climate change
Study: American West Warming Faster than Rest of Planet
By Grant Rhodes, 3-31-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Click to view the study | |
|
Is it hotter in here, or is it just the American West? According to a new climate study by the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the Natural Resources Defense Council, the U.S. West is getting warmer at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the world.
“Global warming is hitting the West hard,” Theo Spencer of the NRDC said in a release. “It is already taking an economic toll on the region’s tourism, recreation, skiing, hunting and fishing activities.”
In the 11-state Western region the average temperature has risen 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit over the last five years, while the global average has been 1.0 degrees, according to the study. Utah, Wyoming, Arizona and Montana are feeling it the most with rises more than two degrees higher than the rest of the planet.
In the Colorado River Basin, which supplies water to Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas and Denver, the average temperature has risen 2.2 degrees, the study finds. Most of that river’s water comes from melting snow—and less snow could have dire consequences.
In a Los Angeles Times story Bradley H. Udall of the University of Colorado, whose work is cited in the study, says the report reveals “the growing consensus among scientists who study the West that climate change is no longer an abstraction. The signs are everywhere.”
The 54-page study is called “Hotter and Drier: The West’s Changed Climate” and is based largely on calculations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Click here for the Website, here for the PDF.
[End of article]One of the major causations of the increase in temperature and decrease in precipitation (across many years, not just 2007-2008), is the shifting of the gulf stream due to warming of the oceans as well as the troposphere.
The current "plateau" that the global temperature is recording hasn't had the same effect on the American West, unfortunately.
And now let us hear from the peanut gallery about how cold it was this winter and how the "trend" is indicating the start of a mini-ice age.
It was cold this winter and it seems clear another ice age will be upon us soon.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 3-31-08Stop that or you'll make Marion jealous.
Comment By Craig Moore, 3-31-08>>>>>
“Global warming is hitting the West hard,” Theo Spencer of the NRDC said in a release.
<<<<<
Something wrong with that statement... if the West is having a warming event greater than the globe. Roger Pielke Sr. has an interesting take: http://climatesci.org/2008/03/28/a-short-tutorial-on-global-warming/
His concluding statement is consistent to the data from the 3000 Argo ocean robots.
Right, using government data, NRDC, better known as the National Radical Dementia Consortium, tries to invoke another crisis. If NOAA had participated, perhaps the conclusions would be credible. But in this case, a special interest cherry picking data to a foregone conclusion, I think not.
Now, scuse me while I crank up the thermostat.
Dave, did you see where they are about to crank up the air conditioners in East Glacier? http://rwis.mdt.mt.gov/scanweb/SWFrame.asp?Pageid=Camera&Units=English&Groupid;=&Siteid=629002&Senid;=&WxId=6292&DisplayClass=Java&SenType=All&SenStatus;=&Camera=1
Comment By Marion, 4-01-08Ahhh yes global warming in the west............April Fools!!!!
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/04/01/news/wyoming/64-snowpack.txt
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2008/04/01/news/wyoming/43b824a7772efe1d8725741d00820218.txt
I do hope you are able to open this one about climate change.
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2008/03/31/7
Ah, more indication of local weather changes that have nothing to do with the actual climate. You never fail to disappoint, Marion.
As for the 1.7 deg F rise in western temperatures, biologists have also charted the changes across species of flora and fauna. They are finding that species that would normally grow in the mid-mountain area are slowly being forced higher and higher to maintain their optimal temperature range.
This effect has been studied in the southern hemisphere as well, along with equatorial regions, where hundreds of species have been endangered or gone extinct entirely because of radical changes in habitat.
As well, the trend of the Arctic Ice Cap can no longer be ignored. Soon it is expected that a year round ice-free trade route will open up.
Its a good thing you idiots are around to debunk all of this with your stories of how much snow fell in Wyoming, because otherwise all this real evidence might actually be used by people to make wise decisions.
Actually I have wondered if pavement may not be the main culoprit in global warming. We have been the last to get much paving, so it would make sense that as folks move here, paving increases and so does the temp.
Perhaps it would help if we do away with interstates, plow up all of the blacktop across the country, in cities too. Then we'd reduce the reflection and slow down vehicles, cutting fuel consumption and resulting pollution.
See: http://bigmtn.com/index.php?a=sr/main
12 degrees on top and 140". Winter official ends in a week as the help is quitting to get away from the damn cold and snow. I wonder when the ice on Whitefish Lake will go off this year?
