Morning Read: Climate change coming to a road near you
I’ve been meaning to link to Jon Alexander’s story about climate change and road construction in the Glens Falls Post Star for several days now. It makes for a fascinating read — again, going beyond the “ifs” to the “what nows?”
[T]he Highway Administration’s own data, driven by concerns of how the warming trend will impact U.S. infrastructure, acknowledges the changing ecological landscape. According to a 2009 Highway Administration study, the amount of annual rainfall in the U.S. increased by 6 percent during the 20th century. Global sea levels rose by 6.7 inches during that time period. While the Earth’s temperatures have been in a constant state of gradual flux for 4 billion years, the sudden temperature swings have scientists concerned.
“Floods and erosion can completely and abruptly shut down a road. In contrast, an increase in the frequency and severity of extremely high temperatures can lead to pavement deterioration and rutting,” the study notes. “It is also important to note that not all climate change impacts are negative. In some areas, climate change could reduce the frequency, duration, and/or severity of some cold-weather extremes, for example.”
Meanwhile, NCPR Natural Selections host Curt Stager is writing this week in the Albany Times Union about flooding on Lake Champlain, asking Is this the new normal?
[E]ven if the recent extreme conditions aren’t necessarily a direct consequence of global warming, they illustrate predictions of the future well enough to offer an important “teachable moment,” especially for those of us who have gone numb over the contentious issue of global warming. Climate change isn’t just about polar bears. Look around you here and now, after the soggy spring of 2011, and you’ll see that it’s about us, too.
Tags: climate change, environment
“While the Earth’s temperatures have been in a constant state of gradual flux for 4 billion years, the sudden temperature swings have scientists concerned.”
Oh my gosh! I didn’t realize the how bad the situation was.
For 4 billion years, the earth’s climate change was just, you know, gradual.
But for the past 20 years, gee whiz. It’s been really, you know, fast.
Wow! Such scientific evidence is more than I argue with.
Why, when I divide 20 years by 4 billion, my calculator says 5 E-9. That’s .000000005 of a comparison.
I don’t see any room for scientific error in that.
Mr. Alexander may want to consider taking data for say, 4,000,000 years before he reaches any scientific conclusions, but that’s just me.
http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/a-quick-look-back-at-a-20th-century-acceleration-in-global-sea-level-rise-2006/
Having worked in the front office of a county highway department, I’m aware of the fact that roads do not fare well under the wear and tear of all kinds of weather, frost heaves, and traffic. Every paved road has to be repaved, and repaved again. Highway departments have maintenance schedules and declining resources for keeping up with their schedules. I wonder if it is possible to design road materials that are more resilient, that bear the brunt of weather and use more gracefully.
I’m currently reading Kurt Stager’s book, and find it to be very interesting. It’s calming my ecoguilt about my carbon emissions to a certain extent, but it looks like he is going to make a case that we would be wise to figure out new ways of powering our civilization before we burn every last drop of oil and every last lump of coal.
Ultimately, people who understand the threat of climate change need to just ignore the rejectionists who oppose it for ideological reasons that have zero to do with real science.
Since rejectionists don’t accept science (not just the climate science specifics but science in general, unless of course they’re sick and need medicine), people ought to stop referencing abstract science and numbers like 350 (sorry Bill McKibben) in trying to convince people of climate change’s threat and start referencing more practical issues, like road collapses.
Folks in the North Country may be of conservative temperament but they are also practical. And as pragmatic people, collapsing roads and flooding lakes are things they can more easily grasp.
We can’t be paralyzed by the rejectionists who refuse to be engaged in any rational way. We have real world consequences to deal with and, hopefully, prevent.
Brian:
Where does science connect roads collapsing to climate change.
If a road collapses, fix it.
The answer to your question is contained in Jon Alexander’s article. Though I know you’re not interested in having your ideology challenged… perhaps that’s why you didn’t end your question with a question mark.
Personally, I’d rather prevent road collapses in the first place. Because although your dismissive comment suggests that fixing roads is a piece of cake, no different than slapping tape on a torn piece of paper, the amount that it will cost Thurman to fix their washed out roads is about ten times the town’s annual budget.
(sorry hit post too quickly)
As such, I’m taking a wild guess that the town probably doesn’t want something like this to happen again in a few years.
Unfortunately the limit of too many people’s reasoning is as follows: I don’t understand this, it don’t fit my worldview, therefore it must be wrong.
Without referencing climate change, or rather it’s causes, isn’t it time to look at the other factors? Anita can certainly verify that road maintenance and repair ain’t what it used to be. We don;t build roads anymore, too expensive. What we do is resurface roads with least cost methods. We have more traffic and heavier trucks using those roads and we’re starting back into a cycle of harder winters. I’m curious on just what the highway guys think we should be doing. I’m betting #1 response is give them more funding. They always get cut first. But what else is in the option bag?
Brian, if anyone is not interested in having their ideology challenged, it is you.
The problem with roads in New York and elsewhere, as is true with all of our infrastructure, is years of a band aid approach to maintenance in an effort to not spend money and keep budgets down.
To constantly blame everything on the politically correct Climate Change when if you weren’t so darn politically correct and called it Global Warming makes it look like you will connect everything and anything to advance your ideology.
Pollution is a problem with or without Global Warming or the now preferred Climate Change. Argue against pollution and drop the scare tactics. And when it comes to pollution, all efforts to control and then reduce pollution will fail unless something is done about the growing human population. More people will equal more pollution whether your source of power is something other than oil or coal. Without controlling population, everything done to reduce pollution is little more than a band aid approach to reducing pollution.
If for no other reason than the fact that roads fragment, degrade and destroy wildlife habitat and spawn water pollution, how about not building any more roads in the first place? There is a tremendous body of conservation science out there about what role roads play in degrading habitat. Heck, there are entire books on the subject. I have one: “Road Ecology,” published by Island Press.
“[E]ven if the recent extreme conditions aren’t necessarily a direct consequence of global warming, they illustrate predictions of the future well enough to offer an important “teachable moment,” especially for those of us who have gone numb over the contentious issue of global warming. Climate change isn’t just about polar bears. Look around you here and now, after the soggy spring of 2011, and you’ll see that it’s about us, too.”
This is a bizzarre quote. First he starts by correctly stating that we do not know if there is any link between recent local weather events and global climate change. Then he claims that despite that this offers us a “teachable moment”. What is it teaching us? Then he goes right onto say, despite the fact that there may be absolutely no link, that there is a link between the “soggy spring” and climate change!
Curt is a scientist I don’t understand how he can use this kind of crazy logic? There is clear scientific evidence that global climate change is happening and that there is a man made component. There is little if any science that can link that with local weather extremes.
Alan – that argument (roads are bad for wildlife) is part of the argument against the big tupper development, but it is not really relevant to the climate change story.
Jim McCulley – I read your link. Kind of a nit-picky statistical complaint about a minor point. The most serious point – that projecting the past into the future is a questionable endeavor, I dont think anyone, including the authors of the study he is criticizing would disagree with.
“Conclusion – Church’s and White’s effort at extracting a global sea level from multiple records was a useful endeavor, and I have no reason to argue with it (so far), but trying to extrapolate a fit to that data a century into the future is mathematically very hazardous.”
What is your point?
Deniers of human-caused Climate Change often claim the scientific arguments are promoted by scientists protecting their research jobs. Of course this is just totally absurd. In reality, the goal of climate change scientists is to protect the planet by reducing or eliminating the problem which would, in the end, put themselves out of jobs. Contrast this with whom is leading climate change denial – large energy corporations that have a vested interest in continuing the consumption of fossil fuels in a manner that maximizes their profits regardless of the effects on the planet. Even if you don’t want to review the scientific literature it should be easy to see who has the most to gain by obfuscating the discussion.
myown – I would add to that argument. It is often said that scientists publish fraudulently climate change data to get grant money, when the fact is that if they get caught publishing fraudulent data they will never work again as scientists and will have to pay back all their grant money. They have far far more to lose than gain by faking data.
whereas it costs the deniers nothing to get caught in a lie.
“In reality, the goal of climate change scientists is to protect the planet by reducing or eliminating the problem which would, in the end, put themselves out of jobs.”
In most cases a scientist is usually never trying to do any such thing. They are using science to understand how the world (and beyond) works. Reducing or eliminating a problem like this that science has discovered is our job not the scientists. Science could just have easily shown us that there was no problem. No such luck. Science doesn’t have an agenda like you describe.
myown: “In reality, the goal of climate change scientists is to protect the planet by reducing or eliminating the problem which would, in the end, put themselves out of jobs. ”
So tell us what great proposals the scientists have made, that the nations have implemented, that will save us from this impending doom.
…besides the Chevy Volt :)
Paul,
You are supporting my point that scientists reporting human-caused climate change are way more objective than the deniers. Climate change is not a left-wing conspiracy.
On the other hand we do rely on scientists, not to just report an important issue, but also to recommend appropriate solutions.
The technology to solve the man made component of climate change already exists. Getting the investment it requires to implement those technologies is the problem. Even if “doom” is not imminent I prefer the new technology to the old technology anyway.
“Climate change is not a left-wing conspiracy.” myown, why are you telling me this? Have I made some impression that I feel this way?
myown, I agree with you to some extent. Especially in certain fields like materials science and some physical science as well as clinical science you see a stronger emphasis on solutions. In climate science I see it more like in basic life science and fields like genetics where the real emphasis is on understanding what is happening as opposed to how to modify what is happening. This is why we know hear more about what we call “translational research” these days. In a sense finding ways to bridge the gap to the “practical” world.
myown:
“On the other hand we do rely on scientists, not to just report an important issue, but also to recommend appropriate solutions.”
So, name one.
“They are using science to understand how the world (and beyond) works. Reducing or eliminating a problem like this that science has discovered is our job not the scientists. Science could just have easily shown us that there was no problem. No such luck. Science doesn’t have an agenda like you describe.”
What Paul says here is important. It is something a lot of people, on both sides of issues like this, often forget (or don’t understand in the first place).
@Anita, the recent washout of roads in Warren County were simply not a matter of deferred maintenance allowing the roadbed to collapse. Huge sections of roadway were washed away due to torrential downpours.
Any longtime contractors out there want to comment on frost in the ground and how it affects the stability of roads in the winter?
Also, seems to me it was very rare to be able to dig a hole in December or January a couple of decades ago but it seems like that isn’t much of a problem of late. Any records on frost dates and depth of frost out there?
jdm writes:
i’m pretty sure an overwhelming majority of climate scientists think that reducing carbon emissions would be very helpful.
Jeeze. Okay, so if science never lies then why are all the scientists saying the global warming thing is overblown and the data suspect called liars? Why is there no room for divergent opinion in the issue? We have a Global Warming/Climate Change industry out there now. Why is that industry squeaky clean and anyone not 100% on board with the PC status quo called an evil DENIER?
Once again people believe what they believe and words like denier, bigot, commie get thrown around. More of the same.
hermit thrush:
Well, ok. myown doesn’t seem to be able to come up with any, but your’s is a good one.
So, I see that Global Carbon Emissions are at a record high in 2010.
One would expect that with such evidence, that global warming should also be attaining record highs.
I mean, we can’t expect the earth to just cool down on its own.
If it appeared to being doing so, it would be “experimental error” or something like that.
I predict that 10 years from now, global emissions will be higher, and global temperatures will be lower.
I further predict that the global warming scientists, who used to be the ice age scientists of the 1970s, will have mysteriously vanished, and morphed into “there’s no clean air to breathe” scientists of 2020.
At which time, the topic of the blog will be “there’s no clean air to breathe” and JDM will be here reminding everyone what the topic of 2011 was, and not to worry, this too will pass.
indeed, last year tied (with 2005) for the warmest year on record since 1880.
why? based on what reasons?
you’re someone who, despite countless appeals to explain yourself on multiple comment threads, has never managed to cite a single concrete reason why gay marriage would be bad. so it’s bizarre that you would say something like that about another commenter.
Bret – what is overblown is some of the doomsday stuff, but thats not coming from the scientists. This isnt about opinion – its about data and maybe interpretation of data. The data is really really strong and compelling. The scientific consensus is that the “climate change” is real. There really isnt any scientific controversy or divergence of opinion any more . There are a few scientists that dont go along with the consensus – but thats always true. You can probably find a scientist to say that smoking is good for you.
hermit thrush:
Nobody asked me “why” on the the gay marriage thread.
On a previous creation thread, I was asked why I believe the earth to be young, and I gave an honest account of my beliefs.
You answered straight forward, and I didn’t refute your answer, because the facts bear you out.
Nevertheless, this man-made global warming stuff is poppykock, in my opinion.
