January 17, 2007

What’s Up With The Weather?

Chris Cree wrote this at 11:04 am

What’s going on?

Things are crazy right now. Winter is not behaving normally. California is freezing their oranges off. Seattle has gotten pounded. Again. New Mexico has seen cattle killing blizzards.
Current US Temperatures
I heard about a town somewhere in Nebraska yesterday that has been without power since around the first of the year and isn’t expected to get it back for several more weeks.

And then here in Savannah we’ve still been wearing short sleeve shirts with 70 degree days. I mean look at the current temperature map. There’s a whole lot of pink in places that are usually yellow this time of year.

Don’t get me wrong. For my part I’m not complaining. We’ve had it easy so far this winter.

But wildly unusual weather like this does make it a bit challenging to continue to be a global warming skeptic.

A Convenient Theory

One Way to CC It logo

Now I admit that being skeptical on the global warming thing is probably not so popular. But please don’t think that I am anti-environment. Fuel economy is high on our priority list in my car purchases. And even though the places we’ve lived in the South make it challenging to recycle my wife and I have recycled on our own through private concerns when we could.

In spite of the fact that I care, I’m still skeptical. It just seems too convenient to hear the high priests of the environment declare “Global Warming” at every single unusual weather thing that happens. Record high temperatures? Global Warming. El Niño? Global Warming. Oranges freezing in California? Obviously Global Warming!

I find it a tad suspicious that the theory seems to bend just a touch each time so that regardless what happens it can be incorporated as evidence the sky is falling. No, wait: The earth is warming.

Perhaps I’m a little simple minded or ignorant. But I have questions about the whole deal.

But how does record cold weather somewhere provide evidence that the planet is warming up?

Comparing how ever many millions of years our planet has been around with the few thousand years folks have been walking around (and the few hundred we’ve actually been recording the temperatures) how can we really be sure this isn’t some cyclical thing that is perfectly normal for our world?

When they take ice core probe temperatures they have to make some assumptions about things such as build up rates and stability of temperature at various depths. While these assumptions may be reasonable, how can we be sure they are true?

Different Biases

Now I admit I bring my own biases to the topic. Personally I think it is a bit arrogant for humans to believe we have that much influence or control over our planet.

As evidence exhibit A I’ll point to the science of Meteorology. In spite of all our technological advances and know how it is still pretty much a crap shoot whenever the weather guessers try to predict the future conditions in any particular location.

If our best scientists have such a hard time telling us accurately whether it is going to rain on the kids soccer game tomorrow night, how can we be so confident that what they tell us is coming down the road in a few centuries is any more accurate?

I guess I get the feeling on this one that many folks have made up their minds that human activity on this planet is bad by definition. Therefore they seem to present everything that happens through the bias that “proves” we are flushing ourselves down the toilet.

Maybe we are. I’ve gotta admit things are definitely a bit weird right now.

But maybe the planet is more resilient that most folks give it credit for. But that’s just The Way I C it.

Chris Cree is a regular contributor here at Successful-Blog and he helps businesses fuel growth through blogging with his consulting business, SuccessCREEations.

Share This


Filed under One Way to CC It, Successful Blog |



C'mon. Let's talk!

37 Comments to “What’s Up With The Weather?”

  1. January 17th, 2007 at 11:49 am
    Phillip J. Eby said

    Actually, it’s undisputed (by climate scientists) that the planet is warming.

    I repeat: undisputed.

    The question of whether humans are *causing* this is the only thing still up for debate.

    Meanwhile, one of the predicted consequences of this overall warming, is that Europe will have its own little ice age when the jet stream goes away, due to reduced salination of the arctic waters.

    Climate is complex, because heating things changes ocean currents and wind currents, which changes where cold and hot air (or water) get blown or pumped. Putting more heat into the system doesn’t mean that everybody heats up - it can mean that some people freeze.

