Snow in our mountains!!!

[rbtree]

Holy moley, its Juneuary up here!!! 35- 40 inches of snow has fallen at Paradise Ranger Station, 5500 feet, at the base of Mt. Rainier, in the last 5 days!!

Here's a trip report from some skiers today at Chinook Pass, near Rainier, and also at 5500 feet. Last night, it snowed briefly as low as 2500 feet! http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=10289.0

And, it's prolly rained over 3 inches in town in the last week...yesterday the 45 mph winds caused 35000 to be out of power. May to October, our weather is usually very benign.....and yesterday, and possibly today, were the coldest on record for the date.

[GASoline71]

This friggin' sucks... :(

Gary

[Rotax Robert]

It is all due to global warming Roger.

[sotc]

dont you guys catch on? they call it "climate change" now!

[wiley_p]

Sallys. It's just some rain, really no different than any other year, not by much anyway. Suck it up. :P

[squisher]

It is all due to global warming Roger.

Yup no global warming. One cool spring in our little part of the world proves it. Nothing to worry about, business as usual.

I'm not trying to hijack Roger's thread but when you talk about global change you need to look globally, not just in your own backyard.

[sotc]

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

[squisher]

Willie if you are doing research and looking at the world as a whole. Global warming, cooling, ozone holes, bees dying, no clean/sources for water, whatever you'd like to call it aside. You beleive that humans aren't destroying the planet on all fronts just about as fast as we can?

[treetx]

I am in Bozeman, Montana. It dumped snow here yesterday. It didn't collect here in town but I went to the ski valley and there were several inches of fresh snow on the ground.

[sotc]

i beleive this earth is tougher than we give it credit for. sure we dont want to piss in our well but i think alot of what we hear nonsence. i think we are being controlled by these crazy regulations and that it will get worse. sorry for the derail roger, im good at it:dur:

[Al Smith]

Well really for a guy like Roger who likes to ski ,it's a good thing .Of course everybody else probabley thinks it sucks .

[Rotax Robert]

Back in the 70's they were worried about the next ice-age.

[Che]

Minnesota in the early 70s WAS the next ice age. Damn, it was cold one of those years....I think we went over a month without getting up to zero.

[Banned by Squirrels]

i beleive this earth is tougher than we give it credit for



Yup, the Earth will be just fine. We won't, but the Earth will.

[rbtree]

Update on the hikers on Rainier. One died yesterday. The three of them had encountered whiteout conditions and hunkered down Monday evening after attempting to descend from Camp Muir. They'd only made it down to Anvil Rock, maybew 600 vf lower. Max winds were 71 mph, wind chills 20 below.

The other two were heli evac-ed today. Lucky they could fly in the still inclement weather, as it never got over 36 degrees at Paradise and .62 inches of water equivalent fell....

[rbtree]

Check out this thread from a local skier's board, with pics from the webcam:

http://www.turns-all-year.com/skiing_snowboarding/trip_reports/index.php?topic=10294.0

[Stumper]

I got snowed opn this past weekend up near Kremmling Colorado.
Yes , Global Climate Change is a much more defensible phrase since the Global climate is in a constant state of flux (You know-stuff we call weather and storms and seasons. Duh.) THe truth is that we don't kow what the weather is going to do even 2 weeks from now let alon ethe weather and climate patterns for the next year/decade/century. Alarmists will use anything to try to control the behavior of others. Damn their eyes.

[Old Monkey]

It bothers me that folks nay say global warming without even understanding the theory in the first place. I am not a scientist and cannot say if it is or is not happening but I can tell you that what happens one season or one year does not have much of an effect on a larger trend. Global warming refers to global mean temperatures over decades and longer. A high temperature here and low temperature there are not significant and personal anecdotes are meaningless. Global warming computer models predict that some areas will get hotter, some cooler, some wetter and some drier. It also predicts that the weather will get more erratic. There are also long term trends at play that may mask the effects in some areas while amplifying them in other areas. From what I have heard the American Southwest is due for an extended drought based on dendrochronological records.

People who blame individual weather events on global warming or note how cold it is this year as proof that it is not happening are just proving their ignorance of scientific method.

