Is global warming affecting Delaware?
July 26th, 2007 by Joe CiccantiA caller on WGMD this week brought up an interesting point. He said although the U.S. Public Interest Research Group states that Delaware is getting hotter, their report says that the average temperature in Wilmington was 2.1 degrees above average in 2006. Does “2.1 degrees above average” mean Delaware was warmer in 2006 than in previous years? The caller said this is rather deceptive. Here is what Thomas Glazer of the US Public Interest Research Group says concerning global warming:
“According to the National Climatic Data Center, the 2006 summer and 2006 overall were the second warmest on record for the lower 48 states. 2007 is on track to be the second warmest year on record globally.”
Glazer presents the key findings for the state of Delaware (note the number of times it says above normal).
 In 2006, the average temperature was 2.1°F above normal in Wilmington. Nationally, the average 2006 temperature was at least 0.5°F above normal at 87% of the locations studied.Â
Wilmington’s above-average temperatures in 2006 are part of a broader warming trend since 2000. Between 2000 and 2006, the average temperature was .5°F above the 30-year average in Wilmington. Nationally, the average temperature during this seven year period was at least 0.5°F above normal at 87% of the locations studied.
Two of Delaware’s hottest years on record have occurred in the last five years. 2002 was the fourth warmest year with an average temperature 2.6°F above normal. 2006 was the third warmest with an average 2.7°F above normal
 Here are some questions to consider:
1. Do above normal temps for a few years mean there is a warming trend globally, nationally, and locally?
2. The report does say that two of Delaware’s hottest years on record have occurred in the last five years. How far do records go back? Does this mean there is a warming trend? Does it include all the centuries leading up to this time? In general does this really mean anything? Is 2.1 degrees above average that significant?
3. Having said all of this– could the earth indeed be going through cycles due to the condition of the sun among other factors, thus leading to increased temperatures globally?
4. Should there still be an effort to move ahead with global warming pollution controls?
July 26th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Each time I hear of someone checking the history of temperature against one of these Global Warming claims; they find that it was warmer sometime in the distant past; 50 or 100 or 1000 years ago or more.
I would like us to clean up even more our polution sources; starting with Delaware City and whatever deal our state gives them to allow aerial dumping and second to eliminate the raw chunks of sewage and toilet paper that Rehoboth, Lewes and Milton and other towns dump into the rivers and bays.
I am offended when claims of failing septic systems poluting our streams are made when the fact is hundreds of thousands of gallons or raw sewage dumped by the cities directly into our rivers and bays… when a septic fails it makes the grass above it greener; I have never found PROOF of a single septic failure causing stream, river and bay polution… just verbal claims of such, never an actual case I can walk to and see and see proof of said polution.
Such is the scene with Global Warming; lots of charismatic claims and reports but research shows a different story…
Global Warming; where are all the Vineyards of Greenland that were once such a pride! The record books are all that is left and written records of the quantity and quality of the thousands of acres of wonderful grapes growing on the coastal mountain sides, that became fine Greenland wine… now covered with Global Warming ICE…
A reference regarding the far warmer past of Greenland, etc.
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm
July 27th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Get em’ Jody … Amen to that
July 27th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Jody, about global warming, you are a skeptic. But consider this: “It is the totality of the evidence that has convinced the vast majority of experts that the planet is warming: surface temperature recordings, rises in sea level, retreating glaciers, shifting species domains.” http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/threat/threat6.htm
So in response to this “vast majority” opinion of experts, you choose to cite anecdotal observations to refute global warming. With all due respect, I believe that you (and Matt) are ignoring a scientific consensus on this issue.
A convincing piece of evidence for me is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Thus, global warming has increased since the global industrial revolution was in full swing, accompanied by a continually large increase in the use of fossil fuels like coal and oil that put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Over this period of time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has more than doubled, to about 400 parts per million now. That certainly is at least very suggestive that man’s activities are contributing to global warming.
Of course, as your piece indicates, there are many natural factors that can contribute to global warming instances, and have down through the ages of recorded history. However, the impact on global temperatures by greenhouse gas emission from fossil fuel burning is evident from many scientific studies.
In order to lessen the burden we place upon our children, like Abraxus and his children, we need to act now. Most of the globe is poised to participate, even China and India. Let not we Americans any longer be the laggards in stepping up to this challenge of a lifetime, to this challenge really of the ages, for the sake of our heirs.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Perry,
I too want to see cleaner air and waters. My opposition is that we Americans should not take the entire burden as the bad guys when in fact we LEAD the world in clean living, clean industries, etc.
I did some ice cores down to a few thousand years in the Antarctic ice when I was senior Oceanographer (Marine Science Technician) enlisted in the Coast Guard, about 1971. The air was by far the dirtiest and most poisoned during various several years long volcanic actions and several years long forest fires. The largest man-made dirty air by far was the coal age of England when London really did have Pea-Soup fog.. a deep dark greenish fog made of coal smoke particulants as evidenced by the chimney sweep images in Mary Poppins. Right before that was the Peat Pollution from burning peat in the British isles. The ice from these things was actually a visible change (ice cores are easily labeled one year at a time like tree rings). The dirtiest ice we saw were the forest fires that included the resins of redwoods and related unique species of the California area when apparantly some years before Christ (from what our ice readers told us) these indiginous particular oily species of trees found only in California in the mix they saw - burned for 12 years and darkened the ice darkly! I don’t remember exactly how long before Christ it was but I remember the 12 years.
There were also great fires in history that our “ice readers” called to our attention in the ice cores and these were “proven” by the various substances in the dark ash that covered down to the Antarctic!!!