    Meanwhile, the *planet* is certainly resilient. The planet has certainly had 50,000-year long ice ages before, and humans lived through at least one of them. It’s more a question of whether “civilization as we know it” would survive such a thing.

    So it doesn’t matter if it’s cyclical or “normal”. In fact, it’s WORSE for us if this IS a “normal” cycle, because it means there’s jack we can DO ABOUT IT!

    So, I’d personally prefer to believe we ARE responsible, because then there’s at least a *chance* we won’t all be starring in a new prequel of “Waterworld” sometime in the next 30 years.

    But if, as you suggest, it’s just “normal”, then we are all pretty much SOL.

  2. January 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
    Mike said

    I agree with Phillip that climate change is complex. In fact, we have really no way to predict second- and third-order consequences of anything we might do.

    Personally, I think the sun has a much greater effect on global climate than people do, but that’s heresy to many folks. We want to feel like we have control over a situation, but this is one where we don’t. We only have control of how we react to it. And in this case, the dictum on the cover of the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy holds true!

    Mike

  3. January 17th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
    Roger von Oech said

    Chris: What a refreshing point of view! Good stuff.

    One of my favorite books on the politics and hysteria of GW is Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.” Certainly worth a look.

  4. January 17th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
    Glenn (Customer Service Experience) Ross said

    First, let me compliment you on not being afraid to take a stand on a controversial subject.
    –Pause–
    Now, let me rip you a new one (smile) re: your comment about Meteorology being a crap shoot. Meterologists get it right far more often than they get it wrong. If you looked at predictions for any one location over the period of a year, I think you’d find that the forecasts were accurate 90% of the time. Now, tell me who else is that good at predicting the future. Wouldn’t you kill for that percentage in predicting what tomorrow’s stocks would do? Or better yet, what if you could correctly predict 90% of next weeks sporting contests (Hello Vegas!).

    BTW, I seem to recall the meteorologists being right in predicting Hurricane Katrina’s devastation. Everyone else ignored them.

    I may disagree with you on that point, but I like your post.

    I’ll be reading…

    Regards,

    Glenn

  5. January 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
    Patrick said

    Liz, I live in Greenville,SC not to far away as far the the whole earth is concerned. Two days ago we were having 70 degree weather and now it’s below freezing. Greenville however has been known to have weird weather patterns anyway as we have had one of our worst snow storms in very late March.

    I do find it kind of funny that the news outlets make such a big deal out of odd weather happening and the even stranger thing is they happen all the time.

    I do think we do some things to make our weather less than typical but on the other hand the sun, volcanoes, oceans, etc. have an even greater impact. In the end however I do believe God is the one in control. Another “quote” from the Hitchhiker’s Guide,

    Earth = Mostly Harmless

  6. January 17th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Phillip - In addition to the causes, other things that seem to be hotly disputed are how much it is warming relative to past warmer periods and whether or not this current warming is cyclical.

    If people aren’t the cause of the current warming then it might be reasonable to expect the warming to correct itself naturally without all requisite alarmism.

    Mike - I’m with you. I’m not going to panic over this either. But I do want to get more information because if there is a problem I’d be all for fixing it.

    Roger - I’ve heard that Crichton’s book was a good read. I’ll have to add that one to my list.

  7. January 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Glenn - If what you say is true about the 90% accuracy then Meteorologists have a HUGE PR problem. Sure it’s a cheap shot on my part. But I think you’ll find the general feeling out there is that their numbers are no where near that high.

    To say they get any storm track “right” you have to let it get in close and then still give them a “reasonable” range of probability. They need to hedge before they even start.

    That’s not to say they are bad people. Or incompetent either. My point is rather that the weather is nigh on impossible to predict certainly, even for the sharpest folks.

    With Katrina they said something to the effect that “It will probably go here. But it might not.”

    In the immortal words of Jayne Cobb, “I smell a lot of ‘if’ coming off this plan.”