Why? Because of the ice age poppykock, and the oil embargo was poppykock. I’ve had it with professional liars.
patent nonsense. to stay out of the moderation queue i won’t put in hyperlinks, but look at the threads for “Morning Read: Is gay marriage debate about religious freedom or bigotry?” from last week and “We’re all gay now” from last october. here are some quotes just from yours truly from those threads.
jdm has never addressed any of it. never a single concrete thing that’s “bad” about homosexuality. not once.
i need to go to bed so time to address the ice age (and oil embargo???) bit. maybe tomorrow. but i hope everyone can see very plainly how credible jdm is.
JDM – again – your problem is with the “lamestream media” who like to report disaster stories (because we like to read them). The oil is running out. Thats a fact, since there is a finite amount of it. When it runs out depends on how much is left to discover. We can make estimates which include a range:for example, “it” could be anywhere from 10 years from now to 100 years from now. (“it” could be the sea rising a certain amount or the oil running out, etc) The media will pick up the most sensational worst case version. Politicians take advantage of that to try to get people motivated. But if the worst case possibility doesnt happen – and most of the time it wont – that doesnt mean that the science is wrong.
Peter, thank you for your respectful 7:31 comment. I didn’t mean that “climate change” was being argued. Climate change is real, it always has been because the climate is never static. What I’m asking is why is it that those professionals that point out obvious errors or massaged or faulty data, to say nothing of out and out lies, are discounted entirely? Make no mistake, this climate change issue is a multi-billion dollar industry. There is immense power up for grabs here. Does no one on the “man made change” side of this issue see this?
P. Hahn says: You can probably find a scientist to say that smoking is good for you.
Absolutely, and up until recently those same scientists were saying climate change is not happening. See “Merchants of Doubt”, it’s an eye-opening read.
Name one solution that has been suggested to slow global warning. Easy, first raise the median fleet mileage standard. Second, start using energy efficient light bulbs. Both of those suggestions are relatively easy to implement and would have a huge effect on reducing energy usage in the USA. Both of these solutions have been suggest many times. Both of these solutions are opposed by conservatives.
“There is immense power up for grabs here. Does no one on the “man made change” side of this issue see this?”
Of course they do. If there is a market for “clean energy” than there is a market for clean energy, so what? There is a much larger market for carbon based energy and I don’t see that changing very soon. Given the demand and the rise in demand (especially in the developing world) we can use all the energy we can produce. I don’t see development of “clean energy” or “green energy” or whatever you want to call it really hurting the parts of the economy that produce the majority of our energy now.
Bret, the data tells us that there is a “man made” component, as well as the “non-man-made” component to climate change. It isn’t one or the other. In this case it looks like everyone is right.
I for one see the immense “power up for grabs here”.
It’s the same “power” the tobacco industry wanted when it started sowing doubt about smoking causing cancer. The tobacco industry simply wants to make more money and doesn’t care who it hurts in doing so. Now maybe we shouldn’t care whether our neighbor gets cancer from smoking because that is their choice. But, we do end up subsidizing that cancer patients health care.
It’s the same “power” the coal industry wanted when a couple of those same tobacco scientists were paid to cast doubt on the acid rain theory. Coal and power generating industry wanted to increase profits by not having to control sulfur emmissions. They didn’t care about the lakes in the northeastern USA.
Same conservative think tanks and scientists also sowed doubt on the DDT and ozone issues.
What I don’t understand is why investors (and conservatives) don’t see the immense amount of profit in technologies that would reduce or slow the oil based energy demand in the USA.
Does no one on the “climate change is a hoax” side of this issue see this?
Bret – If you are saying that there are climate scientists massaging their data or outright lying to support “climate change”, (committing fraud), you are probably mistaken. There are well-intentioned critics that believe that though. I have said this before, but again, if you check with the national academy of science, they periodically analyze all the climate change studies (pro and con) and put them in perspective in a way that anyone can see whats going on. I personally would trust the national academy reports more than anything else.
Brian is right. The climate change/global warming deniers have no desire to know what is happening. For some reason, probably because they like the attention that being obstinate brings them, they embrace denial of a truth that is all around them. They are becoming increasingly irrelevant, however, and will soon be a footnote, because global warming is affecting our daily lives in real, practical ways, as Brian said, and everyday people respond to that. It can be fun to cling to kooky ideas, for a certain sort of person, and the grasp of those that do the clinging cannot be loosened through reason. But most people, once they are getting wet, will acknowledge it’s raining, and that is what is happening now with global warming.