My viewpoint is to put these things into perspective; to realize that man is not nearly as important (read that bad in democratese) to the condition of the earth as we are lead to believe. My viewpoint is also that America is the best at cleanliness, responsibility, honor and goodness - not the worst and most evil and bad in every way that our liberal media condemns us for.
We are the best! I agree we should lead and help as we do now but most of all let us keep things in perspective.
Also; I have absolutely no pleasure in the so called vast majority of consensus; which brought us a moon of green cheese and a flat earth and an earth at the center of the universe…
Let us SEE what we see; not what others tell us to see!
Thanks for acknowledging my dear son Abraxas!
I would like to see China foremost in cleaning up her fast emerging industrial expansion.
Note: my example was not anecdotal; the weather records of the diaries are a written and scientific record kept still in the musems of Greenland. There was a very interesting show on History Channel I think it was regarding this and other things of Greenland.
July 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Keep in mind that the main issue is man’s influence on the warming trend. Not only is there far from a scientific consensus that we’re even IN a lengthy warming trend anyways, but even granting we are, it remains incredibly HIGHLY debatable that man is having an effect on said warming, no matter HOW many links the likes of Perry provide. Anyone can play link for a link.
The question is, should we take the draconian steps that Al Gore and others want us to take on the [unlikely] chance that it’ll spell our armageddon. Remember, these same geniuses warned us all of the next ice age a mere 30 years ago.
July 28th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Well , well , well. Let me see we are worried that the planet is getting warmer and that ice is melting. Is that about it ? Well from my limited knowledge of the subject I believe that there has been times that the planet was warmer than it is now.
1) It was warmer when it was created.
2) It was warmer when the dinosaurs walked the planet.
The planet has warmed and cooled many time in it’s history. The ice ages
were caused by impacts from meteorites that caused clouds of dust to
cover the earth and block out the warming rays of the sun . At least that
is the ” scientific consensus ” . So now we are in a warming trend that will
eventually take us back to pre- ice age temps unless we are impacted by
more meteorites.
So as I see it the planet is warming, but it is a correction not a disaster.
Also , and please check my numbers here , but I believe I read that man
made co2 accouts for around 20% of all the co2 in the atmosphere.
So if we were able to lower the man made co2 by 50% we would only
lower the over all by 10%. Is that really going to impact the warming of
the planet? Even if I believed man was causing it I don’t believe that
10% reduction will make a difference.
By the way I am still waitng for the oceans to die like Ted said they would 30yrs. ago when he only gave them 10.
This is just more ” the sky is falling” that man has , had to deal with since the first falling star came blazing across the night sky.
I will close with a challenge, find one report , or study that does not use the words, ” may, might , could ,possibly , to qualify their claims. Find one that states without doubt what they claim.
July 28th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
TIPPER ROCKS!
July 29th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
“I will close with a challenge, find one report , or study that does not use the words, †may, might , could ,possibly , to qualify their claims. Find one that states without doubt what they claim.” ==> Frank
No scientist can make the unequivocal statement you seek, Frank, because there is always the possibility that new evidence will knock down any theory, as even Einstein readily admitted and subsequent investigations have modified his ideas. Now we have string theory with it’s eleven dimensional space, a concept that Einstein never addressed.
So there is always the risk that the current scientific consensus about global warming and man’s impact on it may prove incorrect.
But can we wait to find out, or should we be taking steps now to lessen man’s contribution?
The finite supply of fossil fuels is another motivator to developing alternate energy sources which are renewable or more abundant, of which there are lots of possibilities.
I gave my link, where is yours Frank, and yours Hube?
Here is a collection of articles, many of which add up to the same conclusion. Are you folks going to politicize this issue just because Gore is pushing it? It seems so. I think you are both in denial.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
July 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
*Yawn* Perry: search Colossus under global warming and/or Google if you prefer. I weary of your games.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Well as far as politicizing this issue I believe that happens as soon as we turn to our political leaders for solutions. When we think that carbon taxes on co2 out put collected by the government will reduce those out puts or that carbon offsets somehow make the co2 that was produced simply vanish is crazy. All of these cost to companies will be passed on to the consumer as a price of doing business.
Now as for some of these alternate fuel sources. First let us think about hybrid cars. While they may save miles per gallon of petrol have you looked into the making of the batteries ,it is a rather nasty process.
Maybe we could talk about ethanol. This mandated savior not only gets less miles to the gallon than petrol but takes huge ammounts of energey to create but wait it also creates more low level ozone than petrol, but wait it cann’t be sent through pipe lines so we have to truck it to point of sale, but wait if all of that is not enough how about the fact that the use of ethanol is raising the cost of so many needed items like food for one , and last but not least check out the amount of water needed to produce this end all.
Now how about wind, it will cost more to the consumer , it is shown to be most un-reliable when we need it the most, in the summer, and it does nothing to clean up the power plants that you must keep on line as back - up.
As to the point of we should do something now just in case they are right ,well I don’t know. How far do we go and how long do we wait to see if they are right or wrong. And how much damage do we do to our economy before we get them to admit they were wrong.But let’s say we should do something now, can we atleast wait until we know that what we do will be better than what we are doing now?
As for me putting up links I almost never do this because first of all if people are honest in their search for the truth they can find the same information as I do. Second I have found that when I have given links in the past the argument then becomes about the bias of the source and not the issue.
I believe we all can go out in search of the truth and find points from both sides and then base our decisions on our own common sence and life experiences
Gotta go now and drive a really big truck and then come home and cut the grass , and cook on the grill. I do have a huge carbon foot print, but don’t worry my wife plants flowers that I buy so see I do use carbon offsets!!!!