Um, the geese are migrating kinda early

[cgallery]

Both my wife and I noticed this independently. It seems like the geese around here (SE Wisconsin) are heading south kinda early this year. Started noticing vee formations about a week ago. Came out of a meeting this last Saturday and saw them resting in a park near the Milwaukee river. Tons of them.

My wife found an article in the paper this morning about some migratory bird in Europe indicating that an early/harsh winter was on the way there, too.

If I had to guess I'd say they are a good 2-3 weeks early this year.

Anyone notice anything similar?

[sparkeyjames]

Kinda throws the global warming argument to the curb doesn't it?

[gwyneth]

My Samoyed's undercoat seems to be coming in early and thick. Plus, several old-timers up here in northern Wisconsin have said they expect a bad winter.

[stormdog74]

Kinda throws the global warming argument to the curb doesn't it?

Actually, quite the opposite. Global Warming causes great variation to normal weather patterns - you will see extremes in the severity of the weather; some places will be hotter, some colder, some will be more prone to drought, some will have record rainfalls, and, yes, some will have severe snowfalls. The real fear of Global Warming is not necessarily the warming itself, but the changes the warming will cause, such as a rise in sea level.

[Pappy]

With the wet, relatively cool spring and sumer we have had this year a lot of the trees are turning and droping their leaves already. Not normal around here until mid-October.

[Slik Geek]

Actually, quite the opposite. Global Warming causes great variation to normal weather patterns - you will see extremes in the severity of the weather; some places will be hotter, some colder, some will be more prone to drought, some will have record rainfalls, and, yes, some will have severe snowfalls.

When it's hot, the blame is global warming. When it's cold, the blame is global warming. When it's flooding, the blame is global warming. When it's a drought, the blame is global warming.

Whatever the evidence, the theory is adjusted so that the cause is global warming. They have reached a conclusion, and then evidence is selected to confirm. Grossly unscientific.

There has been significant variations in weather long before man's industrial age. This fact is conveniently ignored by certain climalogists because that evidence doesn't fit their conclusion.

[stormdog74]

When it's hot, the blame is global warming. When it's cold, the blame is global warming. When it's flooding, the blame is global warming. When it's a drought, the blame is global warming.

Whatever the evidence, the theory is adjusted so that the cause is global warming. They have reached a conclusion, and then evidence is selected to confirm. Grossly unscientific.

There has been significant variations in weather long before man's industrial age. This fact is conveniently ignored by certain climalogists because that evidence doesn't fit their conclusion.

What evidence do you have that they are selecting evidence for a "reached conclusion"? The science is overwhelming for anyone bothering to truly investigate it. Scientists are some of the most skeptical people in the world - and they have come to this conclusion after decades of suspecting it - it is not something new, it is just now finally receiving attention.

I remember when politicians argued against smog control, seat belts, air bags, etc. Los Angeles has far more cars than a few decades ago and less smog - maybe we should have ignored the evidence back then? There are many more drivers, but fewer people die from accidents - maybe we should have believed the politicians who were in the pockets of the car industry?

Most people who put down Global Warming have no idea what they are talking about - do a little research looking into the real science and not the political speech. There was a time when scientists were condemned for claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun - come on, just look, it's "obvious" the Sun revolves around the Earth! It gets cold in winter, so how could there be Global Warming!?

[steve-norrell]

Haven't seen any goosey "V"s yet. And, there is no termination dust visible on the mountains. Trees have not started to change colors, but the Mountain Ash berries are bright red. Weather has been warmer and drier than usual for this time of year, but winter is on the way.

Planning a float and fishing trip on the Kenai River next week so I hope winter holds off until then.

Hoping for a mild winter, regards, Steve

[Sawduster]

There was a time when scientists were condemned for claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun - come on, just look, it's "obvious" the Sun revolves around the Earth! It gets cold in winter, so how could there be Global Warming!?

And now there are scientists being condemned for not giving in to the global warming hysteria. There is a far cry from a consensus in science as far as global warming is concerned, but those who disagree are threatened with sanctions, and ostracized by the politically driven environmentalists. Heck, if any of them were serious about anything aside from destroying western civilization, the Kyoto treaty would not give the huge exceptions to places like China and India and the expense of the West. Al Gore would quit jetting around making speeches while consuming 10 times the carbon based energy used by average homes with his huge mansion.