Hah, thanks for the link. I'd be amazed if anyone in East owns an air-conditioner. You'd want it, what, one week a year?
Good question about the ice-off, Craig. But I'm not sure if the lake even froze over. We didn't have much cold except for that week around Christmas, and Feb, while dry and comparatively mild, never really thawed. It was enough to break up the roads but not much else. Flathead is wide open. 'Twere it not for the crazy robins showing up last week, I'd still think it be winter. Brrrrrrr.
And Jay, what do you suppose YOUR "idiots" would be saying if the glaciers in Glacier were expanding or if the ice pack was calving off into the Atlantic shipping lanes like used to happen? Would you be selling shoreline lots at Lake Missoula?
If I asked those questions people would wonder what I was smoking, since they make no sense whatsoever.
I guess all the wolf threads have gotten boring for you, eh? As well, you seem to be part of the "it is cold outside" crowd that only can stick it's collective head in the sand when faced with all of the data.
Maybe it's getting warmer because of the millions of acres of forest we burn each summer.
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-01-08Dave, check out the Dayspring webcam here: http://bigmtn.com/?a=media/livecams
and the Eagles Nest: http://www.instacam.com/InstaCAM/imagelist_by_week.asp?id=WHTFS&DateString=04012008&Rerun=Rerun&Views=30
Jay Kanta,
Craig Moore hit upon the 3000 new automated ocean buoys that were deployed in 2003. The new buoys, know as Argos, drift along at a depth of 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing to the surface readings taken at various depths. Once on the surface, they transmit their reading to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers.
The Argo bouys have disappointed the global warm-mongers in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis, who works for NASA in its Jet Propulsion Laboratory , noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoys' five years of observation, but that drop was "not anything really insignificant." Certanly not enough to shut down the Gulf Stream.
Apparently the Gulf Stream is not changing yet, and in some scientific circles will not be the main culprit in the whole of Global Warming theories anyway.
Tom, are you a hunting guide?
Comment By Matt, 4-01-08So many people who claim global warming doesn't exist typically point to the current weather as evidence to the contrary. What these folks are doing is confusing "weather" with "climate". See Merriam Webster for clarification...
Climate:
1: a region of the earth having specified climatic conditions
2 a: the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation b: the prevailing set of conditions (as of temperature and humidity) indoors <a >
3: the prevailing influence or environmental conditions characterizing a group or period
Weather:
1: the state of the atmosphere with respect to heat or cold, wetness or dryness, calm or storm, clearness or cloudiness
2: state or vicissitude of life or fortune
3: disagreeable atmospheric conditions: as a: rain, storm b: cold air with dampness
4: weathering
Weather is what happens within a specific climate. Climate can be trending warmer and we can still have cold weather (see the intermountain west this winter for proof of this). In Montana the average temperature is increasing but this winter we have record snowfall. This does not signify the coming of the next ice-age. global warming refers to generational trends in the averages, not the here-and-now weather.
Jay, the reason those questions make no sense to you is because you don't have the historical knowledge to make sense of them.
Used to be kinda common for steamships to conk icebergs in the North Atlantic, such as the Titanic managed to do. And obviously, you have never seen the shorelines not only at Missoula but also on top of Perma hill, the moraine at both Polson and Big Arm, or have a clue about the ice tongue that blocked off the Clark Fork at the bottom of the Purcell Trench.
You environmentalists need to get "mental," perhaps know something about the blasted environment before you take up the task of "saving" it from the boogeyman du jour. It may very well be that less ice might not be so terrible...considering that MORE ice would most definitely be a bummer. That is, if global WARMING, not "climate change," is a verifiable fact, with direct causation and effects known to be deleterious. None of those conditions are met at this point.
What...did you sleep in science class? Or did you only take "environmental studies?"
Hi Tom,
The Argos buoys are now being incorporated back into the models, it was unexpected data but it isn't any sort of final thrust of information. As for ocean temperatures showing warming, the NASA satellites have shown some pretty interesting data that also didn't agree with the models but have been incorporated in and actually show an increase in ocean surface temperature. As well, measured changes to the Antarctic region that has caused a sudden increase in calving is also a long term indication of a warming climate.
I can understand how this is all so confusing to you, though.
Hey Dave, you're really making a fool of yourself. I would suggest you stop now before people really just point at you and laugh.
Your confusion of weather with climate is an indication of your ignorance, one that really isn't tolerated well this late in the game.
