Are We Really That Dumb ?
Posted by skyblu on March 12, 2007
WEATHER & CLIMATE – DIFFERENT CREATURES
My Recent Post: “Yellowstone, Global Warming, & Chicken Little,” has zoomed to the top of the most read posts on this little ol’ blog. For what ever reason, it’s both gratifying and a bit disconcerting, (it’s now included in the Yellowstone pages.)
There is, however, a distinction that must be made in the discussion of global warming. The distinction is one of scale and scope. Weather and climate are related but very different creatures and, yet, in most discussions are, (very sadly,) used interchangeably.
Weather is the set of conditions in the atmosphere that obtain for a relatively brief period. What happens on a daily, weekly, or monthly, basis is the weather. It refers to: moisture, clouds, wind, pressures, temperatures, etc. But this is not climate.
Climate, on the other hand is the prevailing conditions of persistent weather patterns over a much longer span of time. Usually several years, or decades. Or, for that matter millenia. As such it is a bit less precise, and a bit more generalized.
We can go out of our front door and take a picture of the weather but not the climate.
Global warming is necessarily concerned first with climate, then with weather. The time scale under discussion is of prime importance. And, we all know – I hope – that as climate changes, the weather undergoes specific, but not always predictable changes as well.
A post at the end of last month in Demarcated Landscapes led me to an excellent publication about the strategies for foresters dealing with climate change. The publication is FORESTS, CARBON AND CLIMATE CHANGE, and is available on line in PDF format. The publication is a synthesis of science findings by: The Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Oregon State University College of Forestry, and the Oregon Department of Forestry.
The document is full of insights and responses. It contains a brilliant chapter entitled “Global Warming: A Skeptic’s View,” by George Taylor, Oregon State Climatologist.
Taylor’s exhaustive discourse is very informative and should be mandatory reading before anyone begins to discuss our current place in the climatic history of the earth – including Al Gore. I recommend it highly, and the rest of the report as well.
On a daily basis I hear people discussing global warming in terms that range from simplistic to moronic. Imagine: ‘the weather in San Francisco will soon be like it is in Los Angeles’ ‘I can’t wait to grow corn in West Yellowstone, Montana,’ ‘will all of Yellowstone be a desert?’ – and on and on.
We can’t be that dumb, – or can we? The concept of global warming has been popularized to the point of simplistic stupidity. And, wonder of wonders, it’s believed in that form. Changing your light bulbs will not save the world. Consuming more raw vegetables will not deter the coming change. Driving electric cars is an economic, and social statement – not an environmental statement.
How do I know this? Because the scientific data we have about past environments and climate, is just that – general information. It’s not about weather. It’s about a whole bunch of specific locations over time.
It’s, consolidated, extrapolated, and generalized. It’s about regions through time and it’s extrapolated from many sources. Deep sea cores, polen cores, ice cores, faunal records, varves, beach levels, dendrochronology, pack rat middens, etc. all provide brief glimpses of the past. Little snippets of weather and environment are combined to provide climate information. This extrapolated paleoclimatology is probably fairly accurate – it does not tell us much about local weather, (except in a few instances,) but it tells us much about climate.
Are we really so dumb that we think we know specifically what to do based on generalized models of the past? We’ll see. The rush is on, and scurrying is taking place. It might be well to remember that our species has endured greater changes in the past and survived, (as have the cockroaches.) I wonder if, in fact, the panicky rush to action is not just a response to a perception of threat against lifestyle as much as a response to an environmental catastrophe?
I certainly don’t have the answers, but I do find the jabber about the situation interesting, informative, and entertaining. And, although I do believe that the past is key to the present – I don’t believe that the past holds all the solutions to, nor even a clear picture of the specific conditions in the future. Some, however, do.
===================
Reading For Entertainment
– Global Warming: A Threat to Midwest Parks, Too,
– How Will Parks Cope With Climate Change ?
– The Problem With Carbon Offsets,
– Texas: Climate’s Anti-Canary,
– The Rain In China Falls Mainly on the Plains, Thanks to Pollution,
– Membership: House Committee On Global Warming,
– Split Over Nuclear vs. Renewables Threatens EU Global Warming Pact.
tamino said
I read George Taylor’s chapter in the Oregon report, as you suggested. Two things are clear: he seems to be sincere, and he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Consider for example his figure 2, which he refers to in the text as “… an example of the “accepted” history of temperatures of the last millennium.” Apparently he doesn’t know that this graph (from the IPCC in 1990) isn’t a graph of any data (neither measurement nor reconstruction) — it’s an “artist’s conception” of what the graph would look like, and it’s based on an understanding which is now over 15 years old. If you’re interested in actual data based on the best available evidence, there have been a large number of temperature reconstructions for the last few thousand years, and there’s a nice graph of the results here. Compare that with Taylor’s “graph.” Notice the differences?
Taylor also quotes uncritically the work of Soon & Baliunas, published in the journal Climate Research. It is indeed a peer-reviewed journal, but clearly Taylor hasn’t bothered to investigate the history of this infamous paper. The peer reviewers rejected it. The publisher (not a scientist) decided to override the decision of the editors and publish it anyway (it’s the publisher’s money, so he gets to do that). This led directly to the resignation, in protest, of the editor-in-chief of the journal (Hans von Storch), and four other editors of the journal.
His discussion of the Bray survey (casting doubt on the scientific concensus) makes no mention of the fact that it was emailed to climate scientists, each of whom received an account password enabling them to fill out the survey. Unfortunately, the password was posted on the internet — specifically, on a blog devoted to the denial of global warming. How objective do you think the results are?
Throughout, Taylor relies on discredited research, out-of-date information, a naive approach to the entire topic, and very, very sloppy research. I’ll say this for Taylor’s chapter, it’s fine example of the title of your post. Are we really that dumb?
skyblu said
Tamino,
Right, and well said; and thanks for the insight into the Soon & Baliunas paper. The point, yet, is that we need more detailed data to talk about weather when the climate changes. I love the studies from pack rat middens that give us insight into very local conditions. We need about 50,000,000 or so to cover the globe.
The Bray survey fiasco was a genuine tragedy, and stilted – no doubt! I just wish a bit more thought would go into the popular presentations of the topic. The predictions of weather conditions for the future need more localized concerns: topography, bodies of water, exposure, etc.
I certainly don’t advocate marginal mentalities, yet at one time the sun did go ’round the earth – - – consensus?
……….skyblu
Carter said
I guess its all about perspective…can a million snapshots of local climate (weather?) add up to a complete picture of historical global climate??
I do not think we are that “dumb”- more like naive…and too conditioned to reacting to our snapshot/soundbite culture of immediacy and instant problem solving…it makes us vulnerable and eager to raising our hands in outrage at the latest news of the “hottest year ever recorded” and forgetting that that the “ever recorded” part is such a small sample of the big picture as to be not much use in gleaning a true perspective.
…what seems to get lost in the debate is that “climate change” is the norm for the planet…and that the last 10k years of relative stability is a bit of an aberration…albeit a convenient one for the development of man…
..of course, that is just my…er…perspective
skyblu said
Carter,
So true; but I’m really interested in going the other way in time. The change in climate is awfully well documented. Now then, lets continue the trend lines for – say – 250 years. What will the weather be like in Pullman, Washington? will the desert-like conditions of the channeled scablands push eastward, or northward? How will the terrain of the Cascades affect the wheat lands of the Palouse? Will firs & pines modify the atmosphere near the ground by preferring altitude to latitude?
Wind . . . ??? Will down-slope zephyrs in Colca Canyon, Peru accelerate the El Nino’s of the future? Golly, how do we predict this so that we can do the appropriate things? (Whatever they may be.)
Or, on the same trend lines, Which way will the winds of the Atacama desert blow? The question for me is not “is there warming?” – but – rather, “what will the local ramifications be?”
The period of stability you speak of is less about the development of ‘man’ but more about the development of his cultural adaptation – it’s nice to know that technology that is developed & works today will work tomorrow.
On the other hand, the last 3 – 5,000,000 years in the development of the species saw several less well adapted critters become obsolete in changing conditions – even those conditions that were previously encountered. – - Which gets back to my point. Perhaps it is naivety, but it might be touched with audacity – do we know the weather that will ensue from the projected climate changes? What is the best adaptive stratigy?
Golly I don’t know, but it is more complex than “. . .it’s going to get warmer and real estate speculators should move to Baffin Bay.”
…..skyblu
waitmyturn22 said
I hope this will make my Al Gore stocks go up so I make some money on it
http://www.prediction-markets.info/rd.php?language=en&wordid=74
Randy said
Thank you for this post. There needs to be, IMBO, a change in perspective and a change in reporting through the channels of news when it comes to global warming. A warm first half of winter in New England does not equate to global climate shift, neither does the unseasonably cold second half of winter.
The fact that an Arctic expedition, that was supposed to call attention to global warming, was called off due to extreme cold and equipment failure (because of extreme cold) has nothing to do with climate change.
Like you said, weather does not equal climate and that tends to muddy the waters of dispersing relevant and scientifically sound information on climate change. One warm month in one region or country does not a reasonable headline make. (sic,yoda)
To reasonably and honestly speak of and report global warming, there must be an understanding that you cannot point at a hurricane, a tornado, a summer-long drought, or a warm winter and declare “evidence”.
FWIW,
Randy
ps, the $5 rod performed swimmingly this past weekend
skyblu said
AH – Fishing in the driftless north!
Saw your post, I’m doing it this weekend. Our fish are going nuts and the locals are catching the early prespawn monsters. Word is sure to spread. Sigh.
This was the mildest winter that most locals can remember, We had one deep dip into the basement, then little snow, and mild days – and windy, windy, windy: highly disusual.
The talk here, (save for tour guides and snowmo’s,) is “. . . if this is global warming – bring me more!” I’ve stopped responding.
I’m very interested in local phenomena & just can’t seem to see the extrapolation from a global warming trend to localized conditions. Some people and some segments of the world society will surely benefit – others will not.
This is the real challenge of a ‘Unified Response.” Policy makers will soon have to realize that knee-jerk & feel good policies will have both positive and negative affects. And there is no escaping it.
I also worry about the way weather is reported – especially the sliding seven year averages for precipitation and temperature. The current snow pack in this neck of the woods is between 80% & 110%, yet it’s a drought – - – Hmmmmm. The long range forecast map for the ameliorating drought conditions that you mentioned in a recent post does not take this cute aberration into account. I suppose that if a drought continues for long enough it becomes the norm – climate/weather. Yes, I’m that dumb too.
I’ve updated your link, the new blog’s looking good.
……….skyblu