Heck, in the 70s it was global cooling that was the hysteria of the moment. A coming ice age. Fact is, the earth's climate has been changing for millions of years and man really had nothing to do with it and still does not.

The big CFC scare which recently reared its head again and cause asthma sufferers to have to start buying patent meds because non-cfc delivery mechanisms for the same meds were brought onto the market and the old versions removed. Wake up, CFC are heavier than air. The only way they get into the atmosphere to mess with the ozone is through volcanic eruptions which spew all sorts of stuff, including cfcs way up in the air.

It's all about money, power, and politics and regardless of how much we give up, there's always gonna be another scare to have us give up more.

Oh, BTW, my live oaks are already shedding more leaves than normal for this time of year, and this after a particularly dragged out dormant season with the cooler temps that left them almost barren of leaves before they decided it was summer time and time to sprout new ones.

[Ed62]

Haven't seen any goosey Vees yet, but we've noticed a few trees turning color. Seems a little early for that. My neighbor and I both have cherry trees. His has lost all the leaves, and ours has lost most. Don't know if they have a disease, or if they're just dropping early. I like fall, but I'm in no hurry for winter.

Ed

[Slik Geek]

My apologies for the post detour...

What evidence do you have that they are selecting evidence for a "reached conclusion"?!?

Read Scientific American August 2007, pp 64-73, for example (The Physical Science Behind Climate Change). But read it as a scientist should, with skepticism, looking for flaws in their "science".

The science is overwhelming for anyone bothering to truly investigate it.

Therein lies the problem. A number of climatologists have convinced themselves that the evidence is overwhelming that they have lost any ability to exhibit objectivity. They have lost that skepticism that you describe.

...they have come to this conclusion after decades of suspecting it - it is not something new, it is just now finally receiving attention.

Actually, at least as early as 1963, climatologists feared that we were experiencing global cooling. I have a copy of the February 8, 1963 issue of Life magazine. On the front cover is the statement: “1963: Most Savage Winter of the Century”. On page 29 the article subtitle trumpets, “Record Blast of Arctic Weather Whips the World”. The first sentence of the article: “It was as though – terrifying thought – a new Ice Age was at hand... For more than a month a succession of storms transformed normally temperate lands into a vast extension of the polar cap.” The article shows the intense winter’s effects on three continents in the northern hemisphere.

I remember when politicians argued against smog control, seat belts, air bags, etc. Los Angeles has far more cars than a few decades ago and less smog - maybe we should have ignored the evidence back then?

I actually played a significant role in improving the specification for and the implementation of California's BAR-90 emissions testing program in 1989. I'm glad that the evidence wasn't ignored. I'm just asking that people stop ignoring evidence that casts doubts on global warming claims.

Most people who put down Global Warming have no idea what they are talking about - do a little research looking into the real science and not the political speech.

Actually, it was when I stopped listening to the political speech and looked at the "science" of human-induced warming of the earth that I became skeptical. The majority of political speech seems to be promoting global warming theories.

How can I trust what a climatologist says about what will happen in our weather over the next three decades, when their first cousins, meteorologists, struggle to accurately predict the weather 3 days from now, less than 3/100s of a percent of the time span. What galls me is the “confidence” that climatologists place in their claims, such as 90% certainty! (Read the cited article). Those who take science seriously should be embarrassed.

Remember how the global warming alarmists claimed that we were going to have a really bad year for hurricanes last season because of man’s destruction of our climate? We didn’t hear much from them when the year turned out to be rather “normal” with respect to hurricanes. Each year they’ll predict the same, so that when the natural variation in hurricanes results in a bad year, they can claim, “see, we told you it was going to happen due to global warming!” (Never mind the countless previously wrong predictions).

The claims are largely based upon estimates and simulations. The problem is that the only data available to build and test simulations shows the result of all stimuli (natural and manmade). It is impossible to scientifically test these simulations with partial stimuli because there is no actual partial data available. As a result, the assumptions that went into creating the models signficantly impact the partial simulation results. (Meteorologists use simulations for their weather predictions, and even though they can fine tune their models far more frequently than climatologists, they still haven't reached 90% certainty).

