Much of the popularity of Global Warming Awareness stems from the fact that almost nobody is capable of noticing Global Warming without benefit of Global Warming Awareness Campaigns.
For example, I have fairly decent pattern recognition skills. And I've been hiking the same trails on the north side of the Hollywood Hills for the last 45 years. Having grown up in a dry region, I am a big fan of verdant nature, so I pay careful attention to how green the hillsides are at each point in the season.
Now, you might think that I would have noticed evidence in these wooded canyons and sagebrush hillsides of long-term Climate Change. But I haven't.
I am not saying it's not happening. Perhaps there is a long-term trend that remains invisible to me under the much more visible seasonal cycles and the random noise.
What I am saying is that, at least so far, a highly observant and statistically-minded citizen such as myself hasn't noticed Global Warming going on in his own environment. Without the aid of Global Warming Awareness Campaigns, I would never have become aware of Global Warming just by hiking in the same environment decade after decade.
I think that explains a lot of the Gnostic appeal of Global Warming Awareness. When you become Global Warming Aware, you are superior to the unenlightened masses. You have access to evidence of things unseen. You are one of the elite who are aware of knowledge that can only be gathered through the most esoteric means and analyzed by the most profound scholars.
In contrast, much of the things that I notice in my daily life, such a racial differences in crime rates and intelligence, are the kinds of things that are so overwhelmingly obvious that many people take pride in not knowing about them. (At least, they don't know about them when discussing public issues. They seem to know about them just fine when choosing where to buy a house or when deciding where to school their children.)
In fact, many popular people actively engage in Anti-Awareness Campaigns intended to increase ignorance. (For example, the President of the United States likes to boast of his long fight against awareness of racial crime rate gaps.) For this, they are showered with public approbation.
For example, I have fairly decent pattern recognition skills. And I've been hiking the same trails on the north side of the Hollywood Hills for the last 45 years. Having grown up in a dry region, I am a big fan of verdant nature, so I pay careful attention to how green the hillsides are at each point in the season.
Now, you might think that I would have noticed evidence in these wooded canyons and sagebrush hillsides of long-term Climate Change. But I haven't.
I am not saying it's not happening. Perhaps there is a long-term trend that remains invisible to me under the much more visible seasonal cycles and the random noise.
What I am saying is that, at least so far, a highly observant and statistically-minded citizen such as myself hasn't noticed Global Warming going on in his own environment. Without the aid of Global Warming Awareness Campaigns, I would never have become aware of Global Warming just by hiking in the same environment decade after decade.
I think that explains a lot of the Gnostic appeal of Global Warming Awareness. When you become Global Warming Aware, you are superior to the unenlightened masses. You have access to evidence of things unseen. You are one of the elite who are aware of knowledge that can only be gathered through the most esoteric means and analyzed by the most profound scholars.
In contrast, much of the things that I notice in my daily life, such a racial differences in crime rates and intelligence, are the kinds of things that are so overwhelmingly obvious that many people take pride in not knowing about them. (At least, they don't know about them when discussing public issues. They seem to know about them just fine when choosing where to buy a house or when deciding where to school their children.)
In fact, many popular people actively engage in Anti-Awareness Campaigns intended to increase ignorance. (For example, the President of the United States likes to boast of his long fight against awareness of racial crime rate gaps.) For this, they are showered with public approbation.
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
41 comments:
Steve, may I say in all candidness that you're a subtle master at understating the obvious contradictions inherent in the hopelessly confused creature known as the modern liberal.
GW = real
GC = real too
AGW = bullshit
Ok, what about the fact that the last glacier in Glacier Natl Park is due to disappear in about 12 years.
And then have you checked the Greenland IcePack lately? How about icebergs in the North Atlantic. These are just off the top of my head.
---...the obvious contradictions inherent in the hopelessly confused creature known as the modern liberal.---
An excellent point. But for liberals, those contradictions only effect Other People...
I haven't studied the issue of anthropomorphic global warming myself, but the smartest guy I know has. This guy is a certifiable genius and a real polymath if there ever was one.
