Just noticed that GW changed all the degree symbols to strange special characters. Just note that every time you see gibberish above, it's supposed to be a degree symbol.

Snow melt and peak runoff is now a month earlier than when I grew up. It used to be May, now its April. Which makes for a longer fire season, and there are records being broken, pretty much every year now, for the number, acreage, and intensity of fires in the west.

Growing tomatoes here is getting to be problematic, not from the short season, but from the high temperatures in July, when its too hot to set fruit. If 95º temps go on into August, I'm lucky to harvest much of anything.

Weather mystifies me, Steve. I think a mistake we make is our egocentricity - in 2 ways. One relates to our current debate on if our narrow self-interest will so limit our thinking that we are unable to take any meaningful steps towards limiting our polluting of this planet. The other has a more direct relationship to our perspective with regards to weather and climate.

Skybird probably knows this better than all of us - as individuals, our living space is so tiny as to be insignificant. The world and even the terrain around us is huge. And yet, the individual damaging effect we have on that terrain is remarkable. Take a look at an aerial photograph of our communities. It has become a cliché to refer to them as cancers.

John Jeavons, the guy who wrote "How to Grow More Vegetables . . ." tells us that it takes about 22,000 to 42,000 square feet of land to feed one person the average U.S. diet. He says that using his biointensive methods, we could be growing the same food on 4,000 square feet. I've gardened over 40 seasons and you know what? I believe him.

If we choose to be narrowly focused, let's focus on narrowing our footprint. One of our greatest consumers of energy and water, our greatest polluters of air and water is our food industry.

I'll look further at those UofU websites and hope I can see such amazing graphics for a broader area and, then again, for my own specific locale.

digitS'

Good gracious, Steve! How do you narrow the info down sufficiently on that website to be able to get your arms around it!

Where did those charts come from! Did you make them yourself out of data on every single day's minimum/maximum temperatures!

David, there are now tomato varieties that can handle extremely high salinity levels in soil and irrigation. At some point, we will reach some sort of ceiling but there seems to be a BIG scramble now to develop crops that can grow in incredibly inhospitable environments. I don't know whether to be encouraged or otherwise . . .

digitally challenged

Digit,

Yes, I downloaded the daily temps for my local weather station, put them in an Excel spreadsheet, wrote some complicated formulas to search each season for the lowest temperature and then for the highest temp. Then I graphed it in Excel. It was something like 22,000 rows of data. Not hard to do, now that I know how to do it. But it took a few hours (goofing off time at work!).

I also looked at whether the date of the min or max temperature had been changing, but it doesn't seem to be following any pattern.

I want to look at snow depth and precipitation, too, but I haven't explored yet to see how complete those data sets are.

Anyway, the data is useful if you want to just look at one weather station and how things have changed in that area. I suppose I could download a bunch of stations' data and average it together, but that's probably a bigger project than I want to do!

I can get the same data for the Colo. St. U. ag station at Yellow Jacket, which is 30 miles from here. I think your temp data is most important because you take from 1990 - up, when things have really begun to change.

Linked is the executive summary on earlier and earlier snow melt. Again, I'd love to see the data for different dates forward, for example 1990 - present.

Here is a link that might be useful: Water flow.

I would ask if the weather station is in the exact location that the historical data for your location was taken. The weather records for us have been taken at four different locations since the 1930s. Hardly representative of much in our case. Denver's records are also from different locations in and around the city over time. Something to take into consideration before drawing any conclusions from the data.

Hmm, my boyfriend, and his family members who are still in Ontario, CA, say that the temperatures have been rising drastically and the snow fall and winter has been lessening and shortening. Last year, we had more, earlier snow fall and a longer season of snow than they did. At a time when it would normally be too cold and freezing, they had not received any snow fall. Last winter, they did not get any snow until January.
Here, I have no idea. Last year was my first winter in Colorado not as a visitor and it was pretty heavy! Everyone said, "If you didn't mind the winter last year, you'll like it enough to stay." I loved it!
So, they can't really talk away global warming, can they?
I saw a frightening and interesting program on TV while visiting my family last year. It was one of those environmental shows talking about global warming and what not. The scary part was that the studies show (whatever that means) that the pollutants that float about in the sky are part of what is holding back global warming! Can you believe it? According the the show, the pollutants that probably helped cause the warming trend are now acting as a barrier to the harmful rays (or something like that) that are getting past the atmosphere as a result of the damage done to the ozone etc.
Oi vey!
anyway, I'm just wanting to put my two cents in.

Wait a minute, David! It's my neck of the woods that has peak flows arriving ". . . a week to almost 3 weeks earlier now than they did in the middle of the 20th century. The largest changes have been identified in the Pacific Northwest. . ."

They show that your neck of the woods has the same or LATER peak flows?!? Okay, so what you are saying is that maybe Geological Survey needs to actually get some of their data from the 21st century.

And speaking of woods, I've thought that these earlier snow run-offs up here were caused by all the heavy logging done in the late twentieth century. Without tree cover, the snow melts more quickly. And, that webpage doesn't mention the words "forest" or "tree" once!

We are now learning that forest clear-cutting is a major cause of global warming. Why the heck wouldn't the Geological Survey comment on the forest??

digitS'

Jali has a point that there could be something unexpected in the readings from one weather station, because perhaps it could have moved over time. I have heard some critics of temperature data say that many weather stations used to be out in rural areas and are now in cities, surrounded by asphalt and other heat-holding or -radiating structures.

I did do this same analysis on the weather station in Alpine, which is another small town close to me, and got similar results, but that data was only from 1974 forward. But this data from the Pleasant Grove station mirrors my recollection of lows at my house in recent years and noteworthy lows from 20 years ago when I lived in Provo as a college student. I think it's probably accurate, but I haven't checked on the weather station's location and how things may have changed over time.

Just to add some more data to this discussion, how about a few of you tell me what weather station is closest to your home from the interactive map on that link I provided above? I'll download the data from that station, and I think I can quickly pop it into my template and show you the results. We'll see if they also show a remarkable change after 1990 like mine did.

So, David and Digit/Steve -- what town or weather station should I be looking at if I use you as examples?

Regarding the EPA, their work has been filtered by the current (Bush) administration.

Here in Idaho, the snowpack is smaller and the snowmelt is sooner. Our irrigation season is effected by this.

The forests have been getting decimated by the bark beetle. It turns out that the lengthened warm season is allowing 2 and 3 generations of bark beetle to grow in the forest before the cold stops their activity. The forest biology people say that it used to be just one generation of bark beetle. Also, with the shortened snowpack, the trees are drying out sooner, leading to stress. This makes them vulnerable to the bark beetle. Needless to say, this extra population of beetles is pretty hard on the trees. This is leading to lots of dead and dying trees that provide fuel for wildfires.

Also, with the shortened snowpack, the trees dry out sooner, furthering the problem of wildfires. Somehow, the pro-logging people are saying that the environmentalists are to blame for not allowing the loggers to 'thin the forest' to rid it of dead trees. They're all dead.

Obviously, the pro-logging bunch are also opposed to Al Gore and his concern about global warming. They just refuse responsibility for the environment.

The ski areas are opening later than they used to.

The extent of the bark beetle infestation all over North America is staggering, extending from Alaska to Mexico, British Columbia alone is losing tracts (plural) of forest larger than the state of Colorado. The four corners region had its share of beetle killed dead trees in the 2002 - 2003 drought, the 'pinion juniper' forest is now the juniper forest. A different species is now working the Ponderosa pine at higher elevations around here, but nothing on the scale of what happened to the pinion. I've posted earlier about the beetle attacks on my own Scots pine trees - these are healthy, well watered young trees and I have to spray them with a pretty serious systemic, or they're all gone. I've had to cut down another three this winter.

As for logging, no one wants the vast majority of these trees for much of anything, because they're either too small, useless for anything except firewood and fence posts, or on something too steep and remote to log.

There are all kinds of factors with the diminishing snow pack, One can now google up real-time data from SNOTEL sites, we do this for SC skiing around here. There are three things happening - not as much overall winter moisture falls (general drought conditions), not as much falls as snow (eg rain in December), and then what does fall as snow doesn't necessarily melt but sublimates away in warmer, high winds. Another factor is dust, darkening the snow.

And a quick word about averages and 'data massage' - the old adage about lies, d*mn lies, and statistics. Comparing mean temperatures from the mid-1800's up to now may have its uses, but it can mask the far more rapid increase in temps during the past 30-40 years. Some of that was apparent in my previous link on peak stream flows, that chart with the big dots is so generalized that it almost means nothing. 90% certainty of >20 days earlier. That doesn't really help the water district plan the irrigation season. As far as political manipulation of the EPA and their reports, this may not be the best forum to discuss this, but there are plenty of internet links that have a wealth of info on the subject.

Stevation, I've linked below to a CSU site that has historical temp data for all kinds of sites in Colorado. I generally use 90, Yellow Jacket, for my personal comparisons, because I'm higher and have more trees than the airport in Cortez, which gets its weather influenced by wind from the desert and cold air coming off of Sleeping Ute and Mesa Verde. The actual, day to day data is available on the left.

Like Stevation, I have found that the raw data is available from university sites, not the NOAA.

Recognizing that this is a very explosive topic, and not wanting to start any political or 'green' arguments, I do want to remind people here that 10 years of weather history does not make a squat bit of difference in the grand scheme of things when considering temperatures over 1,000 years, 10,000 years, or 5 million years.

A good explanation of this is when looking at the Maunder Minimum, a period between 1645 and 1715, that coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. (The Maunder Minimum, like other 'minimums' was due to the lack of sunspots rather than any kind of smoke or volcanic fallout.) This is only one example of temperature swings that have happened throughout recorded history. In the US, there was one year that was called something like "The Summer Without A Summer" and settlers almost starved to death due to crop failures due to abnormally cold weather on the east coast. In Europe, a LOT of people died from starvation due to crop failures of cereals and potatoes.

As I have said in other forums, do your own research, and don't rely upon only a single source. When evaluating those sources, also look at the validity of the source.

--->Rob

Certainly, in the overall scheme of the history of life on earth, 10, or 30, or 50 years makes no difference, and life comes and goes, some times with rather sudden, catastrophic changes, as witnessed by the fossil record.

I think its conceivable that the presence of 6.6 billion people, who weren't here until the very recent past, who are living in or rapidly moving into an industrial age which is fueled by burning truly gargantuan amounts of coal and oil and using the sky as a garbage dump, may effect the global environment with an effect that is likely seen in decades, not millennia.

There was a stunning shrinkage of the northern polar ice cap this past summer, which dramatically changed the forecast for when it will melt off entirely in the summer, from about 40-50 years out to within a decade. I don't think the fact that the ice cap melted to an extent never seen before is open to question. When, and if, that melts off completely in the summer, then no more walrus, no more polar bears, and no need to worry about the slaughter of baby seals, there won't be any left.

In practical terms, for the Rocky Mountain West, farmers, gardeners, water districts, and everyone else is adapting to the new climate here. There are going to continue to be huge, uncontrollable fires. Try buying house insurance for a mountain cabin these days. Water districts are trying to get the laws changed on irrigation seasons, and there, hopefully, is a new deal on the Colorado River Pact because there is less water and way more people than before.

Personally, what kind of got my attention was the 'exceptional' drought of 2001-2002. They made up the word for the occasion, a level worse than 'extreme'. That was the year of the Missionary ridge fire, which caused its own tornadoes, and what was left of Mesa Verde that hadn't burned in the previous 5 years went up in smoke. The drought killed scrub oak, pinion, sagebrush, and other adapted plants all over the place. It killed horses.

We are a very successful species . . . so far. Let's behave like it!

We can make decisions which limit waste. How possibly can anyone not see pollution as a waste of resources? Further, we are making decisions with regards to resources which other human societies control - the political ramifications of that are enormous and can be tragic!

Steve, my nearest weather station will have to be Spokane International Airport. The city of Spokane data collection ended in 1983 and Coeur d'Alene's ended in 1896.

1896! Look, with over 100 years data collection we can certainly recognize some trends reaching thru our lifetimes, probably our children's and our grandchildren's lifetimes.

digitS'

Pollution as a waste of resources....Not too long ago, they were using the exhaust heat and some of the CO2 from natural gas power plants to grow tomatoes, until they got wiped out by viruses. There is actually a shortage of CO2, used for enhancing oil recovery in older wells, and they drill for it here in SW Colo, and pipe it down to Texas. The big kahuna may be raising algae, using the heat and all the rest of the pollutants from burning coal and turning it into another fuel, or an organic fertilizer, or perhaps something else. A lot of fascinating possibilities.

Yikes!! I thought I had posted the link to the data sites, but seem not to have. Digit-Steve, as well as anyone else, this link goes to Colorado, and in the top left hand corner, you have "western map", and from there you should be able to find the data for some place near you.

Stevation, the best place for me would be #90, Yellowjacket.

Here is a link that might be useful: climate data for western US

I am, decidedly, not banging on all cylinders today - I was doing the Daughter Home from College, Durango Airport- Dolores Midnight Deer Dodge (proposed new Winter Olympic sport) with a finish time of 12:12 am, and up this morning at 5:30. So apologies for wandering around a bit.

A year ago, I was able to download, off a similar site, an Excel spreadsheet of all the Yellow Jacket weather data, and had assumed that what I'd linked was similar. I'll look further. Is there a better way to take the raw data off of a webpage like that and get it into another program thats more useful?

Well, I'm not sure WHAT we are all up to in our efforts but my highly sophisticatedly data-mining from the site David linked to has turned up some information:

By clicking #69 (Denver) on the map and scrolling down on the left side to Monthly Temperature Listings - Average, it is quickly possible to count that over the last 20 years, the good people of Denver have seen 14 years with ABOVE average annual temperatures (the farthest right column).

If we look at the 20 years prior to that, 16 of those years were BELOW average annual temperatures.

All of that recent heat had to come from somewhere. And, if we look at the month of July - 5 of the hottest months of July recorded occurred during the last 7 years.

If you are curious about Denver's average temperature in July, 2007 - - it was 76.3°F. So that's 6 of the hottest months of July during the last 8 years. NO RELIEF FOR DENVER.

digitalSteve

In 16 out of 20 years, Boise's average annual temperatures have been above normal.

On Boise's chart, 3 of the last 5 months of July were the hottest months of July on record.

Curious how things were in July 2007? Boise's data reads like a Poster Child for Global Warming: the hottest month on record! The July average temperature was 83.1°F!!

Can we understand where Idaho_gardener is coming from?

NO RELIEF FOR BOISE.

In 15 out of the last 20 years, Missoula's average annual temperatures have been above normal.

Curious how things were in July 2007? Missoula's July average temperature was 78.1°F. A new record average for the month!

Curious how that might compare to 50 years ago? In 1957 the average July temperature in Missoula was 67.3°F a little more than 1 degree above the THEN normal July of 66.1°F.

no relief for missoula . . .

tired digitS'

Hmmmm! Is the sky falling now...............

...............or did it already fall...........

..........in the 30's?

1930's Dust Bowl

1934 US Temperature Extreme Rankings by State

Palmer Drought Index Map for the 1930's Dust Bowl in the US

MinnesotaÂs Number 1 Weather Event of the 20th Century

Great Falls, MT Precipitation Comparisons

And then thereÂs the Ice Age (this is a pdf)

IÂm not saying that the climate isnÂt changing-----and IÂm not even saying that human beings arenÂt affecting it-----just not convinced yet on the extent to which we're affecting it. And before you pounce, yes, I truly do believe that, regardless of how much we are or are not causing the problems, we should all be kinder and gentler to Mother Earth.

Man vs. Nature -- Challenging Conventional Views About Global Warming -- John Stossel. He says it better than I can.

Skybird

I'll look at some more of that data when it's not so late and I'm not so tired. I also want to look at the numbers on snowfall, snow depth, and rainfall.

But I would also add that I'm not talking about ten years of above-average temps in my post above -- I'm talking about 16 years straight of extremely different low temps than the 40+ years before them. I think 16 years in a row is something people better pay attention to!

I think a few years ago we could waffle on this and not be sure whom to believe. But the facts are piling up, and I don't think it's deniable anymore that our winters are significantly warming and there will be some serious consequences, some of which are predictable but some will be surprises.

The changes in the Arctic are startling! Also, the Great Lakes' water levels are falling, and some think it's because there is less ice cover in winter and the lakes are experiencing winter evaporation, which they didn't have before with the ice cover they used to have. There are strange things happening all over the world and lately it seems the news keeps getting worse, with surprising rapidity.

We don't know if droughts are going to be more frequent in the Rockies yet, but it's something to keep an eye on. Utah has typically had some kind of drought about once every 10 years, but we're in our second one now in the past 10 years.

And you know what? I'm not even some liberal, corporation-hating granola eater who places animal and plant life above humans! :-) I'm a conservative, suburbanite fisherman and gardener whose wife drives an SUV around town, and I've worked my whole career for business-supported public policy groups. For a while, I was willing to believe that maybe this climate change stuff was some liberal cabal cooked up to enact more anti-business, anti-growth regulations and laws. But I don't believe that anymore. And I think the numbers of people who do still believe that are dwindling as fast as the polar ice caps.

What I found that truly surprised me was in a Popular Mechanics magazine from the 1950's they were already talking about global warming. I do remember that in the 50's, tire chains were commonplace in New York City. There were times when you simply couldn't get anywhere without them.

The snow came early and stayed all winter long. NYC no longer gets that kind of snow.

If I didn't have irrigation rights, I don't think I would be able to keep my garden. We still have enough water, but lately the reservoir doesn't always fill up.

My local ski area, Bogus Basin, is opening tomorrow. It used to open by Thanksgiving.

The dust bowl of the 30's was one of the most devastating weather / climatic events in American history. Perhaps arguing if, or not, that one of those summers in the US was an average degree Fº hotter than the average temperatures registered in the US in 2005 misses the point, which would be that these higher temperatures brought on disastrous wind storms that kicked up the dust. In 2005, the wind and drought caused huge fires, hundreds of thousands of acres in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. I think it was 90º in January 2006 in Oklahoma.

We may have learned something about not plowing up marginal farm land for planting crops. I mean nobody these days would do that for corn-ethanol, right???

Here is a link that might be useful: 2005 fires

In talking about the Dust Bowl years as an analogy for extreme weather deviation, I think it's important to remember that the severe consequences that followed the weather patterns were greatly influenced by man. Plowing up the native prairie plants left the topsoil badly exposed and set the scene for disaster.

http://snr.unl.edu/metr351-03/jnothwehr/causes.html

So I think the idea that what man is doing today may, in combination with current weather patterns, have some pretty serious consequences in the short term (our lifetimes) is reasonable.

A couple of interesting books on the subject of the Dust Bowl and the settling of unsuitable farm lands:

"The Worst Hard Time", by Timothy Egan

"Badland", by Jonathan Raban

I was thinking about this climate stuff last night and a thought hit me. I really do feel strongly that the warming can't be denied and it's been remarkably sudden. But I can't say that I know enough to say that I believe it's mostly CO2 or other man-made causes. It very well might be those causes, but I'm struck by how it seems like a switch was flipped around 1991 or 92 and we've had remarkably more mild winters for 16 years since then.

It's possible the greenhouse gases were slowly building up until we hit some kind of tipping point that triggered a lot of climate change. But perhaps it's more possible that some external event changed. I hear some scientists are looking at changes in solar radiation and supernovas and their impacts on earth's climate.

Is it also possible that a volcanic eruption changed our climate in a big way? I know I've heard that when Krakatoa erupted way back that it cooled the earth for quite some years because of the gases expelled up into the stratosphere. But could Pinatubo in 1991 have done something different that actually warmed the climate? OK, I'm not a scientist, and I'm just thinking out loud. But I wonder if some major event caused the changes we're seeing now in our winter lows. If that's the case, the trend might start reversing and getting colder again as the effects of that event wear off.

The next ten years will be very interesting to watch!

OH, IT'S ALL SO CONVOLUTED!

Will someone explain that 1934 US Temperature Extreme Rankings by State map? I even looked forward and backward on that website without relief.

How can the 50 states be ranked 1 to 112 in temperature - and yet there's no 1 to 20 on the map? How is it most of OUR area "rates" 112? Showing an entire year's temperature using numbers from 21 to 112 - what the heck? Went to the gov'ment's website to look at the same data - significantly unhelpful.

Are we supposed to interpret that data presentation as suggesting we are returning to Dust Bowl conditions (hey, good news!), or not? Or, just that we've been thru crap like this before and can come out smelling the roses in Pasadena?

My Dad's family was driven out of Oklahoma by the Dust Bowl and Depression to take up residence in New Mexico. Dad's still very sensitive to that fact.

It's all so convoluted. I understand that birdwatchers in the NE are being treated to seeing birds which should be staying in Canada but have come south this year. Warming trend - shouldn't they be moving the other direction? Maybe that 1934 map indicates why, but the story I read was that there wasn't sufficient food for some of the species further north.

As Rob suggests, if we slice this data too thinly - that's where we tend to go astray. NOAA will give you the opportunity to look at a national map for every single month from 1900 to the present & give us a day-by-day for probably 1,000's of locations for 120 years (even in degrees fahrenheit) but we just have to step back so we can see the forest for the trees.

And yes, Skybird, I wasn't a youth in 1980 so there's no excuse there. I just couldn't believe that I would be so unfortunate as to be right in the path of a disaster of millennial proportions. And, I stood outside and watched the sky seem to literally fall. Only that time, it was volcanic ash.

Even if it's only the low-lying coastal areas which suffer from catastrophic storms, even if the Northeast escapes from the effects of a near-national Dust Bowl, even if some families can escape to NM or Pasadena, even if there was nothing we could do about a volcano .. . . We shouldn't have to wait until a mountain falls on us to clean up our act.

As we move forward and we will move forward, there are a few things we should be able to agree on which would be broadly beneficial.

digitS'

I was really just trying to make the point that the earthÂs climate has been changing for millions of years. Nobody knows for sure why itÂs changed historically, and nobody, including Al Gore, really knows for sure why itÂs changing today. Just stating my own (current) personal beliefsÂand interested in where others are at this point.

climate change - some possible causes

EarthÂs climatic history

And since major, and earth-changing climate changes have been happening since the dawn of time, IÂm just inclined to believe that, while man could definitely be affecting the climate in some ways, in the bigger scheme of things, I suspect the change has a lot more to do with a natural cycle than it has to do with man.
And, since we know that the earthÂs magnetic field reverses from time to time, and varies widely over timeÂand since weÂre apparently way past due for another reversal, that, too, could have an effect on the climate and the change weÂre seeing.

Nova

And then thereÂs things like the Yellowstone Super Volcano. When that blowsÂand itÂs supposedly past due tooÂitÂll do more damage in minutes than man could do in a millennia. Hope it holds off a few more years till IÂm outa here and working on my next reincarnationÂsomewhere besides the western US! ;-) Then again, when that happens, it won't make much difference where you are on the earth---it's going to change the climate everywhere.

When IÂm working I look out the window whenever I canÂI love to look at the geology and see how the land is continually evolvingÂand every time IÂm able to look IÂm struck with how very insignificant man appears to be on the face of the earth, with little clusters of human beings here and thereÂand vast expanses of land and ocean in between. ThatÂs not to say we arenÂt capable of doing some damageÂone little virus can do a LOT of damageÂbut it seems more likely to me that, for the most part, any climate change weÂre seeing now is part of a bigger, natural change.

And do I believe man can destroy the earth? No, I donÂt! I definitely think we could destroy ourselves, but I believe the Earth will keep spinning right alongÂwith or without us. After all, climate changeÂor somethingÂkilled off the dinosaurs and the mastodons, but the earth kept spinning on its axis. Climate change and other factors have been changing the existing species on earth, also, since the dawn of time, and IÂve never figured out how man has suddenly decided that the plants and animals that happen to be here right at this very small moment in time are the ones that are supposed to be here into perpetuity. Whatever happened to survival of the fittest!

Oh! And IÂve also seen in my lifetime that intervention by man can do far more damage than good. Going back to the late 40's and Smokey the BearÂOnly YOU can prevent forest firesÂand pretty much until the early 70's, the Park policy was to try to put out any and...

Hello Stevation & all

My personal opinion is that the heat-island effect has done more to raise the minimum temps here in Utah Valley than any other factor. Even David Franko recorded a major difference between his experimental garden and his rural home property. The population has probably tripled here since the seventies, with more homes, blacktop etc. holding daytime heat. I'm not in the least discounting the effects of global warming but for a ten degree change in minimums I think there has to be other factors involved.

Best, Alan

For all intents and purposes, this discussion is somewhat similar to GM foods - that horse left the barn when it comes to consuming fossil fuels for energy. The United States Government, China, and India (as well as other countries, to be sure) made the decision to subsidize the coal, oil, and gas, industries, and I dunno off hand what the world wide increase has been, in consumption, over the past 10 years, but its pretty amazing, like 20% more fossil fuels, world wide, being burned. Safely say here that Koyoto hasn't been all that effective.

Also similar to GM foods, while you may garden organically with heirloom varieties, pollen does move around, as does air pollution - twice now I've seen the sky tan colored, with dust from China, and I've commented before on the 'yellow haze horizon' from the two huge power plants south of me.

So it boils down to, I guess, if climate change is going to be a gentle sway into a bit warmer temps, with shorter ski seasons, we change irrigation practices and do a lot more xeroscaping, and we move peanut production up to North Dakota, or there are going to be catastrophic events, exceptional drought far more often, big forest fires, tornadoes, deadly heat waves and so on.

It looks like we'll find out, the next 20 years should be interesting. In any event, energy prices are going to continue to skyrocket, even coal-fired electricity. Here, our rates are going up about 10% a year. Price of coal is way up as well.

Here is a link that might be useful: price of coal

Skybird, I agree with you on the fact that man is not going to destroy the earth. Whatever we do, global warming, nuclear holocaust, deforestation, the earth will eventually recover. The question is whether or not we'll survive! Which is probably a much longer term question than our lifetimes. Now, like you said, if mother nature decides to take a mighty wack at us through a super volcano, or antibiotic resistant bug the herd might be considerably thinned sooner than we'd like.

A long standing argument I've had with my father is around the benefits of the space program. He believes it's all wasted money. I can rattle off lists of technological advances brought about by it (cordless drills for one). But when I was younger I used to fervently believe we needed to explore space so that we could find a home for ourselves when we outgrew or destroyed this planet. Now I'm not so sure we deserve that. If we outgrow - fine. But if we can't be good shepherds of this planet, should we really have the right to destroy another?

Skybird, love how you put humans and virus in the same paragraph!!! So true. We will destroy ourselves, but probably not the Earth. I do what I can recycling, car pool, etc, but it really does not seem to be enough. The U of A did a study quite a few years ago now in which they took apart the Tucson landfill and discovered that the vast majority of the material in the landfill was the most recycleable material on the planet, Cardboard!! We really are trashing out planet, but the climate changes I am not convinced are because of pollution. I heard it on one of the shows 60 MInutes or something along those lines that the low temperatures of Phoenix Az are not going below 90deg in the summer due to all the concrete and steel. They also reported that at the current growth rate, inside of ten years, Phoenix would not drop below 100!!
The climate changes probably have a lot to do with humans, but I think Gore and his possie are pointing at the wrong causes.
Not all of the changes are "normal" and caused by mother nature. But do you really think we as a being have affected the Earth so much as to change the climate? Or did we accelerate things?

Billie

Ps. Did anyone watch Boston Legal this week? They were actually talking about this very subject!!

I've been pondering the idea that mankind can/can't change the world's entire climate. I worked for 2 years in the Niger River Delta, where the Nigerian oil production takes place, and they flare off the gas from the wells. That is considered the single, worst source of greenhouse gasses in the world. Google up Nigerian gas flares to get an idea. This is a huge area, something like the size of Virginia - and the sky, at night, was orange from the flares, and they are easily seen from space.

Aside from what gets flared off, current world consumption of natural gas is 2.822 Trillion Cubic Meters a year. Thats a lot. We, speaking world-wise here, are buring up 80 million barrels of petroleum a day, 29 billion a year, and I've linked to a site that gives recent world coal consumption by country, for a total of 4.5 trillion tons a year - China is way ahead of everyone else, and adding a new coal fired power plant every week.

That is, by any reckoning, an awful lot of fossil fuel being burned by the worlds population. Leaving aside the other air pollutants / contaminants being tossed into the atmosphere, (which is a whole other, very important subject) this consumption has doubled the carbon dioxide concentration of the atmosphere, which is going up, exponentially, by 2% a year. Logic would indicate that its this burning of fossil fuel thats causing it. Certainly, volcanoes, massive forest fires, cows belching methane, and other natural causes are involved. And I'll happily consider other sources and explanations, but I haven't heard any yet that stand up.

Not to mention all this coal, particularly, releases mercury, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds, the volume of which is staggering. The effects of this stuff are both world wide and local, they cause acid rain, ground level ozone, and some are also potent green house gasses in their own right. Our water reservoirs here in SW Colorado all are on fish mercury level warnings now, and in this very sparsely populated part of the country, our ozone levels are the same as any big city.

So, as much as I don't like it, I can follow the logic here that mankind is responsible for the consumption of massive amounts of fossil fuels, which in turn generate greenhouse gases, which, in turn, may well be changing the worlds climate. There are a very, very few atmospheric scientists who question this, and their criticism, alternative view, and input is part of the process on increasing the overall knowledge of the very complex issue.

I hope that as a world we can look at "the big picture", and not fall into the trap about how 'them tree huggers just want us to live in a cave', and 'I don't want to give up my SUV'. I don't want to give mine up either, and I like it that when I hit the switch, the lights go on.

I particularly disagree with the argument that changing and diversifying energy sources is going to be too expensive. So is fossil fuel. I don't buy...

When I was a kid, a windmill lifted water for the cows.

Those numbers on burning fuels - - yes, staggering.

digitSteve

Yes! Water for the cows--and other things, and, before that, windmills to grind grain and more. Maybe it's time to go back to the future!

With the price of oil getting as high as it is, maybe we'll finally see some serious development of wind and sun and other alternative energies. I don't remember the specifics, but has anybody else seen the story about possibly collecting solar energy out in space?

Skybird

I've held off posting because I know to keep my mouth shut when I don't know what I'm talking about, usually :-) but as above I want to contribute, even if it's just half a cent.

I definitely agree that we will destroy ourselves long before we destroy the earth. A lot of the data we are looking at is only from the last 100 years or so, but everything goes in cycles. Who is to say that this hasn't happened before, when there were significantly fewer people and no written language? We do have the geologic record to show previous ice ages and tree rings and other environmental indicators of extreme weather changes from earlier time, but tracking trends in weather patterns is a much more recent thing when you look at the big picture. What we are seeing now is the effect from changes we have been making since the industrial age, and the question becomes whether we can reverse the damage far enough fast enough to lessen the total impact.

BTW I loved that episode of Boston Legal, especially since the point out both sides of the environmental argument, and I agree that more people making small changes has much more of an impact than a few people making drastic changes. For example the amount of cardboard in our landfills. If everyone makes it a point to recycle even one thing (cardboard, cans, plastic or newspaper) that will have an impact.

There was a really good documentary on the Sundance channel a while ago called "We Feed The World", doesn't exactly relate the climate change situation, more on how in the food industry the pursuit of profit effects our lives and our sustainable resources. One I specifically remember is the genetic modification of seeds. The farmers had a larger yield, the crops were disease resistant, and they received a subsidy to purchase the seed (enough to make it worth their while to switch), but the seeds were sterile and the farmers were left high and dry the following year.

Here's hope that the next year will be better than the one's before.

Dafy

Here is a link that might be useful: We Feed The World

I liked what David in Colorado said; to concentrate on doing the things that I can do to lessen the impact. I haven't tried to sum up the carbon debits and credits, but I do think I have reduced my impact a lot. And there is more that I can be doing, so I'll be working on getting that done. (More new windows and doors, biking to work, etc.)

Getting involved in the discussion is very important. Thanks to the doubters and skeptics for questioning the data. And thanks to everyone who is recycling and composting.

Happy Holidays to all.

Men come to their meridian at various periods of their lives. ~ John Henry Newman

Hahaha!

Denver Breaks Record For Snowfall On Christmas Day
Previous Record Dates Back To 1894

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14922538/detail.html

Ok, without throwing more fuel on the fire (well, actually, I *am* trying to dump common sense on the global warming fire but...) this is an example of how people can use 10 year stats in their favor but deny 100 or 1000 year stats because those stats don't look favorable to their point of view. Here are some quotes from the link posted above:

"The storm dropped the most snowfall in Denver on Christmas Day in more than 100 years. The previous all-time record for snowfall on Dec. 25 in Denver was 6.2 inches, recorded in handwritten records in 1894."

"Meteorologists say the latest storm boosted Denver's December snow total above 15 inches -- about 7 inches above average for the month."

"The snowfall follows last year's 0.2 inches that fell in Denver on top of 15 inches left over from a blizzard that started Dec. 20 that paralyzed the city and closed Denver's airport for 45 hours." - This is the airport that was designed to never close due to bad weather, and the taxpayers got raped for $8B-$10B.

"Before last year, the last time snow fell on Christmas in the Mile High City was in 2000, when the official reading at the old Stapleton Airport was 0.9 inches."

"Snow is expected to keep piling up in the metro area as another winter storm moves into Colorado. Denver is under a winter storm watch for Thursday with the weather service predicting additional snowfall of 4 to 8 inches by Thursday evening."

Tweak everything the way you want, the FEET of snow that was here today and not here last year, does not bode well for the global warming.