[sotc]

dendrochronology shows the the effects of the sun, not of man. i agree, it should be measured over decades and centuries, not seasons. that said we dont know squat and science is working off of a hypothesis. and there is science that contradicts science. imo :)

[Old Monkey]

Who is the arbiter of science? The lay public? Talk show hosts?

We had a researcher from the University of Washington come speak at our local Horticultural Expo. He was examining past climate by taking core samples. According to his findings the Southwest is due for an extensive drought. All of this sort of science is about making prediction based on past information. Scientific prediction is less than perfect but it is what people use to plan for the future. When should a farmer plant? How much water will be running down our rivers in the future? All of these things are important to know. Global warming is the latest model of what scientists believe is happening. Some scientists disagree, most don't. The lay public is unfortunately involved and what should be a scientific debate has become a political one. Most people do not understand the science well enough to discern who is right and who is wrong, myself included.

[sotc]

The lay public is unfortunately involved and what should be a scientific debate has become a political one. Most people do not understand the science well enough to discern who is right and who is wrong, myself included.

agreed, so in this case each person makes their stand and/or changes their stand on the info and experiences available to them. politics be damned:D

[Skwerl]

Darin, why not take a look at this New York Times article describing a major climate study- from 1993.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDC1E3DF936A25754C0A9659582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[Skwerl]

For those who don't want to click the link, here's the article in full. Sorry for the derail.


July 15, 1993
Study of Greenland Ice Finds Rapid Change in Past Climate
By WALTER SULLIVAN
To the astonishment of climate specialists, an analysis of ice extracted from the full depth of the Greenland ice sheet has shown that except for the 8,000 to 10,000 years since the last glacial epoch, the climate over the past 250,000 years has changed frequently and abruptly.

The findings suggest that the period of stable climate in which human civilization has flourished might be unusual, and that the current climate may get either warmer or colder much more quickly than had been believed -- in spans of decades or even less.

The data are likely to bolster concern that future changes in climate might not be spread over many centuries, allowing farmers to adjust to altered growing conditions and coastal cities to deal with rising sea levels, for example.

Scientists have speculated for years about the effects of climate warming. Even a rise of a few feet in sea level would flood many food-producing regions and populous areas.

Commenting on the new research, Dr. Andrew J. Weaver of the University of Victoria in British Columbia said that if the climate became colder Europe would be covered with snow much longer. As glaciers advanced, he said, they would reflect more of the Sun's energy back into space, chilling the climate even more. Warmer and Colder Periods

The scientists said their data showed that significantly warmer periods and significantly colder periods had occurred during the last interval between glacial epochs, about 115,000 to 135,000 years ago. They said they could not tell whether that meant similar changes were in store. Their findings were reported today in two papers in the journal Nature.

Previous studies had shown that there were abrupt changes in climate during glacial epochs, but the new results show that the same was true in the periods when glaciers had retreated. In one "catastrophic event" during the last interglacial period, the average temperature plunged 25 degrees Fahrenheit to ice-age levels for about 70 years, the scientists reported.

The authors said they did not have an explanation for the rapid shifts. They also said it was a mystery why the climate of the last 8,000 to 10,000 years had been "strangely stable."

In a commentary in the journal, Dr. J. W. C. White of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research of the University of Colorado said it was "difficult to express the importance" of the reports on the ice findings. Need for 'Global Cooperation'

"Adaptation -- the peaceful shifting of food-growing areas, coastal populations and so on -- seemed possible, if difficult, when abrupt change meant a few degrees in a century," he wrote. "It now seems a much more formidable task, requiring global cooperation with swift recognition and response."

The new studies found that the average global temperature can change as much as 18 degrees Fahrenheit in a couple of decades during interglacial periods, Dr. White said. The current average global temperature is 59 degrees Fahrenheit.

The Greenland studies are based on ice samples extracted by a consortium of scientists from eight European nations. They reached a depth of 9,938 feet, using a drill mounted on the crest of the Greenland ice cap, 10,624 feet above sea level. Silt in the lower 20 feet of ice indicated that bedrock was near.

