gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu
Thu Jul 10 08:04:23 EDT 2003
I'll bite----I'm sure there are links to show anything to anyone, but since
this is a leps list we will be able to ask the butterflies whether they
believe in weather extremes.
The butterflies in New Jersey line up solidly with the media, that the spring
of 2003 has been an "extreme". The cold, wet June (wettest June since record
keeping) following an extreme winter, has resulted in extremely few
butterflies. The numbers of some species will be very high because the late
spring has shifted their phenology so that they will be encountered on 4th of
July Counts (4JCs). Some species may benefit from the high rainfall and
fresh vegetation proliferation.
But at present there are very few butterflies in evidence in central and
northern New Jersey. Interestingly, in upstate NY which got less extreme
weather, butterflies report less extreme conditions.
I think Chuck is right that there have been periods in the earth's history
when the climate was warmer, and tropical veg extended into what we consider
today Arctic regions. And this happened without human agency.
But what is at issue is the rate of change, and the superimposition of
short-term cycles onto long-term cycles.
This is not a simple issue (like most scientific issues) and therefore
sorting out wheat from chaff is a challenge.
But chaff there is in abundance.
So I support Kenn's contention and I am more impressed with the evidence
linking human activities to climate change than with the contrary evidence.
If intensive animal husbandry is a significant contributor, as New Zealand
apparently believes, then efforts to control that source have to be
consideredalong with efforts to control industrial and non-point sources.
And in the final analysis there are just too many people for a planet with a
finite carrying capacity.
Chuck Vaughn wrote:
> I wondered how long it would be before this subject showed up here. ;-)
> I can tell from the 3 paragraphs you wrote that you're a climate
> alarmist, you hate George Bush and big business, and you're a
> conspiracy theorist.
> How many links would you like to summaries of peer reviewed studies
> that don't show an increase in extreme weather?
> You must accept the fact that climate change is the norm, stability is
> the exception. The trend is always towards colder or warmer. The
> medieval warm period, centered about 1200 AD was warmer than it is
> today. The warming we see today is mostly the recovery from the Little
> Ice Age that ended around 1850.
> If you look at climate proxies for thousands of years you find that the
> long term global average temperature is higher than it is today.
> As the climate models (still in their infancy) mature, the predictions
> for future warming become less and less. The human contribution, if
> any, is not likely to be more than a few tenths of a degree.
> Finally, a recent review of 240 studies on the climate of the 20th
> Analysis Finds Twentieth Century Climate Unremarkable
> Let the flames fly if you like but the accumulating evidence is against
> the climate alarmist.
> Chuck Vaughn <aa6g at aa6g.org>
> > It's surprising to see that a number of otherwise intelligent people
> > are
> > still confused on the issue of global warming. To clarify: Global
> > warming is a fact. It is a phenomenon that is occurring now. Of
> > course
> > it is not being manifested as a gradual and evenly distributed warming
> > everywhere, and competent scientists never predicted that it would;
> > instead, as predicted, it is being manifested in greater extremes of
> > weather, with more violent storms, more extreme droughts and floods,
> > more
> > extreme heat and cold, with the overall global average temperature
> > gradually going up.
> > In scientific circles this isn't even a matter of debate: there is
> > near-universal agreement that this change is going on. There's still
> > debate as to the cause, but no real debate about whether it's
> > occurring,
> > because it IS occurring in a measurable way. Most unfortunately, the
> > Bush administration is making a serious attempt to quash the truth,
> > perhaps because the truth would be inconvenient to some of the
> > big-money
> > interests that put Bush in office. The EPA's own scientists recognize
> > global warming as a serious problem, but the White House pressured them
> > into silence on this issue in a major report they were preparing this
> > spring.
> > I'm pasting in below a report from The Independent, in the UK, that
> > appeared in print less than a week ago. My apologies to any on this
> > list
> > who are billionaires and polluters -- if the truth is widely
> > disseminated, you might be forced to spend a few bucks to clean up your
> > act. But anyone who likes to be able to go outside and breathe should
> > be
> > aware of this news.
> > Kenn Kaufman
> For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:
More information about the Leps-l