Actually, in all fairness, Denver doesn't have a White Christmas as much as people would like to believe. Maybe that makes this storm even more rare :)

Merry Christmas all!

--->Rob

Let me see if I can understand this, PyroRob.

You are criticizing people for not considering "100 or 1000 year stats" while you are looking at the weather for one day - December 25, 2007??

Ah, well . . .

digit, THAT was my point. One DAY, out of 100+ years. More meaningful than 1 measurement over a month, for 10 years.

The point being that one day, one month, or one year doesn't mean squat - EXCEPT to someone who has something to gain from the panic.

And Al Gore doesn't have anything to gain by creating a global panic, and neither does the company that is linked to from his web site so you can buy wind energy and cow *ahem* 'gas', all to make yourself feel better...

--->Rob

It seems to me that you would like to have it both ways, PyroRob. Quite bold.

Boldness is sometimes interesting to see but often little more than that. Especially when it is a boldness that freezes one to inaction - right down into a squat.

I don't see you addressing the purported lack of information. Cynicism will not do.

Fascinating I suppose but it shouldn't interfere with anyone's own exploration of the issues and the stats.

S'

OK, I guess I need to explain this a bit better.

My point of the record snowfall on Christmas Day was that there was one day out of 100 years that the media, and other humans, seemed to think was important. You are correct, there is nothing really important about it. I think that all would agree that in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't mean anything.

Likewise, the climate change / global warming people are trying to do the exact same thing on a larger scale. Rather than pointing at one day in a 100 years, they are looking at one decade in 100 years.

Don't you think, in the grand scheme of things, it would be much more scientific and honest to look at something on a similar scale? 1 day in 36,500 days or 10 years in 36,500 years?

As far as the quotes, again, I was trying to demonstrate that the media is making a big deal of a one day event. This are all quotes from Denver's Channel 7 web site, www.thedenverchannel.com They are not anything I made up. Again, another example of sensationalism.

As far as being bold, I'm not sure where that came from. I'm not trying to be bold, I'm trying to make people think for themselves. Things rarely happen in this country (this world) unless someone is out to make a buck. When recycling was all the rage, there were a lot of people out there willing to pay extra to 'save the planet'. Pay extra for what?

Let's look at an example of this. You pay someone to recycle your newspaper. The trash company sells / pays some recycler to take it away. You buy products made from recycled paper, and if it is labeled as 'green', you can bet you will pay more for it, even though it cost less (in processing and environmentally) to produce than paper goods made from virgin paper or wood pulp. (Compare prices between paper towels at the grocery store.)

As far as who is making money on the global warming / CO2 credit / CO2 exchange hype, take a look at Al Gore's site: http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/
Calculate your carbon footprint, and then go offset it by clicking on the text "OFFSET AN AVERAGE HOME or CAR NOW". It takes you to http://nativeenergy.com/pages/an_inconvenient_truth/29.php?afc=climatecrisis
where YOU can PAY THEM $28 / month for THEM to use methane from a cow manure digester at THEIR dairy to heat and electrify THEIR farm.

If you believe so strongly in this, how about paying me to grow some trees that I can donate to my town? It covers your carbon footprint, helps out the earth, makes me look good in the eyes of my community, and I can take the donation off on my taxes as a charitable contribution.

Honestly, it's more effective than some of the other schemes out there that are being run by parent companies of logging companies who are convincing people to buy carbon credits, and then the companies replant clear cut areas in the Pacific North West. Another way of looking at this is to make people feel guilty about some problem (imagined...

Everyone, I believe, who has a rudimentary interest in geology and history agrees that climate changes over time, often catastrophically, like when a meteor hits, but more often gradually, with ice ages coming and going over periods of thousands of years. The issue here is, I believe, if mankind is now causing a very rapid, and potentially catastrophic climatic change.

I'm curious, Rob, if you think that its the human consumption of fossil fuels that results in the daily addition of 70 million tons of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and if you think this is the cause of doubling the concentration of that compound in Earth's atmosphere over the few decades, growing now at 2% a year.
I'm using CO2 as an example of a greenhouse gas, there are plenty of other ones out there, a lot of which are increasing due to human activity, but this is an indicator.

Secondly, I'd like to know if you think the climate is now rapidly changing.

Which leads to the third question, is it the carbon dioxide (as well as the other stuff that comes from human activities) the cause?

At this point, carbon taxes, carbon credits, and what ever Al Gore choses to do with his web site or what he does with his Nobel Prize aren't the question.

Linked is a site with some graphs on temperatures specifically related to the Upper Colorado River basin, which is more appropriate to what's happening locally.

Clicking around will get snow pack data and so on.

Here is a link that might be useful: Colorado River Drainage temps

Most people function almost like coziness along with extravagance had been the main necessities associated with everyday life, while all that we all need to make us satisfied is undoubtedly one thing to get fascinated with

- Joy and happiness doesn't come from engaging in simple work but out of the spark of total satisfaction which comes right after your victory of your tricky task which required our own very best efforts

Here is a link that might be useful: Change Quotes