  8. January 17th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
    Randy said

    Good comments. Phillip, of course, is absolutely correct. Global Warming is happening.

    I guess my angle on this is why don’t we try and do what we can to slow it or stop it now. Wether it’s caused by humans or not, doesn’t it make sense to proactively change our habits and behaviours. Doing so has the side benefit of reducing pollution, which we all know is bad.

    I don’t think Americans have the will power to do it on their own. I think policies will have to change to force changes onto us. But I also think this country can do anything we put our minds and wills to.

  9. January 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Randy, I work with two foreign nationals who are of the opinion that the USA is the world’s largest polluter nation. They feel that if the USA stopped polluting so much that would fix most of the “problem.”

  10. January 17th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
    Gayla said

    I think it’s part of Al Gore’s PR package deal.

    *grins*

  11. January 17th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    Chris - Yeah, we’re warming - so what? A thousand years ago the Vikings decided to live in Greenland. Ever wondered how that totally incongruent name was attached to an ice cube? Because back then it was green. As a matter of fact it’s now been empirically verified that they had vineyards for God’s sake.

    It’s the ozone thinning and thickening on it’s own clock. Period. That is unless they were using to much hairspray, and driving their damn SUV’s everywhere. :-)

    My final comment is for the folks who think we should begin living like our American forefathers. The same two clowns who wrote one of the most popular global warming books, also wrote, 30 years ago, a best seller about the coming frickin’ ice age!

    Can we all just rachet our IQ’s back to the 3 digit range please?

  12. January 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
    Tammy said

    If the U.S. is on the list of “biggest polluters”, India is awfully darn close on that list.

  13. January 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
    Robert Hruzek said

    I’m with you, Chris! I think the above comments illustrate the problem that arises when any discussion of GW occurs: the inevitable dogmatic fervor. Unfortunately, that only makes it so much harder to see through the shouting and get to the actual facts. For instance (and I’m not picking on you Phillip, honest!) your statement that GW is undisputed by climate scientists can easily be disputed. But, I think your conclusion is certainly a valid view.

    Patrick, I used to live in there, too, and it always amused me how Paris Mountain always appeard to “divide” the weather fronts such that it seemed to go around Greeville on either side!

  14. January 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
    Chris @ Martial Development said

    It just seems too convenient to hear the high priests of the environment declare “Global Warming” at every single unusual weather thing that happens.

    On the contrary, every time I hear an actual expert interviewed in the media, they take great pains to refute this “global warming is the root of all evil” meme.

    It is perpetuated by the media, who need controversy in order to attract attention for their advertisers.

    It is foolish to dismiss the science just because you don’t like the reporting.

  15. January 17th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
    Mike said

    Interesting read.

    Not one of the comments to this blog mentioned the melting of the polar ice cap, which in turn means that the sea level is raising, or the fact that historic temperature measurement trends show a steady rise of the surface temperatire of the earth, or the acidification of the sea bed.

    Bad weather in California, Nebraska, or Europe do not a Global Warming make. Since none of us are really experts on this subject, determining who is right from wrong is a daunting task.

    I agree with Chris that every bad speck of winter is not GW, no matter who says otherwise, but the long term data that I noted above seems quite disturbing.

    What we need is leadership we can trust to help us achieve realistic and timely goals.

  16. January 17th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
    Daniel Sweet said

    It’s not Global Warming anymore, anyway. It’s “Global Climate Change”. That makes it easy for reporters. Weather changing? It’s Global Climate Change.

    All recent estimations say that the primary cause is either cattle or the sun interacting with ozone, with we humans being way down on the list. Meaning we could all stop driving tomorrow and it wouldn’t make a difference.

    With the doomsday scenario being .6 degrees every 100 years, we’ve got a ways to go.

    As for the weather, it actually is 90% accurate - within 24 hours. Beyond that, it falls drastically.

    Dan

  17. January 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
    HART (1-800-HART) said

    I always blamed the wierd temperatures being caused by Volcano eruptions (Mount St. Helen) or resulting wars (Middle East) for stuff we are not told 100% the truth! (yes.. conspiracies galore~ :roll:)

    But, we’re in our Winter Solstice right now. Two days ago it was -32c with windchills making it -48c .. and, today it was only -25c with no windchill. Almost didn’t need gloves or a tuque!

  18. January 17th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
    Chris Cree said

    Interesting that we are having this discussion and I look over at Drudge and he’s got this headline up:

    Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

    So I guess there is no longer a place for reasoned debate in the meteorological world. All who disagree should be called heretics and disgraced.

  19. January 17th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
    Weather Weirdness at SuccessCREEations by Chris Cree said

    [...] Weather Weirdness By Chris Tags: Cold, Ice, Snow, WeatherThis morning I put up a post about global warming over at Successful-Blog which has created some interesting discussion. [...]

  20. January 18th, 2007 at 7:03 am
    Eddy Young said

    Cattle kill blizzards in that part of the world? :-)

    With a bit of luck, your politicians are looking out the window and realising that climate change *is* an issue.

  21. January 18th, 2007 at 9:27 am
    Clarence said

    Having been a student of the Weather with some educational background I would offer the opinion that the Jet Stream and the forces that drive it are the cuplrits in our present crazy Weather. Global warming is probably presnt but not a direct factor in the present US Werather pattterns.

  22. January 18th, 2007 at 10:14 am
    bj said

    Whether or not Global Warming exists, deciding it doesn’t so that you can justify driving an SUV (polluting everyone’s air) and using more electricity generated by more coal burning plants (polluting everyone’s air) and filling up the landfills (polluting everyone’s water) and continuing to live your own earth destructive and blindered lifestyle at the expense of everyone else . . . I’ve got one word for that. Asshole.

  23. January 18th, 2007 at 10:49 am
    Tammy said

    Perhaps some food for thought:

    “Complex problems defy simple solutions. One cannot end poverty by giving money to every poor person, nor is the world cleaned up if everyone rode their bikes to work instead of driving. We need to commit to a total solution for our perceived problems. We need to also remember that most solutions hurt people too. What or who we hurt and who or what we fix is always the tough part of the equation.” — John Adamski

  24. January 18th, 2007 at 11:07 am
    Jeff Brown said

    Only the incredible arrogance of man could conceive he has the power to ’solve’ global warming. I guess NASA will send up some scientists and ‘repair’ the thinning ozone layer.

    Yeah, that’s the ticket. And while you’re at it, why don’t you figure out how to hold back high tides too? The cyclical thinning and thickening of earth’s ozone layer has been a scientific fact since the existence of the universe. Ironically, this isn’t rocket science.

    This example of man’s unlimited arrogance would be entertaining if it wasn’t wasting so much of our time and resources tilting at windmills.

  25. January 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
    Chris Cree said

    BJ - The number 1 rule around here at Successful-Blog is “Be Nice”. Folks can disagree without calling names.

    Besides, I mentioned gas mileage in the original post (My wife and I don’t have an SUV) and recycling (we’re trying to do our part on the land fill issue).

    Why is it some of the very same folks who rant against coal power plants are often the most outspoken against clean air nuclear power production?

  26. January 18th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    > Why is it some of the very same folks who rant against coal power plants are often the most outspoken against clean air nuclear power production?

    The answer to that Chris is that their #1 agenda has to do with sending us back to the 19th century, not saving the world. If nuclear power would totally eliminate global warming they’d still be against it. That’s why they have zero credibility, though of course that’s only one reason of many. They’re a great source of entertainment.