The only person on this board, other than myself that has sourced their facts is Craig Moore. Congratulations Craig. The only problem is that you've falsely linked the Argos data with an argument that surface temperature is "never" a good measure of climate change.
I can see Pilke's point, however I disagree with it. Surface temperature is an easy measurement that can be checked against models, and by using global averages it takes out much of the mass vs. effect argument that makes up much of Pilke's point. As well, the models are constantly evolving using ALL of the data, including the Argos data as well as sea surface temperature where a majority of the warming has occurred.
As well, I can assume that the next tact to attack the Global Climate Change/Warming data is to point out that the Earth has always varied, which I will agree with. However, the only times in which the global average temperature rose by such a large degree occurred during times of massive global events, such as volcanoes, asteroids, methane eruptions, etc. During those times almost all of life on Earth was forced into extinction.
The next tact of the GW/GCC deniers is usually to point out that the climate has been cooling since 1998, which "technically" is correct, but also very wrong. 1998 was a statistical blip, an extreme year that indicates neither GW/GCC nor disproof of it. Actually normalizing the data indicates that we are on a plateau of sorts, neither increasing nor decreasing since around 2002/2003. As well, given the 11 year solar cycle, it may actually match the expected values modeled. We could very well have a year or two of slightly cooler temperatures, temperatures that still exist on that plateau, which means it is still above the global norm.
I don't know that I can fit every argument that the denialists will attempt into this thread, and I'm tired of typing.
Jay, there is so much we don't understand about the past that diminshes our ability able to predict the future and to control the outcome. See: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/arch/examples.shtml
The recent fiasco with biofuels, highlighted in the Time magazine article, bears this out. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00.html
Lumping points of view under silly lables only contributes to the confusion and waste of time, money, and planet resources.
What do biofuels have to do with this discussion? You might actually stop and pause for a second in thought about that before you respond.
As well, the second link explains that the rapid climate change most likely happened because of a rapid desalination of the oceans due to a rapid influx of fresh water from an inland lake drain. That is actually the first site I've ever seen where that explanation is questioned, although unfortunately with little data to back up their argument.
Jay, as the Time magazine article points out, the rush to biofuels has exacerbated the loss of rain forests and actually upped the production of CO2. Unintended consequences. Now, here is how it links back to this column. Claiming that the West is warming faster than the rest of the globe due to Global Warming, may be as disconnected to identifying the problem and the solution as the biofuel fiasco. Perhaps the West's regional temperature issues relate more to a shifting environmental landscape from the gowth of cities, forest practices, and agriculture methods.
Comment By Marion, 4-02-08Please explain to me how cooler weather has no effect on climate, yet climate is warming....warming from what and how can you tell if you don't measure temps?
Comment By Craig Moore, 4-02-08See: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2008/04/137_21806.html
The biofuels fiasco just may be one of those "...economy-destroying, life-altering steps..." that lead to unintended consequences and take two steps backwards.
No Marion, I already played that game with you before and it goes nowhere.
Craig, the increase in CO2 production from the biofuels "fiasco" are minuscule compared to the day to day production across the globe from the burning of fossil fuels. The 20% number cited in the Time article is unsourced and from what I understand is the total amount of CO2 released if no rainforest clearing had ever occurred. Regardless, without any sourcing by Time for that number it should be considered suspect until verified.
No, Jay, I'm not confusing weather with climate. It's just that when you look at Maunder cycles, sediments, historic marks on the landscape, how many degrees Kelvin above absolute zero the planet is kept by the sun, et cetera, a big whackin mass of interlocking variables...oh, right, mankind's profligacy is the sole cause of this "change" and therefore we need to completely restructure global society and culture, because as Timmy Wirth declared, "even if the science is wrong, it's the right thing to do."
Pshhht.
Wow, big words, all linked together in sentence form, but without a point. Good job Dave!
Again you make the simplest of mistakes that totally are unsourced and make it appear you have no idea what you are talking about:
"oh, right, mankind's profligacy is the sole cause of this "change""
Scare quotes aren't helping you Dave, you still just don't get it and trying to explain something to you is only slightly less painful than playing Marion's game.
Jay, can't we just have a discussion without the insults?
Comment By Jay Kanta, 4-02-08Where did I insult you, Craig? Dave, however, has added absolutely nothing to this discussion except for random unlinked and unverified spam and will do everything he can to avoid answering direct data and scientific consensus.
What else does he deserve for that? A golf clap?
On the other hand, maybe those guys need to get away from their desks and see what is really going on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm