Global Warming is Obviously Real...

[Aubs]

I'll let you guys provide the commentary.

http://www.summitdaily.com/article/20060818/NEWS/108180051

Six years ago, climate scientist Anthony Westerling began obsessively poring over the meticulously detailed invoices that U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service land managers use to itemize firefighting expenses.

"These things will have 170-plus fields," says Westerling - including information on when a fire was first reported, when firefighters finally controlled it, and how many acres were burned. Westerling, who works at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (which also studies climate and earth sciences) in La Jolla, Calif., didn't aspire to be an accountant, nor was he searching for fraud in government spending. He was hoping to answer a question that had not been seriously asked before: How do rising global temperatures affect wildfire behavior?

Along with fellow researchers in La Jolla and at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Westerling wove the information in the invoices together with data from streamflow gauges, soil moisture measures, and temperature and precipitation records to form a comprehensive picture of the driving forces behind the West's fires.

The group will present its findings in the journal Science next month; a preliminary article appeared in the July 6 issue of Science Express. The basic conclusion may not startle: Large forest fires increased beginning in the mid-1980s - particularly in the Northern Rockies, the Sierra Nevada and the southern Cascades - and the changes closely correlated with an increase in spring and summer temperatures during the same time period.

But some of the nuances are surprising. Westerling and his colleagues found that a delicate "tipping point" exists, particularly in forests in the Northern Rockies and Northern California. When snowpack melts earlier in the spring - even just a few days sooner - the severity of the fire season intensifies greatly. "It didn't take a very big temperature increase (to) switch from very few fires to a lot of fires," says Westerling. As spring and summer temperatures gradually increased, "You were getting closer and closer to this tipping point, so that the (climate) variability from year to year just pushes you over it easily."

Westerling grew up in Los Angeles but vacationed at a family cabin on the east side of the Sierra, and later lived abroad in places like Saudi Arabia, China and Brazil.

He returned to California to get his Ph.D., and in 2000, he went to work at Scripps. That year proved to be a banner one for fire, and that's when Westerling began looking more closely at the relationship between climate and fire.

Because of the wide variability in fire regimes throughout the West - from ponderosa forests in the Southwest to chaparral in Southern California to lodgepole pine and spruce-fir forests in the Northern Rockies - long-term trends can be hard to pick out from the year-to-year "noise." That was precisely the value of Westerling's research: Zooming out to look at the entire region helped bring the phenomenon into relief.

Usually, blame for the bigger and more frequent fires of the past 20 years is ascribed to the federal government's aggressive firefighting policies, which have left a lot of dead and small-diameter trees in Western forests ready to burn. Westerling's research suggests that rising temperatures, not land-management practices, may play a greater role in driving forest fires.

But, he writes, if warming is the main driver of increased fire activity, "ecological restoration and fuels management alone will not be sufficient to reverse current wildfire trends." Scientists and planners must also plug global climate change into their equations.



BOX:

Name: Tony Westerling

Vocation: Climate scientist

Age: 41

Home Base: Merced, California

Known For: Crunching data to get a clearer picture of how temperature drives forest fires throughout the West

He Says: "I think there was a tendency to think that the overwhelming factor (driving forest fires) was short-term weather. There's this idea that drought matters, and it does. But it's taking time and a lot of research to show that climate plays a big role as well."

[deserth3]

The docs I used to work for had a medicle term that applys real well here. FOS!

Fact 1800's and earlier the earth was slowly comming out of an Ice age. In the mid 1800's an astroid or something hit Siberia. That sent us into a "mini ice age". Now these yahoo's look at numbers and say we are having global warming.
Maybe we are... Fact is they don't know how warm the earth is supposed to be.
Intensity of forest fires increases in 1980's.... Here again they don't look at the facts.
In ancient times to when the white man came the American Indian used to manage the forest by doing controled burns. (What a concept). Two of the reasons for this are; It made hunting easier, and it cleared out the underbrush which has been proven to intesify a forest fire. Whic wouuld be a bad thing if all you can do is run away from a fire. American Indians didn't get horses until the white man started showing up.

From the late 1800's to about 1946. The west is pretty much empty. Nature takes care of the forests. But after WWII the Americans prosper and spread. Some naturalists see forest fires and decide that a burning forest is not natural. So we using our supperior intelect start sending fire fighters in to stop the fires.
The undregrowth becomes thick has years to clog the forests. Things become dry. In the 1980 forest fires become worse. In the late 90's the forest service finaly figure out that the underbrush doesn't halp matters. Why? Because the forest that burned several years ago and doesn't have much underbrush doesn't burn as fierce as the forest that has more underbrush. So that's why they let Yellowstoone burn several years ago. Guess what, the forests are in better shape along with the wildlife.
It has been known for manay years that cities are warmer than the country, forest, open land with no concrete. Now it's the year 2000 and something. Americans are doing really well. Something new occurs. Urban sprawl. Tempurature goes up in these areas. Not as bad as the city but it still occurs. So some scientist says we have global warming.
Why? Because the forest fires have gotten worse. Huricanes are getting worse. Gee they didn't say much when the predictions for this year have been lowered and the early promised hurricanes didn't arrive.