The scientists meticulously examined various properties of the ice layers laid down each year by snowfall. The record of past climate was inferred from the analysis of oxygen in each layer of ice. The amount of a lighter form of oxygen relative to a heavier form is assumed to indicate the climate temperature when the snow fell.

The time scale for the last 14,500 years came from counting annual layers. Beyond that, age estimates were based on assumed accumulation rates.

In a separate project, scientists from more than 20 American universities and agencies have drilled at a site in Greenland 20 miles west of the Europeans. They have reached bottom, said Michael Morrison of the University of New Hampshire, associate director of the project.

They expect not only to confirm the European findings, but also to provide more detailed data on temperatures, atmospheric composition and ancient volcanic eruptions, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

The research on the last period between glaciers is considered important because it may provide hints about the effects of rising levels of atmospheric gases, like carbon dioxide, that have a warming effect similar to that caused by the glass in a greenhouse.

"As the last interglacial seems to have been slightly warmer than the present one," the new report said, "its unstable climate raises questions about the effects of future global warming." Hippos in the Thames

At one point between the last two glacial epochs, the climate melted enough polar ice to raise sea levels some 30 feet. As noted by a member of the drilling team, Dr. David A. Peel of the British Antarctic Survey, it was so warm in England that hippopotamuses wallowed in the Thames and lions roamed its banks.

One reason for special concern is the link between temperature and the atmospheric content of the so-called greenhouse gases. Early this year French researchers noted that microscopic air bubbles extracted from ancient ice in both Greenland and Antarctica have shown "a remarkable correlation" between a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature.

Results from both the European and American ice cores, said a companion report in the current issue of Nature, "have revealed large, abrupt climate changes of at least regional extent during the late stages of the last glaciation." It said these suggest that "the climate in the North Atlantic region is apt to reorganize itself rapidly, perhaps even within a few decades."

The new findings show that such changes also occurred in the previous ice age and in the warm period in between. It had been assumed that climate during that interglacial period had been as stable as during the current post-glacial period.

Since the end of the last ice age, only moderate climate changes have occurred. These include the medieval warm period, when the Vikings settled Greenland, and the "Little Ice Age" from 1550 to 1850, when Pieter Bruegel, the 16th-century Flemish artist, painted scenes of ice skating.

The article was signed by eight scientists from the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, most of them co-authors of the primary report. They were led by Dr. Willi Dansgaard, a veteran of Greenland drilling. Other authors were from France, Iceland and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.

In his commentary, Dr. White wrote: "We humans have built a remarkable socioeconomic system during perhaps the only time when it could be built, when climate was sufficiently stable to allow us to develop the agricultural infrastructure required to maintain an advanced society. We don't know why we have been so blessed, but even without human intervention, the climate system is capable of stunning variability.

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

[squisher]

I find it funny that everyone says that the fearmongering of global warming, climate change whatever you want to call it is profit driven. When in reality greed, excess, and the destruction of our environment is what is actually profit driven. Hence big business ripping off joe public and the planet earth at the same tme.

I'm no scientist ,obviously, so I base most of my views on observations made by myself as I watch the destruction of the natural environment in the name of the almighty dollar happening here at an accelerating rate. I can only imagine what it's like in places with less checks and balances.

[Old Monkey]

Scientists claiming a possible coming ice age in the past has little bearing on whether or not human caused global warming is occurring, the disproof of one theory is not the proof or disproof of another. Every theory has to stand on its on footing.

I have friends that are Oceanographers and they aren't getting rich by saying the oceans are in bad shape and we are the cause. Their belief in human caused global warming isn't lining their pockets either. There are lots of dollars to be made by writing scientific papers that deny or seek to disprove global warming.


My wife Kathleen and I met a couple from India while we lived in Japan. The husband was in Nagoya, Japan to get his PhD in Oceanography, his wife already had hers. They live in Maine now and work for an oceanographic institute. Here is a little bit about what he is studying: http://www.bigelow.org/about/senior-research-scientists/jgoes.php

Its not very sexy stuff, real science usually isn't. When newspapers and TV report on science they try to make it more lively and controversial. The whole global warming debate has been skewed by the media who believe that to be fair they have to have one scientist who does not believe in global warming for every one that does, never mind the prevailing scientific view. It would be like doing a report on why topping trees is bad and feeling that for the sake of balance you had to go out and find someone who thought topping trees was a great practice.