He told me he's looked at the models used to predict climate change. He has a low opinion of them. According to him, there are too many variables in this system for us to be able to predict climate change years or decades out. This makes sense to me - if they can't predict the weather a month ahead, how can they say with a straight face where the climate is heading 10 years from now?
He said that causation is difficult to establish for the same reason - too many variables in the system. In other words he's not a fan of the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis.
Let me say that I do believe that there has been a gradual warming in the last 150 years. I simply suspect that the people who say that they know its cause are full of crap.
Of course, humanity's past is full of climate change. The Roman period was warm, the Dark Ages cold, the Middle Ages warm, the 1300-1850 period was dubbed the Little Ice Age and the 1850-present period has again been warm.
Historically, Ice Ages have been far more stressful to our species than warm periods. In fact, human civilization (agriculture, etc.) was born right after the end of the last Ice Age.
There have been so many Ice Ages in the past that it's foolish to think that we'll never have another one. The entire history of civilization may well end up fitting into a tiny break between Ice Ages. By the way, during the last one all of Europe except for Spain and the southern Balkans was covered in ice year-round. In the Western Hemisphere permanent ice extended to what's now NYC and beyond.
It's fun to root for global cooling to start up again because that would expose so many pompous fools. But the more you think about it, the less you want to root for it.
I accept that the global temperature has, on the whole, increased over the last generation. That's what NASA says and though I can be persuaded otherwise, I'm willing to accept it.
It would seem intuitive to me that with nearly seven billion people on the planet using fossil fuels (and other technologies and chemicals a whole lot worse that that) an impact such as global warming or cooling seems plausible.
Couple things though: I've seen data that much of the increase in temperature is occurring in the Arctic, and to a lesser degree the Antarctic, and I tend to believe it.
They show decreasing ice caps in the Arctic (although this is somewhat debatable), but curiously they don't show corresponding data on the Antarctic, and even more curious, they don't show data in the equatorial region where, unlike my country (Canada), global warming would really be a bad thing.
A couple of degrees increase in temperature here would be a Godsend, with much of our country still covered in ice and uninhabitable; in the Sahara, not so much, and perhaps the Amazon too.
They don't show it because it is not happening, not on the scale that it is at the poles.
With most industrial activity occurring in the northern hemisphere and most of the warming as well, especially in the Arctic, some possibilities come up:
-Sooty snow and ice retains more heat, ergo more ice melting.
-Some sort of ozone layerish depletion type thingie which occurs more at the poles (why doesn't anyone talk about the holes in the ozone layer anymore? Did that get solved? Or are we just moving on to a better anti-industrial scare tactic) is happening.
-Other, unspecified reasons; I'm not a scientist.
"Global" warming is a misnomer if it is mostly happening in the (uninhabited) arctic, as appears to be the case. The amount of carbon humans produce as a % of carbon in the atmosphere, combined with carbon's relatively low greenhouse gas properties as compared to methane and other gasses, makes me highly doubtful that carbon is the source of any warming that is occurring.
That, and the extreme amount of hype surrounding AGW. When the media and The Usual Suspects tell me to zig, I am highly inclined to zag.
(to be continued...)
(cont. from above)
In a way I am happy to accept AGW as real, because if you do then it becomes highly illogical to
-send tonnes of food to low carbon footprint 3rd world countries leading to a population boom (Daniel Quinn has written some good stuff on this - more food, more people);
-then subsequently invite them to high carbon footprint countries (my country having the highest immigration rate in the world).
This provides a handy excuse to call for a stop foreign "aid", and to stop immigration, while retaining moral highground versus the left. If they really cared about AGW and really believed it to be the greatest threat to humanity, they would stop feeding "surplus" carbon producing humans, and also stop transferring them from low carbon footprint societies to high carbon footprint societies.
It's a fun argument to make against AGW freaks; public policies must mesh together; in my country's case we committed to reducing total carbon emissions to 6% (I think) under the Kyoto accord while simultaneously increasing our population through immigration by about 7% during the implementation phase. You can have the world's highest immigration rate while also fueling a population explosion in the third world, or you can fight AGW, but you can't do both, not at the same time. Public policy debates with leftists rarely present such easy rebuttals to what is so dear to them.