I think I've ranted enough. Global warming? posibly, Probubly... Have they given any reasonable choices? I'm still waiting.

[f5fstop]

And, Europe had one of their coldest winters on record last year; now they are having one of their warmist summers.
Like one scientiest on Fox News said one day, we are headed toward another ice age, and prior to that we will have a very hot spell. (The hot spell causes heavy clouds, which in turn will turn the earth colder, so he said.) Possibly, man (and woman), will make this happen a few hundred years sooner, but it will happen anyway.

[deserth3]

f5fstop; Now that I can believe. Things change and the earth grows in cycles.

[31_bandits]

i just think its a shame that so much misinformation, probably from both sides, is spouted out here and there.

it makes it hard for a normal taxpaying chap like me to really sit down and try to assess the situation. i have no access to facts, only to extremist rantings. "we'll all be dead in 10 years". "people have no effect at all". Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, but i'll never get to know it until all comes to pass.

[Aubs]

I always find it interesting if you extrapolate from ice core data:
http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/Images/IPCCNH2.GIF
It would be a little colder than it is today. Maybe devastatingly cold, if their .5C difference makes any effect.

The scale on this chart makes things look extremely dire. But it's only 1C.

[31_bandits]

i remember in grade school, probably 20 years ago or so, i got my first panic-thing about how the world was going to end, new york and LA were going to go underwater, blah blah blah. And soon.

I went home and asked my dad about it, and he produced news clippings showing discussion of global cooling and how the world was going to end, blah blah blah.

i think the lesson he hoped to teach a young man was what the artist "Beck" once phrased as

"don't believe everything that you read or you'll get a parking violation and a stain on your sleeve"

[31_bandits]

hey aubs, where did you find that graph?

[Aubs]

It appears to be standard Ice Core Data. http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/medieval.html
It looks very similar to the graph I really wanted.

Here's another, showing 450 KYA. You can't go back too much farther than this because the continents were too far from their current positions to draw scientifically accurate conclusions.

Source: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif&imgrefurl=http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm&h=475&w=570&sz=10&hl=en&sig2=cqvIN9e9Mq4MARaNjGlQjQ&start=16&tbnid=J0eJqGyxxyIGfM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=134&ei=6m_nRLzsHsSE6AGFtfypDg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhistorical%2Bglobal%2Btemperature%26s vnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26rls%3DG GLR,GGLR:2006-18,GGLR:en
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif

[Aubs]

I have to head to the movies. I will try to find a better graph later. But anyway, I don't see how they ignore the sudden upswings in the past, and then the sudden drop on the other side of the climax... Obviously the Earth system reaches a tipping point, an event that sets in motion a downward trend in temperatures, that may take place over a person's lifetime. That is what is really scary to me. What is that event.... ? There's no answer really other than the Earth system reaches that point where something creates a cumulative effect that brings down temperatures. Like H2O increase that blocks sunlight, CO2 levels promote high levels of vegetation (increases albedo), drops ocean temps, increases snow covers, increases albedo further, sends the Earth back down to a point where the system balances out again.

[deserth3]

Here's some info I found written by early White Settlers in the US. The link is;
http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/Research/usfscoll/people/Native%20Americans/AmIndian.html

The Nature of American Forests at Contact

Early explorers commonly wrote of the large areas of open, park-like forests and grasslands both east and west of the Appalachians, and of the frequency of Native American burning.

In 1528, Alvar Nunez Cabenza de Vaca noted that in the area that is now Texas:

"The Indians of the interior...go with brands in the hand firing the plains and forests within their reach, that the mosquitos my fly away, and at the same time to drive out lizards and other things from the earth for them to eat. In this way do they appease their hunger, two ot three times in the year..."

In 1630, Francis Higginson wrote about the country around Salem, Massachussetts, that:

"there is much ground cleared by the Indians, and especially about (their agricultural fields); and I am told that about three miles from us a man may stand on a little hilly place and see thousands of acres of ground as good as need be, and not a Tree on the same."

In 1637, Thomas Morton wrote that the Indians:

"are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twize, in the year, vis: as the Spring and fall of the leafe....so that hee that will looke to find large trees and good tymber...(will not) finde them on upland ground; but must seeke for them...in the lower grounds, where the grounds are wett."

Roger Williams wrote that:

"this burning of the Wood to them they count a Benefit, both for destroying of vermin, and keeping downe the Weeds and thickets."