[Frans]

Its discouraging to learn information about the state of our planet. It all seems so grim.

The salmon season was shut down this year.

[Stumper]

It bothers me that folks nay say global warming without even understanding the theory in the first place. I am not a scientist and cannot say if it is or is not happening but I can tell you that what happens one season or one year does not have much of an effect on a larger trend. Global warming refers to global mean temperatures over decades and longer. A high temperature here and low temperature there are not significant and personal anecdotes are meaningless. Global warming computer models predict that some areas will get hotter, some cooler, some wetter and some drier. It also predicts that the weather will get more erratic. There are also long term trends at play that may mask the effects in some areas while amplifying them in other areas. From what I have heard the American Southwest is due for an extended drought based on dendrochronological records.

People who blame individual weather events on global warming or note how cold it is this year as proof that it is not happening are just proving their ignorance of scientific method.


Darin, That is a good post and your closing point is spot on but let me emphasize that you properly referenced a THEORY. Not only is Global Waming/Global Climate Change/Global Envirosocialist Excuse for Societal Manipulation/ The Religion of The Green Weinie based on unconfirmed theory, it is chickenshit theory. 30 years ago my science teachers were scaring us with a possible impending Ice Age. A dozen years ago there was buzz about possible global warming based upon a few years of temp records from cities around the world and changes in the Ross Ice Shelf..................and then the world went nuts about Global Warming while 8 years passed with NO rise in temperature followed by the current coldest spring in 4 decades. Perhaps the climate pattern IS about to change radically or perhaps this is is just the normal variation that has been occcurring for millennia. The attempt to blame it all on mankind and foist guilt for impending disaster onto the citizenry of the industrialized world is ill-founded and disingenuous. Honest science acknowledges a recurring pattern of climatic changes. Pretty stupid to assume this is all our doing when we weren't even a blip on the planet for some of the previous events... but useful for people with an existing agenda to manipulate people's behavior via 'important legislation' to "save the planet".

[Old Monkey]

I think Al Gore has done science a disservice by overstating the case for global warming. Everyone who blamed Katrina on human caused global warming did science a disservice. Still you make decisions about the future based on the best predictions available at a given time and err on the side of caution. The last two hurricane seasons were supposed to be huge. Those predictions were dead wrong. A lot of folks stocked up more emergency provisions as a result. Is that all bad? Certainly there is the "boy who cried wolf" aspect to worry about as you and Brian point out with your reminders about scientists not so very long ago causing a scare about an impending ice age. Personally I think there is a benefit to be had from reducing emissions even if global warming isn't happening. I wouldn't lie or exaggerate as a ploy to achieve that goal as it would backfire. I think a lot of the carbon off set stuff is just nuts and that planting trees willy nilly in third world countries is not a good answer. I do think we need to reduce world consumption of everything as it is unsupportable in the long run. To me it is not about saving the planet as much as our niche on the planet.

[Al Smith]

The earth it's self is constantly changing but so slowly we in our short life spans don't see it . I can remember the killer winters of the 50's and 60's and the constant rain in the 70's . The years of 88 and 89 were the hottest and dryest on record .

I can also remember the haze in the sky and polluted waters in streams and lakes during the 70's as well .A lot has been done to rectify that problem and for the better I might add .

Try as we might and should though no matter what we as a world population do we cannot change the forces of mother nature . What is or will be ,will be,simple as that .

[Skwerl]

The best way to reduce comsumption by humans is to reduce the number of humans. We're in the midst of a huge population explosion and every additional human has to eat something. We've overtaken the earth like ants on a candy bar.

Creating legislation to tax people for their consumption isn't going to fix anything. The suggested cures are worse than the disease.

[Old Monkey]

That maybe so.

The problem as I see it with the question "are we effecting the world's weather patterns?" is that the our oceans and atmosphere work as a buffer solution, absorbing what we do. Buffer solutions work until they reach a tipping point and then they don't work at all.