Hey, if AGW gets us off the hook from foreign aid and gets us zero immigration, I'll be Al Gore's biggest fan, but for some reason I'm quite certain that's not their end game.
A population cull? Fine, let the best and brightest and strongest survive, I like my chances at making the list if we were to summarily execute 90% of the human population that didn't make the cut. I don't think that is the end game either, though.
Finally, there is China with its coal plant a week they plan to be opening over the next decade, and India too; it's utter madness to give them a free pass while shutting down our economy and drastically impacting our standard of living.
A big part of the appeal of Global Warming theory for liberals is the fact that conservatives (by and large) reject it. Makes 'em feel smart. Politics.
here's to hoping "anti-awareness campaigns" enters the national lexicon as insidiously as did "diversity is our strength".
Now you really are in trouble.
I agree mostly with 432322. Liberal "humanist", "egalitarian" policies absolutely clash with AGW paranoia. Unfortunately, rationality does not drive policy. Hence we can continue to expect the worst of all possible outcomes to be realized.
IMHO polar warming is well established in both theory and observation. Global warming is not.
"That, and the extreme amount of hype surrounding AGW. When the media and The Usual Suspects tell me to zig, I am highly inclined to zag."
This is a very good point. Climate change is not the only potential threat to civilization. Dysgenics is a much more noticeable and provable threat. If the powers that be really cared about our civilization's future (ha ha), don't you think they'd be trying to reverse some of its dysgenic trends?
The people who promote the idea of anthropogenic climate change are, in all their other instincts, the enemies of civilization. For us to listen to them would be similar to the Republican Party listening to the NYT editorial board about whom it should choose as its presidential nominee.
OK, in my first comment (fifth one from the top) I used "anthropomorphic" when I should have typed "anthropogenic". Silly me.
A couple of years ago I visited a Lake Superior beach where I used to swim when I was a kid. I was really taken aback by the low water level...
Just googled it and was pleased to see the following...
Water levels in the Great Lakes are rising after receding for a decade.
I think you missed the invariant:
Both awareness and anti-awareness can be esoteric. Only those esoterically aware of the danger of "a little knowledge" are able to be anti-aware of the obvious.
Here in Illinois we just had the wettest June on record and have had record breaking low temps. Call me a global warming skeptic.
-Vanilla Thunder
Steve,
You're to be forgiven. While Al
Gore can sense the burning impact of a .5 degree F increase in global average temperature in his lifetime, mere mortals cannot. Sadly, we'd be left to spontaneously combust without the Awareness brownshirts to warn us of the imminent catastrophe.
My beloved Aunt Mary, now deceased, got badly sunburned in 1932. Where were the Awareness brigades then in her summer of need and with sunscreen not even invented yet?
There were some 3000 Record LOWS last month:
"The North American continent took a big chill pill this summer.
Jesse Ferrell of AccuWeather reported: “1,044 daily record low temperatures have been broken this month nationwide according to NCDC — count record ‘low highs’ and the number increases to 2,925, surely to pass 3,000 before the end of the month.”
He also reported: “The period of July 17-20 was the worst, with over 1,600 stations breaking records. It’s worth noting that these stats include all records across the nation.”
And: “The lowest temperatures of the month are also impressive, with 50s in every state and 40s in most, some 30s. Normally temperatures are peaking in July.”
Steve,
The Climate Bill is redistribution from RED states to BLUE states. For example, California gets 145% of the allowances they need in the bill, but Tennessee only gets 73% of the allowances it needs. THIS MEANS IN SIMPLISTIC TERMS that California's electric rates could GO DOWN if they sell their excess credits to a state the doesn't recieve enough.........LIKE TENNESSEE.
Do you get it now Steve? Its pure redistribution. The same people who back it will file every kind of law suit imaginable to keep Tennessee (as an example) from building any new nuclear power plants (as a matter of fact, they just did that against a second reactor near Watts Bar Dam near the Tennessee River in East Tennessee). Get it?