In surveying the boundary between the states of North Carolina and Georgia in 1811, Andrew Ellicott wrote that:

"the greatest inconvenience we experienced arose from the smoke occasioned by the annual custom of the Indians in burning the woods. Those fires scattered over a vast extent of country made a beautiful and brilliant appearance at night; particularly when ascending the sides of the mountains."

John Smith commented that in the forests around Jamestown in Virginia:

"a man may gallop a horse amongst these woods any waie, but where the creekes and Rivers shall hinder."

Andrew White, on an expedition along the Potomac in 1633, observed that the forest was:

"not choked with an undergrowth of brambles and bushes, but as if laid out in by hand in a manner so open, that you might freely drive a four horse chariot in the midst of the trees."

[f5fstop]

Here's one predicition:
As core-heat comes closer to the surface, it is accompanied by volcanism, which has increased in extent and intensity over the past 2?, million years, causing a series of iceages. About the year 2100, Earth will enter upon the final iceage and, fortunately, it will be a minor one. The gradually increasing surface heat-flux, from the core-explosion, will lessen the severity and duration of the coming cool period. The pattern of future global mean temperatures will be as follows:

Year - A.D. Global Mean Temperature - Degrees Celsius


2,000 14.5
3,000 12.0 mini-iceage begins
4,000 11.0 "
5,000 10.0 "
6,000 10.0 "
7,000 10.0 "
8,000 10.0 "
10,000 11.0 "
12,000 12.0 mini-iceage ends
14,000 14.0
16,000 16.0
18,000 18.0
20,000 21.0
30,000 28.0
40,000 35.0
50,000 41.0
60,000 47.0


The El Ni?o/La Ni?a climatic regime, due to volcanism, will result in a steady increase of land-waters and cloud-cover ... which will raise the planetary albedo and lower the global mean temperature. Also, ice-melt waters (from northern ice-sheets) will surface-flood the North Atlantic, reducing evaporation and triggering the onset of the mini-iceage.

Once the global cooling trend is under way, the build-up of land-waters and ice will bring about a reduction of ocean levels ... and, by 5,000AD, these levels will be 20 metres lower than at present. However, by 20,000AD, when the global mean temperature has risen to 21 degrees Celsius, virtually all ice will have melted and ocean-levels will be 100 metres higher than at present. Then the great evaporation starts and, by 200,000AD, all water will be gone from the surface.

I won't be around to find out if he is right....

[31_bandits]

somebody needs to sit down and collect all of the climate-future theories into one website, categorize them, and let all the world surf.

i wonder how long that would take and what some college meteorology students would charge to do it?

[Aubs]

I'll see what I can find. Fstop's post is probably inaccurate. Volcanism is decreasing as the Earth cools, which has been happening since it formed. There will be no upswing.

[DRTYFN]

Volcanism is decreasing as the Earth cools, which has been happening since it formed. There will be no upswing.

Cools??? What cools? The surface? The sub surface? The Earth's core? Upper atmosphere? And how do you know there won't be an upswing? And what time frame are you comparing your upswing to?

[f5fstop]

I'll see what I can find. Fstop's post is probably inaccurate. Volcanism is decreasing as the Earth cools, which has been happening since it formed. There will be no upswing.

Who knows, this is a prediction into the future to the year 20,000 AD. However, if you look, it coincides with what the scientist on Fox News said, "that as the temps increase, cloud cover increases, and then temps drops."

I wonder if there will be any Hummers in 20,000 AD?

[Aubs]

I was in a hurry when I posted that.

The Earth as a whole, meaning the physical planet, along with the atmosphere, has been cooling since it's formation 4.6 billion years ago. Volcanism has been decreasing. There has been residual heat escaping form the entirety of the actual planet. This has been slowed slightly by the decay of radioactive minerals which provide some heat, and slow contraction of the planet by gravity. But eventually, the Earth will be just like most of the other planets in our solar system, cold and devoid of any self-created geological activity. The Moon still has quakes, but they are from gravitational forces.

18,000 years from now is hardly a flash in the pan of the geologic time scale. I do not know of any predicted hot periods in the future, until the eventual demise of the planet when the sun ultimately burns out. That will consume all of the inner planets. Unless more heat is created by contraction, radioactive decay (which is steady), or outside forces (ie, collision), there logically can be no increase in the earth's subsurface temperatures. What the temperature is today under our feet is a result of the forces that created the planet a long time ago.

As far as "core heat" that is already reaching us. There are no "core explosions" or some such nonsense. There were flood basalts in the past which created things like the Deccan Traps in India, and the Columbia River Basalts in Washington. They were massive outpourings of basalt, and still considered by some geologists to have been the cause or contributing factors to past Mass Extinctions, since their timing coencides closely with ME events. There were also kimberlites in the past, which were explosions of subsurface materials. They are responsible for the diamond deposits in Africa and Canada, but were not ME events by any means, though would pretty effectively destroy your home town.

