The average temperature in April 2007 was 51.7 F. This was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 47th coolest April in 113 years.
2.09 inches of precipitation fell in April. This was -0.34 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 30th driest such month on record.
Hmm....temps go up and down....models are very imperfect...for some to admit that we cannot accurately predict the future is troubling.
Oh well, the first hot period will be used to justify certain models...conveniently ignoring data that does not fit.
Human knowledge of most natural complex systems is still extremely limited.
"Human knowledge of most natural complex systems is still extremely limited."
Agreed; however, it is hard to deny "real life" experience. For example, a few years ago I went to the Grand Canyon. The first thing I noticed was how easy it was to breathe. The air was clean; I had become so used to dirty air that I'd forgotten what it was like to breathe clearly.
I also think that love for our Creator should express itself in tangible appreciation for creation. It's ironic to me that things like recycling (or reusing), conserving resources or bringing your own shopping bag to the store are considered "new age" and "liberal" when in fact these are very old- fashioned practices. My great-grandmother used to make quilts from fabric which no longer had any other usefulness. My father will use a thing until it is absolutely useless in any way. Another grandmother used to preserve produce from her garden. It is the wasteful, mindless, consumption of modern humanity that is "new age."
Hi Nathan,
I am all for being economical and careful with our environment...but...too many questions of science become political footballs...and in many cases they take on quasi-religious
overtones by people pushing an agenda..be it economic, regulatory, funding etc.. Not healthy in my opinion....let the facts speak for themselves and avoid making extremely speculative pronouncements to promote a non-scientific agenda. One trap is the use of models that try to explain complex systems where all of the variables are either not understood or unknown. As many have said elsewhere, science is not determined by "consensus" but by the scientific method.
This is true for efforts to forecast climate, the stock market, sports etc. One can form opinions and educated guesses...but certainty remains outside of our knowledge.
For example, the case of DDT is very interesting....it was demonized by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring...but since then...the science has mostly judged it to be safe and effective. Think of the millions who have died from malaria who need not have if DDT had been used. In fact, it is starting to be used again in a controlled fashion in several countries...and it is saving lives. Consensus changes with facts.
Hello Eruonen,
I agree that educated guesses aren't the same as absolute knowledge and that we should guard against populist science; however, we risk the paralysis of analysis if we expect an unreasonably high degree of evidence to prove something.
For example, 100% of all lung cancer cases cannot be attributed to smoking; but about 86.6% can. It's reasonable to make a connection between smoking and lung cancer. Not all scientists may agree, but enough have researched the issue to come to the same conclusion. If new evidence presents itself in future, then scientists should consider it. In a perfect world we would be able to trust that what is reported to us is true, and not tainted by special interests. We aren't at that point yet, sadly. To me this speaks to our collective values...but that's another discussion
I don't know where your numbers come from, and I admit that I haven't spent any time researching whose agenda is pushed by which groups, but according to the stats from NOAA for April 2007:
"The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for April was the third warmest on record (1.21 degrees F/0.67 degrees C above the 20th century mean). The global surface temperature for the combined January-April period was the warmest on record.
Separately, the global April land-surface temperature was the warmest on record. Elevated monthly mean temperatures—more than 5 degrees F (3 degrees C) above average—covered large parts of Asia and Western Europe. The April ocean-surface temperature tied for seventh warmest in the 128-year period of record as neutral ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) conditions persisted in the equatorial Pacific.
During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.11 degrees F (0.06 degrees C) per decade, but the rate of increase has been three times larger since 1976, or 0.32 degrees F (0.18 degrees C) per decade, with some of the largest temperature increases occurring in the high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere."
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2862.htm
The figures used were "UNITED STATES Climate Summary 4/07" not global. Unfortunately, there is much, much controversy re measurements...the effects of urban heat islands, the beginning and end dates for comparison, the middle atmospheric temp vs surface etc. etc.
My point is not that the earth isn't warming...it has been since the end of the "little ice age" around 1850..(note it cooled between 1940-76)..but that to attribute the cause to man and propose an economic agenda that will seriously impair our economy...based on very unsubstantiated science...is irresponsible. The present warming period will have huge benefits for some areas and less for others...climate changes...we have to adapt. Eventually, the climate will cool...with far more devastating consequences.
P.S. the planets, moons are getting warmer too...Mars, Neptune, Triton, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto too. Common source..the Sun and solar radiation.
See this series in the Financial Post for interesting articles re GW skeptics.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/finan...755457a8af
"but that to attribute the cause to man and propose an economic agenda that will seriously impair our economy"
I'm curious-who wants to impair our economy? What is the benefit to such an accomplishment? I ask because I personally don't see this issue as a choice between one thing (a strong economy) and another thing (a clean, healthy planet). I pay slightly more money for wind energy credits, organic food, organic/eco-friendly home products, energy-efficient light bulbs, low/no VOC paints, etc. I do this as a matter of personal choice, because I believe it is my duty-the right thing to do. But as I wrote before on the old forum, I think there's a win-win option available here. If I buy a product that is good for the environment and meets my needs, no one loses.
Roger Pielke sums the current situation up this way:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_...ebate.html
"Winning and Losing the Global Warming Debate"
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
"In short, let both sides declare victory. They can then ask instead how to make society and the environment less vulnerable to climate. The IPCC has already started to focus its attention on vulnerability and adaptation to climate, but its steps in this direction must be bolder.
Some say that a focus on adaptation might result in "every country for itself." It need not. The U.N. Framework Convention provides a mechanism through which the world's climate "winners" can help boost the resilience of the climate "losers." When climate does change, the distribution of winners and losers might also change, but shared assistance would persist.
These steps defy conventional wisdom. They are unlikely to be popular, given that the status quo sustains Cassandras and Dorothies alike. Unfortunately, in spite of the high moral rhetoric from both sides, the debate itself stands in the way of further progress. We need a third way to confront climate change, even if it means moving beyond now-comfortable positions held fast for many years.
Climate changes. Let's deal with it. "
Interesting; from what I can find online, he is a practical middle-ground avoid the extremes person. Maybe there's hope for humanity yet