This is the most disgusting push the left has ever tried. They -know- its not getting warmer, they want a right to control how much "carbon" you create.......by how much electricity you use and miles you drive. In other words, everything you do. The same folks fight every nuclear, solar, and wind initiative under the guise of the environment. They want red states to pay money to blue states just to have electricity by buying carbon credits from them because the scheme gives blue states more credits. I can't believe people are falling for this.
Miles
SNOW!!
I am NOT amused. There is snow forecast in the mountains near my house tonight. In July.
Where is my GLOBAL WARMING I was promised??? HUH???!!!
Anonymous White Jane (with snow in my hair)
@Anonymous (which one, I can't say)
"For us to listen to them would be similar to the Republican Party listening to the NYT editorial board about whom it should choose as its presidential nominee."
Uh, they did, didn't they? (Or was that your point?)
Early this year the very AGW aware BBC was warning us Brits to stand by for a dry summer.
Well guess what?
Oh yes, you were correct!
Its been pissing down incessantly.
BBC and dry summer warning.
I think this was the item.
Rainfall should be "near or below average" for the three months of summer, the forecasters say.
But otoh;
However, they warn that heavy downpours cannot be ruled out.
Great forecasting there...
"Dysgenics is a much more noticeable and provable threat."
I totally agree. There's no need for a fancy mathematical model to know that more NAMs = more social problems. Or that more people with low intelligence = more social problems.
Steve leads a non-religious life and misses the subtext of certain events. The Global Warming phenom has an important religious subtext.
Nature abhors a vacuum. People who reject the notion of God will fill the void with some other belief system. Global Warming's greatest champions are all post-God or at least post traditional religion.
Of course Steve doesn't overtly identify scientific cults as another wacky form of religion with all the trappings such as true believers and excommunications et cetera.
No way Steve would admit that what happened to Dr Watson had anything to do with a religious belief system. That would make it all so much more complicated than Sailer's Theory of Status Competition.
In my time, I have seen a war on drugs, a war on terror, and now......a war on carbon.
Imagine! Declaring war on an element of the periodic table. And why are we singling out carbon? Oxygen is 73% of a CO2 molecule by weight - why aren't we also declaring war on oxygen?
I have not followed global warming for some time. It used to be (about 15 years ago) that the global circulation models did not include the effects of clouds in any serious way. Is this still the case? Anyone know? And of course, there is far more water vapor (nearly as good an IR absorber as CO2) in the atmosphere than there is CO2.
Putative green-house warming is a complicated problem, and it would take several months, perhaps even years, of intensive study to arrive at an informed opinion. Very few people who aren't professionals in the field have that luxury. And yet, everyone has an opinion.
I think that based all the information and misinformatin that is out there, an intelligent person can honestly believe that human-induced climate change is real and is currently going or that it is not. The factors that go into the earth's climate are vast; measurements of a tremendous array of past and present readings on everything from the oceans to the icecaps to the atmosphere to sun cycles; and the much lauded or much maligned projections of where things are likely to go from here; and the various scientific disciplines (i.e. the studies of the weather, geology, oceanography, etc.). I have personally known many very intelligent and accomplished folks who fall on one side or the other of the human-induced climate change debate.
Personally, I hope it turns out to not be true. If looking at the issue using the legal standards of preponderance of the evidence (greater than 50% likelihood) and beyond a reasonable doubt, I personally, at this point in time, put the probability at greater than 50% likely true but less than beyond a reasonable doubt. At any rate, I am quite certain that the vast majority of those who are believers in human-induced climate change really do believe, including the scientists and politicians on that side of the debate (yes, even Al Gore). So when I hear or read theories that most of such folks don't really believe it themselves, and that it is actually part of some sort of conspiracy to control peoples lives, and that that is the real motive behind it all, I must say it sounds the same as someone putting forth the idea that the reason there are liquor stores in the 'hood is to keep the black man down, or that the white man created AIDS in a laboratory to kill certain populations. I mean, as far as I can tell, the basic thinking is the same: evil people (and in both cases, lots and lots of them, all keeping their true motives a secret), would rather spend their time and effort constructing ways to keep certain other folks down, rather than spending their time trying to improve their lives, their happiness, bettering the same for their children, etc. I don't see how it passes Occam's razor. However, I am open to changing my opinion, so if someone sees something here that I am missing (not regarding AGW, but rather regarding the motives of those who are its proponents), I would be grateful. But do me one favor please: don't call me a liberal (I would find that a very awful thing to be referred to; I would prefer being called a dog).
