climate model sensitivity?
Why is there no independent evaluation of climate models for accuracy? If we are not going to verify accuracy why not just use crystal balls?
Why doesn’t the government recognize the conflict of interest that exists by allow the scientists who model climate and make predictions, to be the same people responsible for keeping the temperature record?
What is the meaning of the “the cause” that climate scientists keep referring to in their Climategate 2.0 emails?
As seen in emails, why would Michael Mann plot to blackball and prevent publication of scientists that challenged his methodology and questioned his findings?
Why are Tropospheric satellite temperatures rising much slower than predicted and why has there been almost no warming over the tropics where scientists predicted a “hot spot”?
Why does the data show that Cat 3 to Cat 5 hurricanes have been trending lower when it was prdicted they would become more frequent?
Why are F3 to F5 tornadoes trending lower when they were predicted to trend higher?
You too are taking snapshots and not allowing for rates, trends, and other man-made causative agents (like soot and other combustion products). Your other questions can be answered (or probably soon will be).
The drunkard’s mode of argumentation — or that of persons wanting to keep selling him liquor — is that no particular fender-bender, or impact of a doorknob with the face of someone who shares his house, or job loss, is evidence of a problem; it might have happened anyway, and likely is the fault, not of him, but of evil persons conspiring against him. If it even *happened*.
Your photo caption says only those conversant with all the facts can say for sure, but they, it turns out, are the likeliest to acknowledge the uncertainty as to whether a given event would have happened or not. But they do acknowledge that big anomalies, like Texas last year and Moscow, I think it was, the year before, are very likely connected.
The important questions are: is it going to be disruptive? Can we tolerate the disruptions? Are there ways we can mitigate the trend if the impacts are intolerable. Getting hung up on whether it is man created is silly. The question is: can man do anything to stop it?
The answers to these get much less resistance. Yes climate is provably changing. Yes it will be extremely disruptive to food cultivation and other aspects of life. No we cannot tolerate substantial increases in temperature since there are 7 billion people who need food across the planet. can man mitigate the trend. I have not found any scientist yet that deny that changes to our behavior can significantly change the trend line.
Those interested in perpetuating the status quo have framed the discussion so that nobody can take meaningful action. We need to respond by asking the right questions and demanding the right responses. The earth is warming. Something can be done about it. Nothing is presently being done about it. It is not a sustainable change over the long term.
OK, You say something can be done about it, what?
Reduce carbon emissions, globally. this can be accomplished by participating in an international agreement to control greenhouse gases. Do not try to tell me that it is technologically impossible. I am trained as a chemical engineer and I understand combustion and its by products. I also understand pollution control countermeasures. It is possible if we simply chose to engage. It will cost money up front but it will create jobs immediately across the spectrum in research, construction and regulation. there will also be very marked increases in industrial efficiency as a result of this. This needs a broad minded approach. We are up to the challenge. The monied interests that are only concerned with the next few quarters are the only thing stopping us.
your attempt to persuade is wrong minded , in fact it is exactly opposite of what you are trying to say the most glaring is trying to say that this years winter is different from the past – it is not winters like this happen – check the records.Then you use a small scale temperature deviation to show a supposed trend over a small period of time- ok maybe it is maybe it isnt – you would not be able top conclusively support a conclusion.
There is surely a lot of smoke in this article. Here are two examples:
“Scientific Method”
At one time, 1965 for example, one scientist
looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion than most
other scientists using the “Scientific Method” and was righteously
pooh-poohed. Today, they all accept “Continental Drift.” Using
“Scientific Method” does not automatically weed out incorrect
conclusions.
“Theory versus Fact”
Since scientists all agree on evolution, why is it
still referred to as “Theory of Evolution” and not as “Evolution?”
Facts
are provable over and over by others at different locations. For
example, Gravity is a fact and easily provable. Apples fall from apple
trees everywhere on this and every other world. Theories are not
facts. Consensus does make something a provable fact. Only repeatable
experiments resulting in the same results can change a theory into a
fact.
The article comes to this statement, “It is important to remember both that the greenhouse effect occurs
naturally, and that it has been intensified by humankind’s input of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
OK, I will keep some of that in mind; but, why not tell me just how much
is humankind’s contribution, and if that amount were reduced to zero,
would that stop greenhouse effect?
The “Theory” I have is “the earth is warming and will continue to warm
until some “significant” event(s) stops the trend.” My theory is based
on the belief that as the ice shields melt, less solar radiation is
reflected back into space and more and more solar radiation is absorbed thus raising the earth’s temperature.”
Since my theory has
resulted in a warmer earth time and time again without humankind
nowhere to be found, I theorize that the earth will continue to warm
with or without humankind. The idea that we can speed it up or slow it
down smacks of hubris.
I do agree we should start preparing. Right now, all I can see is people trying to capitalize on the situation.