  27. January 18th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
    Larry Hendrick said

    I love the conversation on this topic. I, too, am a huge skeptic of GW, but find the discussion fascinating. Part of the problem is the different formulas used to determine the warming trend. It changes as needed to justify the conclusion. And even with that, the only change they can show is less than one degree since accurate measurement became possible (since 1880 and were their thermometers accurate to tenth degrees?). Oh BTW, I don’t drive an SUV and I don’t leave lights on in the house. I work diligently to lower my usage, which makes sense, since I’m paying for it each month.

  28. January 18th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
    Phillip J. Eby said

    “”"If people aren’t the cause of the current warming then it might be reasonable to expect the warming to correct itself naturally without all requisite alarmism.”"”

    Sure… and how long did the last ice age last? About 10,000 years?

    My point (which everyone seems to be ignoring) is that it’s more useful to believe we ARE the cause, and perhaps the solution, because if we can’t do anything about it, then we are all in for a world of hurt.

    It would be better to do something and there be no problem, than to NOT do something and there be a problem. The costs of being wrong in each case are rather bad.

    I don’t know whether we can do anything about it. I just think that it makes no sense to pretend we *can’t*, simply because we don’t want to think about it.

  29. January 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    >Phillip said, It would be better to do something and there be no problem, than to NOT do something and there be a problem. The costs of being wrong in each case are rather bad.

    I don’t know whether we can do anything about it. I just think that it makes no sense to pretend we *can’t*, simply because we don’t want to think about it.

    The point is, we do know. And we didn’t cause it, and we can’t fix it. It just is. You might as well try to cool down the sun for all the silly solutions that have been put forward.

    The ozone is the cause of warming and cooling trends alike. It thins and thickens over time. No amount of hairspray or cow farts change that. :) So please, take all the passion and energy put forth on this subject, and put it into something you can actually do something about. I know, they can work to outlaw tsunamis. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Sign me up.

  30. January 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am
    Chris Cree said

    Another thing to think about is costs, and that doesn’t just mean money. For example we outlawed inexpensive refrigeration to protect the ozone layer when freon was effectively banned.

    No problem, right? After all there are plenty of alternatives. Of course those alternatives happen to be significantly more expensive (and chemically more directly harmful to humans too boot, by the way.)

    But hey, no cost is too high when it comes to protecting the planet, right?

    Well how about the millions in third world countries for whom simple refrigeration was pushed further out of reach by that particular ban? What do you say to the hundreds of thousands who could be cured if they had access to medications that require refrigeration but can’t get them because they spoil? Or how about the starving who are effectively refused food because they can’t afford the more expensive refrigeration?

    To say “no cost is too high” is easy for those of us with the means to pay. But for many places in the world our alarmism and knee jerk regulations translate directly into dead bodies today.

    It is weighing those actual deaths (that are occurring today) against a great big maybe that makes me want more information before I get on the global warming bus.

  31. January 20th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
    Mike said

    Just a couple of points of discussion.

    Every scientist that has studied Global Warming directly attributes the increases in carbon-emissions to the green house effect we are observing. It coincides way too closely with the recent 120 year activity of increased human activity: industry, coal power plants, car emissions.
    See wikipedia.org

    You can believe otherwsie, but reputable scientists — of which all of us on this thread are probably not — do have something to say that is worth listening to.

    On a related topic here, the reason we have not had any nuclear power plants built in the US and Canada in the last 20-30 years is due to costs. It is a purely financial problem. The costs are tremendous and cannot be justified in any utility rate. The cost of a nuclear power plant is a 5x jump in your basic cost of electricity.

    That jump may be necessary. We must keep our economy growing and we can no longer afford to spew CO2 like it’s 1970.

    Mike
    runningboston.com

  32. January 20th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
    HART (1-800-HART) said

    Chris .. I just remembered .. I posted POSITIVE PROOF that there *IS* global warming on January 7, 2007 in my blog .. it’s that first picture

    :D

  33. January 22nd, 2007 at 5:38 am
    Chris Cree said

    Every scientist that has studied Global Warming directly attributes the increases in carbon-emissions to the green house effect we are observing.