Steve, as a fellow Californian, haven't you been bummed out mightily by the way religious fanatics have infected outdoorsy children's activities? Most of my childhood memories are nearly impossible to recreate for my own children without the taint of neohippie indoctination. I miss oldstyle environmentalism. Give a hoot, don't pollute. I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees. Take only photos, leave only footprints. Remember?
NJ's climate has changed since my youth. We now have robins through the winter these last 15 years, and the tomatoes don't get frost-killed until late October instead of September, and the ground generally doesn't freeze hard until the new year instead of early December, and there are fewer big snows, I think.
On the other hand we did get earlier freezes last year and this summer is one of the coolest ever - we've gotten by with no AC yet.
My two cents.
I'm doing a course in Energy-Econ at a German uni. They have a diagram in the script detailing the global Carbon transport and its sources. Fossil fuels make up 5E9 to/year. The others are (all in E9 to/year):
- Diffusion into the ocean: 104
- Diffusion from the ocean: 100
- Decay of Biomatter: 50
- Photosynthesis: 100
- Breathing of plants: 50
- Deforestation: 2
Of all the emitting processes, carbon fossil fuels make up 5 out of 202E9t/year. That's 2.4% of total emissions-, and 1.6% of all Carbon activities.
One paragraph later they wax about the challenge of reducing the carbon emissions. How can serious academics, who otherwise teach us to think in terms of significance of numbers, burden the West with an ideology when, even if perfectly implemented, can only impact a percentage of 2.4%, i.e. have negligent influence? The mental disconnect is baffling.
I love what Mencious Moldbug had to say on the matter, in his Nov 11 2007 post (http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-i-am-not-white-nationalist.html) :
[for ease of reading, I translated / simplified his "Class A" to "NAMs" and his "Class B" to "whites"]
This is just a hoot. Suppose you are an alien and you are observing a country X which contains two classes of people, which we'll call A [NAMs] and B [whites]. You observe the following:
Every year, thousands of people of [white] are attacked, raped and killed by people of [NAM]. The converse is extremely rare - at least, rare enough to be a cause celebre. (BTW, I love the argument that [NAM] people attack, rape and kill other [NAM] people as well. As though this were some great saving grace.)
Large areas of X, including entire major cities, have been ethnically cleansed by the departure of [white] people fleeing [NAM] violence.
Versus [NAMs], [whites] are systematically disfavored in competition for educational and professional positions.
Many, even most, people of [NAM] accept a canonical ideology which justifies this situation as a moral response to unidentifiable, irreparable, and ancient wrongs, and appears to motivate ongoing attacks, which are often defended by responsible authorities. In fact, the belief that it is actually the [whites] who are oppressing the [NAMs] is widespread.
While [whites] are a numerical majority in some regions, they are a substantial minority on the entire planet. Many respectable and influential people advocate the abolition of all migration controls worldwide, leaving the [NAMs] in a perfect position to extend their theory of violence to a policy of global conquest and destruction. While this is not about to happen tomorrow, over the next century it is quite plausible.
Now. Would you, as a responsible alien obeying all directives for diplomatic communication with primitive planets, suggest to the [whites] that there was some other problem that they should be worrying about instead? Something more important? Something even scarier? Such as, oh, I don't know, unusually warm weather?
The big public debate a few years ago was how evolution theory should be taught in public schools. The problem with that for liberals, after they congratulate themselves for believing something, is: What do we do with that knowledge? Demand gov't programs to assist evolutionary progress (cull the weak and the stupid)? Better to lay that aside. Look at the trouble James Watson got into.
Better to frame infanticide in terms of supporting abortion rights -- a la Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or saving the planet -- a la John Holdren.
Interesting. I've been wondering whether the fact that AGW skepticism is more popular in America than here in Finland is because it is, indeed, easier - even trivial - to spot the fact that global warming is happening here in Finland than in most of America.
I, as well as pretty much everyone, has noticed that winters start later and end sooner these days than when I was a child - then the snows (the kind of snows that stay on the ground) came in November and December and you were pretty much guaranteed to have a white Christmas, these days it's not unusual in the least for the real snow to come in January. On the other hand, in places like America where large areas don't have "winter" like we have here, making such observations is likely to be harder.
Incidentally, anyone making "It's been a cold summer here!" argument is basically making the same argument as people saying "Men aren't taller than women! Susan there must be 190 cm, certainly taller than any of you!" One of the things that makes me believe in AGW theory is that, indeed, this seems to be an argument skeptics actually believe in.
The bogus term "Global Warming" has been replaced by an even more bogus term, "Climate Change." Every time the "climate" "changes" (say it gets hotter in Jakarta this year, then colder the following year), it's evidence of the urgent need of a global communist dictatorship.
If meterologists can't predict accurately if it will rain tomorrow, how can liberals predict the weather 100 years hence?
I guess they don't live in your neighborhood, Steve.
re glaciers. I recently visisted a glacier in Alaska. Conveniently, they had a map showing the glacier's retreat. Being a smart guy, I noticed the retreat has been happening since anyone bothered keeping track (early 19th century).
Slightly off topic, but I grew up here in rural western Wisconsin. I've always been quite attuned to the local flora and fauna (amateur bird watcher as a child, etc.) What I've noticed is that there is more biodiversity in the higher taxa than there was in the seventies. I put it down to more agricultural land taken out of production and given over to 3 acre residential lots.
This is my forth summer in the Portland, Oregon area. We are having a heat wave (100+ degree weather) this week, just like the heatwaves we had the previous three summers. However, when I check the paper, they have had these heatwaves even in the 1930's or 1960's and there bouts. So, this is nothing new to this area.
Cannon beach looks the same as in the photos from the 1970's or 1960's. So, the sea level has not increased any. Also, the vegetation has not changed any here. AWG is supposed to turn this area tropical or sub-tropical. So far, this hasn't happened yet.
Al Gore, AWG promulgator in chief, bought his $4 million condo on San Francisco's Fisherman's Wharf a few years ago. Obviously he is not worried about the rising sea level taking out his $4 million condo. Perhaps he has really good insurance on that condo and is planning to use AWG to bilk the insurance company.
headache is right, Antropogenic Global Warming and its consequences don't add up.
The notion of AGW only has taken hold because of the population's general innumeracy. For example, consider the fear of tropical diseases that result from warming. We are told we should woryy about malaria. So I tried out the numbers. Here in the Bay Area we are about 400 miles north of you in LA. We are also therefore about four degrees colder here. Today there is no malaria in San Francisco. Therefore when in the future we are four degrees warmer, as Al Gore predicts, we can expect as much malaria as you have down there in LA. I looked that up. Whadya know? There's no malaria in LA either.
We know there has been global warming because Washington crossed the Delaware. He did so because back then the Delaware froze over and would have allowed the Hessians across. Franklin met with Beaumarchais ("The Barber of Seville") in Paris to arrange for munitions but the ships were frozen in port. It was very cold back then. Those harbors and the Delaware no longer freeze. Yet the US Capitol, Philadelphia, was abandonned at about that time because of the Yellow Fever epidemic.
Most of the juice in the AGW fear campaign comes from the "hockey stick" graphic that shows the world's temperature as flat unil about fifty years ago. This graph first surfaced in a paper called MBH89. Steve McIntyre brought this graph to public attention. He said it used a non-standard method for calculating Principal Component Analysis. McIntyre is not a climate scientist. Michael Mann the principal author of MBJ89 is. Who to believe?
Actually anyone can discern the truth of the matter. Just read the method used in MBH89 and then read the article in Wikipedia on PCA. It's very clear MBH89 uses a new and very non-standard procedure. Mann was at least wrong and more likely lying.
I went to graduate school to learn how to do waht we called then "computer modeling". I put myself through school teaching statistics and doing math modeling for government agencies. Lots of people have just this sort of background. It's easy in government to be the resident math whiz.