Based upon your response, you seem rather zealous for the global warming cause. I hope that you can set that aside for just a moment and look at pages 72 and 73 of the cited article. It typifies the “global warming due to human influence” bias:

Global warming only has negative results. Heavier precipitation is all bad; despite the fact the arid regions might now become productive. Increased land temperatures in high-latitude lands is portrayed as bad, despite the fact that those areas would experience a longer growing season. “Trees coming into leaf earlier” is bad, according to the article. This apparently has no effect on the conversion of carbon dioxide into oxygen because that positive effect is ignored.

Only harm to the ecology and to humankind is described in the article. (To be fair, a couple of brief, good effects are mentioned, but all are explained as becoming bad as time progresses). Page 73 describes the results of global warming throughout the world, and it is all bad news!

Alarmists can only convey bad news. Why? Bad news gets impassioned responses (emotional reactions) and more funding for their research. An honest scientist would objectively describe the results of the climate changes, including the good and the bad. That objectivity is unmistakably missing among many global warming believers.

If the concern was global cooling, you can be sure that the result of it would be all bad news as well.

[stormdog74]

First off, I do apologize for turning this innocent topic into a somewhat controversial discussion. I was only responding to what was clearly an innocuous comment by sparkeyjames - I thought my original comment was equally so, but apparently it was not.

That said, I do feel the need to respond to both Sawduster and Slik Geek.

There is a far cry from a consensus in science as far as global warming is concerned, but those who disagree are threatened with sanctions, and ostracized by the politically driven environmentalists. Heck, if any of them were serious about anything aside from destroying western civilization, the Kyoto treaty would not give the huge exceptions to places like China and India and the expense of the West. Al Gore would quit jetting around making speeches while consuming 10 times the carbon based energy used by average homes with his huge mansion.

There is actually a very strong consensus. Sure, you can find some legitimate scientists who disagree, but you can always find "another side" of any debate - this is why there is a Flat Earth Society - but by and large there is a strong consensus among the scientific community. I agree with you about the Kyoto Treaty and Al Gore, but that is politics and not science.

Heck, in the 70s it was global cooling that was the hysteria of the moment. A coming ice age. Fact is, the earth's climate has been changing for millions of years and man really had nothing to do with it and still does not.

The hysteria was created by the media - global cooling was just a conjecture that had very little scientific backing and quickly was discarded, but the media is always quick to jump on something like that. Likewise, Global Warming was a conjecture, but in this case the evidence has mounted over the years.

Read Scientific American August 2007, pp 64-73, for example (The Physical Science Behind Climate Change). But read it as a scientist should, with skepticism, looking for flaws in their "science".

I know the article and it makes a very strong case for Global Warming. I did read it skeptically as I read all articles (I have a strong background in Mathematics, Statistics, and Physics and I am very aware of attempts to deceive) but while I will agree that it is a bit of a doom and gloom article, the points made clearly lead to a high likelihood that something is going on. How bad, we can only speculate. But since we don't know for sure, should we just do nothing? There is a high likelihood I will make it to retirement, but maybe I won't, so maybe I should just forget about saving and spend it today.

Actually, at least as early as 1963, climatologists feared that we were experiencing global cooling. I have a copy of the February 8, 1963 issue of Life magazine. On the front cover is the statement: “1963: Most Savage Winter of the Century”. On page 29 the article subtitle trumpets, “Record Blast of Arctic Weather Whips the World”. The first sentence of the article: “It was as though – terrifying thought – a new Ice Age was at hand... For more than a month a succession of storms transformed normally temperate lands into a vast extension of the polar cap.” The article shows the intense winter’s effects on three continents in the northern hemisphere.

See my comment above - and I wouldn't call Life magazine a scientific source.

I actually played a significant role in improving the specification for and the implementation of California's BAR-90 emissions testing program in 1989. I'm glad that the evidence wasn't ignored. I'm just asking that people stop ignoring evidence that casts doubts on global warming claims.

Agreed - I was actually very doubtful of Global Warming myself, and have slowly come around to believe it is probably happening. I don't believe the scientists are ignoring the evidence that cast doubts - that is what the politicians do, on both sides. Good scientists always look for evidence against their theories, and then try to resolve them.

