Summer gets a Polar Vortex

[Abu3baid]

82 here at the beach, and 88 back at my house.

It has been about 110 or so on average every day for a while now! It gets cool at night though probably down in the low 90s The good part is that there is 0 humidity so that does make it seem less hot!

[iacas]

Actually, it is a political issue.

No it isn't. It's a scientific one.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that many try to make it a political one.

[boogielicious]

It has been about 110 or so on average every day for a while now! It gets cool at night though probably down in the low 90s

The good part is that there is 0 humidity so that does make it seem less hot!

@Abu3baid ,

You must not be in MA currently!

[Mr. Desmond]

No it isn't. It's a scientific one.

One of the biggest problems I have with it is that many try to make it a political one.

I see your point and applaud it.

Whether global climate change exists and/or is caused by humans is a scientific analysis.

At the same time, to get anything done to lessen its effect or our human footprint takes political cooperation among states, bureaucracies, our federal government, and then treaties with other nations.

I've seen where corporations like Nike and Coca-Cola have begun to recognize the effect of global warming and are changing the way they do business to compensate for its effects. Perhaps when it begins to affect the bottom line, then something will be done...

Thinking about it, bringing up the fact of doing something about global climate change is a separate issue, and off topic. My apologies.

But it's odd that you have powerful forces funding research to disprove theories or science. We've heard the stories of people funding research starting with the conclusion that there is no global climate change -- now go out there, find, and present that research. I guess it's part of the game, but it's not science.

[newtogolf]

I see your point and applaud it.

Whether global climate change exists and/or is caused by humans is a scientific analysis.

At the same time, to get anything done to lessen its effect or our human footprint takes political cooperation among states, bureaucracies, our federal government, and then treaties with other nations.

I've seen where corporations like Nike and Coca-Cola have begun to recognize the effect of global warming and are changing the way they do business to compensate for its effects. Perhaps when it begins to affect the bottom line, then something will be done...

Thinking about it, bringing up the fact of doing something about global climate change is a separate issue, and off topic. My apologies.

But it's odd that you have powerful forces funding research to disprove theories or science. We've heard the stories of people funding research starting with the conclusion that there is no global climate change -- now go out there, find, and present that research. I guess it's part of the game, but it's not science.

It's science and political.  Science is that it's likely our carbon footprints aren't helping the atmosphere but to claim that 100 years of human pollution dwarfs the impact of raging forest fires that would not be extinguished without our intervention or fallout of volcanic ash into the atmosphere is where politics enters.   We're working with a very small sample size, it's relative to using one rounds score to declare the overall quality of one's golf game.

Each side has financial backers that want to see their agenda win favor.  The right is supported by fossil fuels while the left is funded by non-fossil fuel lobby.  Science depends on grants, the thought that scientists working on funded grants are impartial is as ridiculous as thinking news people aren't biased in their reporting of the news.

I'm all for reduction of carbon footprints but only when there are real option and infrastructure to support them.  A car that goes only 80 - 150 miles per charge is useless to me.  A car that uses a lithium battery that has no environmentally friendly way to dispose and requires power plants fueled by coal aren't a solution either.  Solar heat, wind power are viable options that need to be improved but we're not quite there yet.

[Mr. Desmond]

Duly noted. I guess 97% of scientists are funded by the non fossil fuel lobby...

And I've read about the 97% number controversy and how they got that number from surveys, etc., over 10 years ago and continuing. Man has apparently had on influence on the climate. Is it enough to cause issues?

Let's forget about the scientists and use non-partisan common sense.

The question is do you think it's a good idea to billow crap into the air and into our water? Do you want to breathe that air, exercise in it,  and drink that water? How about your children?

Probably not ... so instead of this useless fingerprinting and haggling, why don't we improve the quality of our lives and reduce our enviro footprint within an economical balance and motivate other countries to do the same. We can't do it alone.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Science is that it's likely our carbon footprints aren't helping the atmosphere but to claim that 100 years of human pollution dwarfs the impact of raging forest fires that would not be extinguished without our intervention or fallout of volcanic ash into the atmosphere is where politics enters.

