> Speaking of worlds, climate change is real. Even my amateurish, admittedly clunky analyses makes that glaringly obvious
A warming trend in Boston does not make global climate change "glaringly obvious", and for somebody with an obvious statistical training to say so is even more disappointing.
(Please read my argument carefully: I am not arguing anything at all about the existence of global climate change!)
I was also very surprised that the author didn't mention the urban heat island effect. While some of the temperature increase can be attributed to global warming, some of it might also be showing that Bostan has become more urbanized since 1890.
True. To people living in Boston, that still implies the climate has changed, though. It just means it's a stretch to infer anything about the world from it (not that this would be a good idea even in the absence of the heat island effect.)
1) "Speaking of worlds," implies that he's talking about global climate change.
2) "climate change is real" refers to the idea of global climate change, you will be unable to convince me that he's referring to a common belief in "Boston climate change".
I don't want to start the whole global warming debate again (those threads can be a real pain on here) something did bug me here
The author says...
"Speaking of worlds, climate change is real. Even my amateurish, admittedly clunky analyses makes that glaringly obvious. Boston’s temperatures are on the rise and we’re getting heavier rain. "
But that's an erroneous statement. What he means is that warming is real but that's not a fact that anyone I know of disputes. The question is to the cause of that warming and if that cause represents a change of climate due to our behavior or a naturally cyclical trend that we don't have enough data to measure.
The reason I point this out is because badly defined debates don't get us anywhere. Unless we're clear on what the actual questions are we can't accurately debate the answers.
> The question is to the cause of that warming and if that cause represents a change of climate due to our behavior
and, even if you assume that it's due to our behavior, that doesn't tell us what to do about it, or even if we should do something. (There are significant benefits to a slightly warmer planet.)
The proposals, while very expensive, aren't predicted to make a significant difference by their proponents, so it's unclear why we should adopt them.
We have plenty of data to show that the climate of the planet has been very different at different times in the past. We also have good data that humans have had an effect on the climate (although why this would be surprising escapes me, perhaps the surprise is that its measurable).
What we don't have is any clue on how humans could control the climate long term so changing our behavior may reduce our contribution to the change but it will not stop change from occuring.
Its useful that we live through several of the annual cycles of weather changes before we have a chance to worry about it. Imagine if humans went from birth to middle age in three months, by mid-summer they might be afraid that the temperature was just going to keep on going up forever, as it had their entire life. We see a variant on this with multi-generational cycles like volcanic eruptions where something that "always" been true, and then it isn't one year.
That being said I'm all in favor in finding ways to be more efficient. We can't realistically consider stellar travel until we can create an environment which is self sustaining. I do wish however that we'd invest more in adapting to climate change rather than throw money away at trying to "stop" it.
Adapting? That's simple. All we have to do is change what crops are being grown around the world, adapt to changing weather patterns that make fertile places arid and arid places fertile, and find new homes for the millions and millions that are going to be displaced as the sea level rises. It's only a couple trillion dollars, give or take.
I understand the sarcasm, and I understand the fear, but do you understand the problem?
The climate on this planet will change, whether or not we lower our carbon footprint. We should know this because it has changed while we (humans) were not here, and it is changing while we (humans) are here. Moderate climate change causes loss of habitat, significant change causes extinctions. That's not sarcasm, it is literally written in stone, the geologic record.
Yes, human activity is changing the climate too, we've joined volcanoes, space junk, solar variance, biological blooms, and perhaps another half dozen yet undiscovered processes which affect climate on the planet. If you are rational you know there is absolutely no way that humans can counteract the changes to the climate that will be caused the next time Yellowstone erupts. If you are a geologist you know that Yellowstone will erupt, it's just a question of when.
We are currently alive, and we have economic productivity that exceeds 58 trillion dollars per year [1]. We could apply some of that toward making our species immune to climate change. We could be selfish and make only part of our species immune to climate change (the 'developed' nations). But we should not waste capital and economic productivity on things that do not contribute to that goal.
The science is great, and I am a huge fan of understanding all the variables. But misleading the public into believing if they just lower their carbon footprint the climate won't change is irresponsible at best.
> The reason I point this out is because badly defined debates don't get us anywhere.
True that.
<irritated-with-all-that-AGW> Let's not forget how the Dinosaurs caused the Ice Age, by sequestering all the carbon from atmospheric CO₂ into coal and crude oil. Let's not follow in their footsteps, lest we perish in a new ice age just like them. /sarcasm/ </irritated-with-all-that-AGW>
"warming is real but that's not a fact that anyone I know of disputes"
Have you considered the positioning of the temperature sensors over the decades? Are they static? and if so, are their surroundings static, e.g. are there more parking lots or less trees around the sensors?
If you had the pleasure to live in Massachusetts to experience all this, we had three really large storms within about two weeks of one another in Jan/Feb (can't remember the exact dates). The result of this? 6 foot snow banks everywhere. Mall parking lots were much worse since they'd pile snow in ~30-foot tall mountains. That made it extremely hard to see around corners driving.
Highly anecdotical, but I noticed that many drivers became less aggressive. Roadways were clear, but not being able to easily see around corners resulted in less people cutting me off. This lasted for about a month before things melted a bit, and drivers quickly re-earned their title as Massholes. ;)
Bostonian here. The lady and I have been convinced that this winter was significantly worse than usual, and wondered why no one else seemed to think it was so weirdly awful. Glad we're not alone, and that we weren't wrong. Wow, did it suck. Excellent article and research by Mr. Dobres.
I knew moving to Boston that I could expect lots of snow, but the way it can affect your lifestyle for four months (especially if you walk everywhere) was something I didn't think too much about.
The harshness of this winter is not an insignificant part of my decision to skip town and move to San Francisco :)
As an expat Swede, I was disappointed with last years' snowfall. I had high hopes for cross country skiing, but that didn't work well at all. This winter was better, but still pretty weak. Maybe I should move to New Hampshire... ;-)
If you're in Boston, Maine is pretty close. If you want a good winter hike, the top of the Appalachian Trail is Mt Katahdin, about 100 miles north of Bangor ME.
My building's snow removal costs alone were sufficient to demonstrate that this was a particularly bad winter. They were more than twice last year's (last year being pretty typical).
As a fellow Bostonian, I completely agree. I mostly came to the same conclusions (three straight weeks of snow with no melt days), but it's good to see it written out in numbers.
also, it's amazing how short our memories are. one "nice" day cures the ills of so many previously miserable days. as the data shows, these were lacking this past winter.
The problem this year is from Dec through Mar Boston never saw bare ground. Most years there is a melt or two that helps put up with the snow. Even in other big snow years there was a melt. It makes the winter seem worse when the snow never melts.
Yeah this winter was a pretty tough one to have a new baby. I felt bad for her. I can only imagine she assumed the world was just awful and grey. Today is the first nice spring day in awhile too.
This last winter has my family itching to move elsewhere.
A warming trend in Boston does not make global climate change "glaringly obvious", and for somebody with an obvious statistical training to say so is even more disappointing.
(Please read my argument carefully: I am not arguing anything at all about the existence of global climate change!)