How can I trust what a climatologist says about what will happen in our weather over the next three decades, when their first cousins, meteorologists, struggle to accurately predict the weather 3 days from now, less than 3/100s of a percent of the time span. What galls me is the “confidence” that climatologists place in their claims, such as 90% certainty! (Read the cited article). Those who take science seriously should be embarrassed.

Don't confuse meteorologists with scientists. Day to day weather is chaotic and cannot be predicted with any confidence beyond a couple of days - don't get me started on seven day forecasts! This is different, and the 90% is a probability. All that means is that they believe there is a 10% chance they are wrong - they do admit, as I do, that they may be wrong. That is not somehting you will hear a politician say!

Remember how the global warming alarmists claimed that we were going to have a really bad year for hurricanes last season because of man’s destruction of our climate? We didn’t hear much from them when the year turned out to be rather “normal” with respect to hurricanes. Each year they’ll predict the same, so that when the natural variation in hurricanes results in a bad year, they can claim, “see, we told you it was going to happen due to global warming!” (Never mind the countless previously wrong predictions).

These people are idiots, and are clearly not scientists - again, please don't confuse meteorologists with scientists! The thing to look at is the long term trend. It is like the stock market - you can predict anything you want over the short term and sometimes you will be right and sometimes you will be wrong, but the evidence is clear that over the long run stocks are a good investment, although not a certainty.

Based upon your response, you seem rather zealous for the global warming cause. I hope that you can set that aside for just a moment and look at pages 72 and 73 of the cited article. It typifies the “global warming due to human influence” bias:

No, as I said earlier, I had my doubts - and still do - and contrary to what this discussion may imply, I am not out there banging the drum for Global Warming! And I understand your point, and I agree to the extent that many of the claims are probably at least somewhat exaggerations. This is the product of politics and the media though - and it has the negative effect of leaving people not knowing what to believe.

That said, change to the planet is usually not a good thing for those who have adapted to living in it today. Yes, some will certainly benefit from Global Warming, but for most, it will be a problem. How much, we have no idea, but is it best to wait and do nothing when the evidence is this compelling? Would it have been better to believe the automakers and not introduce smog controls?

All that said - and yes, I know I have said enough! - I don't believe much will be done. Most people are concerned with today and not tomorrow. Just look at the national debt and how much people owe on credit cards. Hey, it won't affect me - let the Grandkids pay the debt and deal with Global Warming - hey it might even all go away by itself, so why worry about it.

[cgallery]

My $.02 on global warming:

It seems to be the current "the sky is falling" claim du jour.

The system being studied is too vast, the variables too numerous, and the periods too great for anyone to seriously claim an ability to develop a worthwhile model.

So I'm fairly skeptical of scientists willing to draw conclusions based upon the current volume of data.

Unfortunately, I don't have as high an opinion of scientists as perhaps many of you do.

Why? Because every time I open the newspaper I read a new article about the health benefits of drinking wine or eating apples or cheese or whatever. The article is typically based on a scientific study funded by an association directly benefiting from the research.

Human nature being what it is, I don't see scientists studying global warming as much different. I do believe that there is an underlying economic incentive for scientists to write checks that their facts can't cash.

I do consider myself an environmentalist. I have one car and three drivers in my house, and we drive as little as possible. I bike and walk as much as possible (including to work, almost every single day of the year). I don't use chemicals on my lawn, recycle as much as humanly possible, yada yada yada.

But I do it for the immediate impact: I save money on gas and car maintenance. The water I drink has fewer chemicals from fertilizer runoff. The aluminum I buy is less expensive because of the aluminum I recycle.

Environmentalists are missing the boat, to a degree. They keep telling people to drive less and alter other behaviors to avoid a climactic catastrophe that may or may not come. They need to start hitting the finer points of savings and improvement in quality of life that would be immediately recognized.

Just too much energy being wasted on the global warming message.

[sweensdv]

My take on this whole thing is that geese poop way too much and interfere with my environment and I don't like it. They can't take themselves and their poop South fast enough for me. On the other hand, they are extremely delicious to eat .

[jking]

Unfortunately, I don't have as high an opinion of scientists as perhaps many of you do.

Here's one of my favorite sayings from when I was in college...

Q. What's the difference between a scientist (or mathematician) & an engineer.

A. Engineers have judgement.