A massive cooling event in the future could come from a number of sources, and is probably far more likely than extreme high temperatures. I only really know geology, so my example:
A caldera eruption would decrease global temps signifcantly (think Yellowstone caldera, also Long Valley caldera in CA). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Valley_Caldera Long Valley or Yellowstone would spell the end of the US as we know it. But if you look at the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, it ejected 10 cubic KM of ash. In comparison, the last eruption at Long Valley produced 600 cubic KM of ash. So what? Mount Pinatubo lowered global temps by about 1F. So any sort of eruption on that scale would be extremely bad, and would pose a significant threat to our survival. I think an event like this is more likely that we like to believe, though we have no data on when another one might occur, if ever. But there is always activity in these calderas, upwellings, and gas being vented...

[Aubs]

In reference to the last Fstop post:

The Earth is essentially a system that will respond to certain factors. So if cloud cover increases, will temperatures drop from reflection, or will they increase due to absorbtion? I am not a climatologist, and I cannot give you the answer to that one. But as certain factors change, they force others to move along with them. So if you cool the planet, and snow fall increases in area, then albedo will increase, and the sun's energy will be more readily reflected. In the same sense, if you heat the planet, there will be less snow cover, more vegetation and more absorbtion of sun energy. As the planet continues to warm however, and certain areas perhaps dry out and lose vegetation or become desert, the albedo will increase again... It should be evident by now that climate studies are:
1. Highly hypothetical
2. Depend on innumerous factors
3. Are highly prone to long term inaccuracy due to #2.

Albedo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

I know that in the history of the planet, there were events which possibly led to the entire planet becoming a giant snowball http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_earth.
However, an event like this is considered impossible today due to the alignment of the continents relative to the equator.

[KenP]

So the ice is thinning in one area. Did the report mention how much the ice is thickening in other areas. Noooooooo...... Imagine that.:rolleyes:

[Aubs]

So the ice is thinning in one area. Did the report mention how much the ice is thickening in other areas. Noooooooo...... Imagine that.:rolleyes:

Which study are you referring to? The two previous posts concern pre-history.

[Aubs]

Here's some info I found written by early White Settlers in the US. The link is;
http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/Research/usfscoll/people/Native%20Americans/AmIndian.html

The Nature of American Forests at Contact

Early explorers commonly wrote of the large areas of open, park-like forests and grasslands both east and west of the Appalachians, and of the frequency of Native American burning.

In 1528, Alvar Nunez Cabenza de Vaca noted that in the area that is now Texas:

"The Indians of the interior...go with brands in the hand firing the plains and forests within their reach, that the mosquitos my fly away, and at the same time to drive out lizards and other things from the earth for them to eat. In this way do they appease their hunger, two ot three times in the year..."

In 1630, Francis Higginson wrote about the country around Salem, Massachussetts, that:

"there is much ground cleared by the Indians, and especially about (their agricultural fields); and I am told that about three miles from us a man may stand on a little hilly place and see thousands of acres of ground as good as need be, and not a Tree on the same."

In 1637, Thomas Morton wrote that the Indians:

"are accustomed to set fire of the Country in all places where they come, and to burne it twize, in the year, vis: as the Spring and fall of the leafe....so that hee that will looke to find large trees and good tymber...(will not) finde them on upland ground; but must seeke for them...in the lower grounds, where the grounds are wett."

Roger Williams wrote that:

"this burning of the Wood to them they count a Benefit, both for destroying of vermin, and keeping downe the Weeds and thickets."

In surveying the boundary between the states of North Carolina and Georgia in 1811, Andrew Ellicott wrote that:

"the greatest inconvenience we experienced arose from the smoke occasioned by the annual custom of the Indians in burning the woods. Those fires scattered over a vast extent of country made a beautiful and brilliant appearance at night; particularly when ascending the sides of the mountains."

John Smith commented that in the forests around Jamestown in Virginia:

"a man may gallop a horse amongst these woods any waie, but where the creekes and Rivers shall hinder."

Andrew White, on an expedition along the Potomac in 1633, observed that the forest was:

"not choked with an undergrowth of brambles and bushes, but as if laid out in by hand in a manner so open, that you might freely drive a four horse chariot in the midst of the trees."
There is much more tree cover today in New England today then there was during the late 1700's-early 1800's. Actually this helps increase temperatures... Snow sits less evenly in the winter, and albedo is not increased as much as snow falling on flat ground. I think Mass. is now 75% forested, up from something like 35% 100 years ago.

If you are insinuating that CO2 has always been released, this is true. The difference is today CO2 is released from deposits that are not naturally returned to where they were deposited 70MYA. Whereas burning vegetation, when it grows back, the CO2 is recaptured.

For the record, I am not a believer that we are to blame to the apparent rise in global temperature. We may be exacerbating things, but I doubt we're doing this all alone.