Will, I am by no means a “denier” see my comments above I understand that climate change is real and that there is a man-made component that we need to do something about quickly. With that said I do not think that the science is telling us that there is anything that we can do to affect the weather changes that we see locally or that there is a direct link between these changes and the man made components of climate change. I will continue to do whatever I can and advocate for big changes for the way we live and do business but there are no climate scientists telling us (based on real data) that this wet spring is caused by global climate change. I am just tired of people making this spurious link without any facts. Focus on what we know. Just like a crazy senator standing in an unusually large snow storm in Washington DC cannot convince me with his zany comments that global warming is a hoax I am not compelled yet to believe that an unusually wet spring in NY has anything to do with the same factors. As far as I am concerned you are both trying to do the same thing. One is using local weather to convince me it aint so and another is using it to convince me that it is so.
Paul, the climate change thing is like looking at a Seurat painting. This wet spring is just a dot that by itself does not have meaning. You can look at very closely and say “it’s just a green dot.” But if you stand back and look at all the other dots that in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean anything a larger picture begins to take form.
Meanwhile, I ask some straightforward and pertinent questions about frost in the ground and people give it a dislike? Hey, I don’t mind getting dislikes if you have a serious disagreement of opinion but there is no opinion involved in whether frost is in the ground earlier or later and whether frost, lack of frost, or freeze thaw cycles might be pertinent to a discussion of how well roads hold up over time.
KHL, I love the Seurat painting analogy! If I could like the comment twice, I would!
knuck, I see the “painting” I just don’t see the link. The link between carbon emissions and global climate changes are clear that is all we need. If unusual weather events convince some people that we need to do something about carbon emissions maybe that is good. But recognize that the two are yet to be shown to be related.
One last thing… As soon as the two things are shown to be linked by some data I won’t deny it you can count on that.
Scientists are predicting that we are heading into an extremely low period in solar activity over the next few decades. If the atmosphere is protective (and It may not be as much as it used to be) we could see the next “small ice age” colder than the last one we had in the 1400’s. I hope that event, if it occurs, does not set back climate science when we start freezing our butts off. When that ends and we have done nothing to stop emissions we will be in very serious trouble. But that can easily happen when you look at weather out your window and try and determine what is happening globally.
Here is more info:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html
Paul,
Did you know that Scientific American is right now running a three-part series on the exact question you pose (I think): Can contemporary extreme weather events be tied to human-caused global warming? Check it out:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change
PNElba, I’m glad you recognize the power play. The Climate Change Industry is no more immune from corruption and greed than the miserable lying deniers. I believe taking a skeptical view of the more incredible suggestions and findings is a wise move. I agree that raising the CAFE standards would be a good start, but there are costs and regulations that go with that that make it a hard sell to the consumer and a harder sell to the gov’t if they want some of the better technologies. We need to be looking for a happy medium between cost, efficiency, pollutants and practicality. As far as the light bulbs, sorry, I think it’s a crock. We’ve seen zero difference in usage after going to the CFRs. Zero. I have yet to meet anyone that can verify and decrease in power usage. The best solution still seems to be turning the lights OFF!
Peter, i had a really nifty group of files with links to reports and news articles outlining the massaging, exaggerating and what I at least considered outright lies by SOME of the climate change promoters. I can’t find it presently, it might have disappeared in the last crash. Suffice it to say that while I found the links credible and worthy, others might just say it’s taken out of context or something similar.
So, lets say it all is legit. Let’s say there’s nothing but pure truth and altruistic concern on the part of the Climate Change Industry. We need alternatives to oil, a finite resource at any rate. My observations are that we have no answers to the problem! Oh, there are answers…wind was a big one a few years back. Just where is wind at today? You might as well put on a sheet and hood and burn a cross as suggest wind power. Solar is great, very expensive and the storage systems (batteries) are an ecological nightmare. It needs a lot of work and I don’t know that it’ll ever be a great choice for up north. And as you go down the list for every proposed solution there is not only a downside, there’s usually a well funded anti-whatever group telling us why nothing else but their pet project is worthy of consideration. Depressing, ain’t it?
Hey, here’s an idea. I think we have a Dept of Energy, a singularly useless Cabinet level Dept, but still, there they are. Ya think maybe they could look into this, or more likely pay some qualified people to look into it? Or maybe have some sort of prize for the guys that come up with workable solutions? I mean, jeeze, it’s been 30 some years since Carter gave us the DoE, could they maybe DO something like coming up with some workable ideas?