From my perspective, this article is mostly right. Even the oldtimers who are loathe to agree with anything that smacks of environmentalism all say some variation of: "I don't agree there's climate change, but things aren't quite the same as they were 30 or 40 years ago." By the way, there's a routine dark humor discussion we always have when a sky island burns centering around the fact that aren't a lot left that haven't had a major fire. [Disclaimer: I know Swetnam and think he's a damn sharp guy.]
I think that may be the best way of describing it. I was in DC this weekend, spent some time with the grandparents and other family. One of the women there, who is over 60, lives on Lake Superior. She said the lake froze this winter for the first time in memory. This woman, a lesbian who works in an abortion clinic, is a natural constituent of al gore. my own sense is that yes, something is happening, but whether this is a natural cycle of many thousands of years, or a man-made problem that's existed only since the industrial revolution and has reached critical mass as the population has exploded, is simply not known. moreover, it's unclear whether we can even do anything about it. that said, sensible environmentalism has positive benefits outside any effect it might have on climate change. Rim- do you support the renewal of nuclear power plant construction?
Couldn't it be a natural cycle of many thousands of years that has been compounded and accellerated by a man-made problem that has existed since the industrial revolution and has reached critical mass as the population has exploded? Those who dismiss global warming as hysteria seem to always feel that it is an "either-or". Either it's a natural cycle over many thousands of years OR it's a man-made problem. I do not. To me, global warming is real, and it is a natural cycle that has been sped up tremendously by man and has reached critical mass as the population has exploded.
There is some evidence within the ice cores that greenhouse gases have been affecting the environment for ~6000 years, or roughly coinciding with advent of agriculture. It can be argued therefore that this human interaction has delayed an entire ice age. I'll try to post details later when I get back home to look up the journal.
This is sort of like my stance on capital punishment... I'm not philosophically opposed, but the way it is implemented is what gives me pause. I'm not opposed to nuclear power, but a few questions have to be answered, not the least of which is what do we do with the waste? I'm also not thrilled with the folks that might end up running nuke plants. The temptation for private ownership will always be to maximize profit and that could lead to problems. Government ownership has some significant problems as well. A private-public partnership can either be the best or worst of both worlds. In short, nuke energy is nothing to mess around with and I don't completely trust anyone with the responsibility. I think it still has tremendous potential, but I'm not happy with the current state of the industry. What I am truly opposed to is this fixation on nuke power by the Right in response to Gore's recent activities. It seems to me like the thought process was, "Well, in order to attack Gore and his supporters, let's see if they are for or against nuke power so we can use it as a wedge." But the issue is more complicated than the simple for or against question. With Three Mile and Chernobyl, it's hard to fault people who are adamantly opposed to nuke energy, and the last thing we need is to make it a major ideological litmus test like has been done with so many other things in the last couple of decades. That's a sure way to kill nuke energy for good. We should be looking realistically and as objectively as possible at all the alternatives and strive to develop new technologies and approaches that might make it easier politically and environmentally to find different sources of energy. If we intentionally politicize it, it makes it much more difficult to find a decent solution.
Are you sure she said Lake Superior? I go to the north shore of Lake Superior at least once every winter and was just there this past weekend and it didn't freeze over this winter. In fact what ice there has been is going out earlier this winter than almost any on record. Lake Superior has frozen over in recent memory, last time was 2003, and from what I've been told used to freeze over all the time. Lake Superior's water level though is lower than it has been in recorded history partly due to it not freezing over yearly like it used to causing more evaporation.
Could her memory be going out? http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/superior030603.htm Lake Superior froze over 90% in 2003, 100% in 1996, 96% in 1994, and 95% in 1972.
Thanks Major I was just about to post that exact same link. Since I was gone for a month in January I wanted to make sure I didn't miss something but I don't recall hearing anything at all about Lake Superior freezing over and the only thing I've heard about it weather wise was how the ice was going out early.