    Mike, the argument that man is warming the planet is usually presented like you have as indisputable fact in order to shut up the skeptics like me. The gist of that approach is that hey, all the experts say it’s true so if you, non-expert, disagree you are a fool.

    If the initial statement you made were true, then I’d have no issue at all here.

    The trouble is there are bunches of scientists who’ve studied the issue and come away not so convinced that a) the current warming is anything but cyclical or b) that humans are causing it.

    Of course when that is pointed out to folks who have made the above statement they will usually modify it like you did in your comment to imply that only the reputable scientists believe the man-caused global warming catechism.

    The approach, now apparently led by the Weather Channel, is to marganilaize skeptics in order to squash dissenting views. In response one ABC-TV weather man said

    I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.

    Again, if it were really true that no one who studied the subject disagreed except a few marginal quacks that I would say we have a big problem and be shouting about how we need to fix it.

    However with just a little poking around on my own to find out about the subject I can see that the issue is still far less proved than the alarmists make it out to be. (Sorry HART, although yours is definitely convincing evidence.)

    On the nuke plant issue, even if your claim about the reasons for lack of building is true (and I haven’t have the time to research it, although from my time around coal plants talking to operators I don’t think you are quite right there) my original point still stands. Many of the very same folks who preach the global warming doctrine the loudest are also the most outspoken against clean air nuclear power generation.

  34. January 22nd, 2007 at 11:36 am
    Chris Cree said

    Another interesting headline from today’s news: Scientists Fear They’ve Oversold Global Warming.

    “The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general,” says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

    Seems like the issue is far from decided according to the experts.

  35. January 22nd, 2007 at 9:05 pm
    Mike said

    Hi Chris,

    A point of correction. You added “only the reputable scientists”, a inference which I did not make. The conclusion that it is implied is only conjecture.

    I am generally not swayed because one weather guy and another blogger are at it because of climate change. Their fight and their opinion does not make a consiparcy against global warming research make.

    There are both people who do not want nuclear but are also concerned about global warming as there are people who do want nuclear but are also concerned about global warming. It’s a mixed bag.

    I cannot attest to the loudness of their arguments, or the effectiveness. If they are very effective, then I’d say that they are either incredibly organized or ultimately correct.

    But I doubt that they are effective. I happen to know that costs stopped nuclear plants. The capital costs, length of project (10 yrs or before it’s operational), the of insurance, and the political costs (no one ever wants a nuke plant in their neighborhood), are enormous. They by far overshadow anything coal producing.

    Spread over a 40 year effective life, nuclear power amortizes well with projected increased costs of coal production. However, that is only if you take the price of electricity in the year 2047 and compare nuke with coal. In 2007, nuke has to be higher.

    By example, suppose nuke power is $30 Mwe today. It will be $30 Mwe in 2047 (more or less). Coal is $6 Mwe today, but may be $50 Mwe in 2047.

    Mike

  36. January 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
    Jeff Brown said

    Do the global warmers make this stuff up as they go? If you guys spouted your propaganda while walking over my lawn, I’d have the greenest grass in the zip code.

    Nuke power too expensive? France has an enormous number of such plants, and have less to spend than we do by any measure. The only thing that drives up costs is political pressure. For God’s sake, if France is doing it, you guys should be embarrassed for even mentioning either costs, or danger.

    Bandini is envious.

  37. January 24th, 2007 at 7:55 am
    Mike said

    Jeff,

    In many ways, your post reinforces and drives my point.

    The economics of nuclear power for France are radically different than those for countries with large and easy access to cheap coal - nations like the US, Canada, Russia, and China.

    France already has very high electric rates and they are either faced with coal from Russia (expensive, unreliable) or nuclear (self sustaining, reliable). France wants to be self-sustaining in a dangerous world.

    The cost of nuclear is still very high, even for France.

    Mike

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

C'mon Let's Talk!