I'd like to point out that wildfires are inherently good. A good example of this would be the Pine Barrens in New Jersey - fires occur often there (severe ones are uncommon), and until somewhat recently, we kept trying to put them out (of course, they do get extinguished when they become a threat to humans). One thing this greatly affected was the population of pitch pines in the Pine Barrens. Pitch pines are very resistant to fires, and their cone/seed/whatever you want to call it actually will only open up when heated by fires. Well, as you can guess, other trees such as oaks started to take root there, because their saplings weren't wiped out by these frequent fires, which makes it difficult to pitch pines to grow, not only from the standpoint of their seeds not opening, but also from the fact that if they do manage to open, oaks and other large trees will block much of the sunlight, making it difficult for them to grow. Anyway, another benefit of wildfires is the restoration of nutrients to the soil, which facilitates plant growth. Of course, there are short-term effects like the ones you mentioned, with short-term being the key phrase here.

[newtogolf]

I'd like to point out that wildfires are inherently good. A good example of this would be the Pine Barrens in New Jersey - fires occur often there (severe ones are uncommon), and until somewhat recently, we kept trying to put them out (of course, they do get extinguished when they become a threat to humans). One thing this greatly affected was the population of pitch pines in the Pine Barrens. Pitch pines are very resistant to fires, and their cone/seed/whatever you want to call it actually will only open up when heated by fires. Well, as you can guess, other trees such as oaks started to take root there, because their saplings weren't wiped out by these frequent fires, which makes it difficult to pitch pines to grow, not only from the standpoint of their seeds not opening, but also from the fact that if they do manage to open, oaks and other large trees will block much of the sunlight, making it difficult for them to grow. Anyway, another benefit of wildfires is the restoration of nutrients to the soil, which facilitates plant growth. Of course, there are short-term effects like the ones you mentioned, with short-term being the key phrase here.

I agree with your points about wild fires and their potential long term benefits, but given the age of the planet, isn't 100 years short term?

[Grndslmhttr3]

You're right, especially considering that some of the pollutants from forest fires are the same as those in anthropogenic emissions, such as particulates and carbon monoxide, so short-term was definitely not the right phrase to use there. However, given the fact that some of the pollutants are the same, 100 years of human pollution probably does have a much greater impact than wildfires in that sense. Wildfires are much more common during certain times of the year than others, and have been occurring for hundreds of millions of years, so their contribution to atmospheric pollution isn't really anything new (perhaps even less than it was during times such as the carboniferous).

I don't think that the above topic is strictly within the realm of politics, though, since a lot of it can be scientifically assessed. To me, to make that issue political (bare in mind I'm not the least bit political savvy, nor do I intend to be) would involve the implementation (or lack thereof) of some sort of policy to do something about it.

[newtogolf]

I don't think that the above topic is strictly within the realm of politics, though, since a lot of it can be scientifically assessed. To me, to make that issue political (bare in mind I'm not the least bit political savvy, nor do I intend to be) would involve the implementation (or lack thereof) of some sort of policy to do something about it.

The politics is that the science is being funded by grants (usually from biased parties) and interpreted by politicians (both sides) and other biased organizations that have something to gain or lose.   Consider the impacts on the world and local economies when fossil fuels are universally taxed higher or legislated to be illegal.

You can't really discuss global warming without invoking discussions about the economic and political ramifications associated with any legislature that addresses it.

[Grndslmhttr3]

The politics is that the science is being funded by grants (usually from biased parties) and interpreted by politicians (both sides) and other biased organizations that have something to gain or lose.   Consider the impacts on the world and local economies when fossil fuels are universally taxed higher or legislated to be illegal.

You can't really discuss global warming without invoking discussions about the economic and political ramifications associated with any legislature that addresses it.

Yeah, I really know nothing at all when it comes to economics or politics so that's generally the cutoff for me when it comes to these types of discussions.

[newtogolf]

Yeah, I really know nothing at all when it comes to economics or politics so that's generally the cutoff for me when it comes to these types of discussions.

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was trying to engage you in a political discussion, as I now try to avoid those here too.  I was just pointing out that there are both political and economic implications that cause this issue to be so polarizing.

If it was just what's best for the environment I think we'd all agree, the less pollution the better, just as if it was just about health, cigarettes and most fast food restaurants would be banned.

[Grndslmhttr3]

Sorry if I gave you the impression I was trying to engage you in a political discussion

S'all good, I knew you weren't. It is a very complicated issue, especially, when politics and economics are brought into play; I just find the scientific part to be much more interesting!