From February of this year... http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/02/23/superiorwarm/ Lake Superior heats up by Bob Kelleher, Minnesota Public Radio February 23, 2007 Duluth researchers say Lake Superior is quickly warming, even faster than the climate around the lake. They think they know why. But what's unclear, is what a warmer lake will mean to the plants and animals that call Lake Superior home. Duluth, Minn. — Jay Austin had uncovered a mystery. Call it the mystery of the overheated lake. Austin's story starts with him poring over decades of data, showing the climate around Lake Superior getting warmer. "And what you see is sort of a gentle warming up until about 1940, very little warming between 1940 and 1980, and then things just go bananas from 1980 to the present," says Austin, a Duluth professor and a researcher with the University of Minnesota-Duluth's Large Lakes Observatory. The air temperature part is no mystery. The climate has warmed measurably just like that in many places worldwide. Climatologists are calling it global warming. "But what surprised us is that Lake Superior's water temperatures were warming around twice as fast as that," Austin says. "And it's, as far as I know, one of the largest changes in temperature of any natural system that's been observed over the last 25 years." In that time, Austin says, the average surface temperatures have gone up more than 4 degrees farenheit. That may not seem like a lot, but, for a lake the size of Superior, it's a pretty rapid increase. And it's having dramatic effects. "The date of what we call the spring overturn, has been getting earlier in the year," Austin says. "It's basically the start of the summer season in the lake. It's when you start to develop strong positive stratification: warm water sitting on top of cool water." In two decades, that spring turnover has moved up two weeks from early July to mid-June. And, Austin says, the speed of the warm up is probably caused by ice - or specifically a lack of ice. Records show an ongoing decline in ice cover that can be documented since the 1980s. "Ice is really special because it is very reflective," says Austin. "Normally ice would have snow on top of it, and is very good at reflecting sunlight back out into space. So if you take the ice away, the lake is much better at absorbing heat." That, in turn, speeds up the spring turnover and gives surface water more time to warm up. At some point, Austin says, the lake will stop heating up quicker than the air around the lake, when ice stops forming. The researchers are focusing on the year 2040. "Lake Superior will see very little ice," Austin says. "That's not to say it will never freeze over. It's just means, on average, we're going to see very, very little ice cover on (Lake) Superior, in about 35 to 40 years." Warm water and little or no ice sounds great for the people who swim or sail Lake Superior. But it may not be good for the plants and animals that make Lake Superior home. There's a theory that a warming lake could hurt the lake's native whitefish, according to Steve Colman, who directs the Large Lakes Observatory. "If there's less ice over time, and there appears to be, there's a chance for greater storminess in the sort of shallow water (bays) that the whitefish spawn in," Colman says. "So, this has been pointed out as one particular, potential major biological impact on one of the more charismatic species that lives in the Great Lakes." Typically, warming speeds up growth for fish and the plants they feed on. But rapid change can wreak havoc, according to Bob Sterner, a University of Minnesota biologist. So though you might initially guess that a warmer lake would be better for the organisms in it, (that) everything from algae to fish might grow a little faster if the lake warmed a little," Sterner says. "Paradoxically, you may well see the lake essentially becoming even more desert-like in the sense that you've reduced the flow of nutrients into the system across that temperature gradient." Throw in the potential effect on exotic and unwanted species, like zebra mussels or sea lamprey, and who knows what you'd get. And the effects aren't limited to Lake Superior. The researchers suspect any lake losing ice cover is warming faster than the air. But they've only got the data for Lake Superior. The research will be published soon by the American Geophysical Union. Next the Duluth scientists will try to prove their suspicion that decreased lake ice might be a major reason why Lake Superior's surface keeps dipping lower; another trend well documented since about 1980.
Nuclear Power not a wedge issue. It is the only viable solution to reduce CO2 emissions within any of our lifetimes. With the population growth rate and increase of energy appetite of India and China, conservation and all of the known renewable power sources will merely slow down the increase of CO2 emissions. I mentioned using nuke power as a litmus test in the last massive Global Warming thread, but I haven't heard it used by anyone important on the right. It is an attempt to bring common sense into the Global Warming debate.
I disagree. There are alternatives other than nuclear power, the easiest of which is increased efficiency in existing power use.
You're a chemical engineer, right? Try this exercise. Try doing an energy balance on the world. (Use rough estimates.) Then try to figure out ways to reduce energy consumption in developed countries more than the increase in energy consumption in developing countries. (Rough estimates of these growth rates are available.) Do it for any point in the next fifty years. Then get back to me.
A just point. I am not anti-nuclear, anyhow. I merely said increased efficiency was easiest, not that it is the sole solution. Alternatives other than nuclear are available as well, and without the issue of waste that lasts 10,000 years.
From everything I understand nuclear is the only available way that anybody can come up with a viable and practical plan to take a major chunk out of CO<sub>2</sub> using technology that exists or is just over the horizon. Increased efficiency is good but I can't find body that suggests that it can do anything but shave off a fraction of the increases caused by increased consumption. From what I can tell from a basic web search, CO<sub>2</sub> emissions have been steadily rising at about 4%-4.5% per year recently. The best totals I could find were for the year 2003. That year CO<sub>2</sub> emissions measured 25 billion tons. The recent Australian ban on incandescent light bulbs which received so much publicity will in the best case reduce emissions 4 million tons. 4Mil / 25Bil is .016%. I'm not the greatest mathematician in the world, but by quick estimates, this reduction will offset less than two or three week's increase at current rates. Furthermore, this fractional slice in emissions is so difficult to actualize that the ban won't occur until 2010. I think you would be wildly successful beyond anybody's imagination to cut 10% of emissions through efficiency measures. That would offset the increase over a period of two and three years? Even if you cut 20% or 30%, the developing world negate that decrease within a decade or two.
I understand the point. I just think we need to seriously address the waste issue with respect to nuclear fuels. It cannot be a political shell game like CO2 - the impact of nuclear fuel being improperly stored around the globe would make global warming look like childs play. Amory Lovins had a good take on oil, efficiency, and I think he comments on nuclear fules as well. Although, you have to deal with Charile Rose: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4569577556800822039&q=Amory+Lovins Again, I am not anti-nuclear, but policy decisions need to be based on more than just "this is the only solution". There are always alternatives, and consequences.
Rimrocker, a very interesting article. I never heard of a "sky island" before. Should I sell my house in inner loop Houston before the sea level rises due to global warming and makes it valueless?