Anybody with a math modeling background knows to be wary of a model that has policy and funding implications.
The profession of "climate science" is replete with second raters. At one time it was the least well paid of the sciences. It is likely to get worse as it attracts environmentalists from the humanities.
When the earnest young volunteers knock on my door looking for a contribution to "save the planet", I ask them, "How did you do in math in school?".
Steve,
I'm still on the fence about global warming (and I haven't really studied the claims pro and con fully). However, have you read this article by Elizabeth Kolbert? She summarizes data suggesting that there have been fairly significant changes in the natural world. I believe that this was all eventually rolled into a book.
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/01/09/060109fa_fact_kolbert
For example, the range of temperature sensitive butterflies have been steadily advancing. Certain types of frogs that are sensitive to temperature changes also seem to be disappearing (though it's unclear whether this is correlated with temperature changes or caused by temperature changes).
There have been similar studies done elsewhere, such as Walden Pond in Massachusetts. There was recently an article on climatologists studying the diaries and logs of locals who recorded when the first flowers bloomed and when migratory birds appear. There seems to be a definite trend towards earlier springs.
Lastly, are you really adequately addressing differences between average global temperature versus local global temperature? I always had the impression that most experts who believe in "global warming" also acknowledge that temperatures can drop dramatically too. (For example, if the gulf stream changed course, most of the UK would be significantly colder).
In general I see no reason to doubt the scientific consensus on the existence of anthropogenic global warming (although I am somewhat agnostic about how big a problem it's really going to be). I have a fair amount of respect for the experts on this, and if most of them say it is happening I don't feel I have the competence to dispute them. And I must say it doesn't help that a great deal of the resistance appears to have clear financial and/or ideological motivations.
But you were looking at this at a personal level, so here's my story: When I was growing up in the 60's, my home town in Michigan would reliably have about four months of snow on the ground, year after year. I still have family there, and visit regularly, and what I observe is that there is just far less snow these days. In fact it's not at all unusual to have rain in January, which never happened when I was young! Just one data point of course, but just because you can't see it in California doesn't mean it isn't apparent elsewhere.
(Of course your main purpose in writing this post was not to say something about global warming, but to talk, once again, about The Things We Must Not Notice. On that point I have to say my own observations pretty much line up with yours).
Jul 28, 2009 5:55 am US/Central Chicago Sees Coldest July In 67 Years
Average Temperature Only 68.9 DegreesCHICAGO (CBS) ― Click to enlarge1 of 1
Emily Nunn
Close
(7/17/2009)
Have you left your air conditioner in the closet this summer, and worn long pants more often than shorts? If so, you may not be surprised to find out that Chicago is seeing its coldest July in more than 65 years.
The National Weather Service says 2009 has seen the coldest July since the official recording station was moved away from the lakefront in 1942. The average temperature this month in Chicago has been a mere 68.9 degrees.
Even in the years before 1942, when the National Weather Service recorded temperatures at the cooler lakefront, there are only three years that had colder Julys through the 26th.
There have also been far more days than usual with high temperatures less than 80 degrees this year. In 2009, there were 13 days where the temperature did not exceed 80 degrees. Only three Julys in the past 67 years have had more days in Chicago with highs less than 80 – there were 18 such days in 1992, and 14 in 1996 and 2000.
We have also failed to reach 90 degrees at any time this month.
But the good news is that homeowners this summer have been seeing a big break on their electric bills. Air conditioning usage, according to ComEd earlier this month, is way down from last year and has saved residents an average of $50 since June, compared with last year.
In addition to the mild weather, Com Ed's cost of power was also down 9 percent as of July 17, a savings passed on to you. Your natural gas price has been down even more, 27 percent. Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas estimate a typical home customer will pay $500 less this year than last year.
(© MMIX, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
Came to you while rooting out articles about/by Seligman. Sad to come across someone one really likes and then find he's died.
Then came on this AGW thread. What a breath of fresh air compared to the threads here in the UK where the prevailing mode is climate change hysteria. It's not just the usual innumerate liberals, we all have those, more an additional substrata of socialist anti-capitalists railing at the consumer society.
Post a Comment