Posted on 07/28/2003 9:08:58 AM PDT by cogitator
Northern N.E. winter shrinking, study says
New England winters -- those storied, interminable seasons of yesteryear -- just aren't what they used to be. In fact, in northern New England, their duration may now be a week or two shorter than in the 1960s, according to the US Geological Survey.
In a study to be published Friday in the Journal of Hydrology, scientists who examined historic river flow data report that spring has accelerated by one to two weeks in northern New England, though the trend is inconsistent in the southern part of the region.
That may be tough news to take after the past winter, which seemed, to many, to last a lifetime. But despite annual variables, the study says the long-term trend is consistent with changes previously documented on the New England springscape: lilacs blooming earlier in the past decade than in the 1950s and '60s; ice disappearing sooner from lakes. And, while the scientists resist blaming any human causes, they point directly to the rising thermometer as the Grinch stealing the ski season.
The ecological changes noted by diverse studies in recent years suggest temperature increases are ''the cause of earlier springs in New England in the last 30 years,'' the study states.
The study is likely to become another flashpoint in the debate over how much human releases of carbon dioxide and other so-called ''greenhouse gases'' are contributing to global warming. But while scientists debate the influence of vehicle exhaust and other human factors, they agree temperatures are on the rise. In the last century, the temperature has risen by one degree Fahrenheit worldwide, and more at northern latitudes. In Amherst, the US Environmental Protection Agency reports, the temperature has increased 2 degrees Fahrenheit over the century.
''Winter is in retreat. Fall appears that it's beginning to be changed,'' said Rafe Pomerance, a former Clinton environmental official who now heads Americans for Equitable Climate Solutions. ''This is a profound alteration of what we've known New England is.''
The USGS tapped data from gauging stations in use for an average of 68 years, along 27 rivers in New England. Just one Massachusetts river, the North, was represented in the sample and it showed water flows consistent with an earlier spring. To prevent variability, the study did not include rivers in urban areas, which may be affected by other changes over time such as increasing runoff from pavement, or rivers being regulated by dams that may have changed the flows.
The scientists examined the river's peak flow -- the highest daily flow in a season -- as well as the date by which half the river's flow had passed a gauging station, or roughly the midpoint of the spring runoff. They also examined fall flows for evidence of early evaporation or increased rain rather than snow.
They tracked the data changes with information on air temperature and precipitation from the US Historical Climatology Network.
The geologists report that the midpoint of spring runoff has gotten progressively earlier -- mostly since the late 1960s -- in the northern and mountainous areas of New England. There were no gauging stations in or directly near Boston, and significant changes were not documented here, said Glenn Hodgkins, the study's lead author and a USGS hydrologist in Augusta, Maine. Taken together, the stations in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island did not show consistent trends for earlier springs, Hodgkins said.
''It tended to be more in the northerly mountainous parts of New England, where you have more snowmelts in the spring,'' Hodgkins said. ''The trend from other parts of New England weren't nearly as strong.''
The study found earlier flows at the 11 river gauging stations where snowmelt has the most effect on spring river flows. But the study did not address potential reasons for the warming trend. Hodgkins also said his study could not determine if the increased temperatures caused earlier springs.
''We saw there was a strong relation between the spring river flows and spring temperatures, but showing a strong relationship doesn't necessarily mean one causes the other,'' Hodgkins said.
Others said studies like these are crucial to documenting tangible and current effects of warming trends.
''To me, it's just one more piece in the puzzle that tells me that our environment is changing at a rapid pace,'' said Michael D. Stoddard, deputy director of Environment Northeast, a nonprofit regional advocacy group with offices in Connecticut and Maine.
''It's one thing to watch thermometers change over time,'' Pomerance added, ''but it's another thing to actually observe it on the ground in this way.''
I believe Boston averages 43 inches of snow a year (that's from memory and could be wrong). About 10 years ago, we got over 8 feet of snow. Three years ago, we had snow on the ground for about 6 months straight (very unusual). The last winter (as I stated) was very cold and unpleasant.
I really do not see much evidence of Global Warming in New England over the past 10 years. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a resident.
I don't know how closely you read the article, but you state the truth. One winter does not a trend make. I live near the "mountains" of Maryland, and we can have decent winters, and this last one was tough. But it was the first one I remember since 1996 that was notably tough.
Here's a quote from the article that addresses what you said.
"That may be tough news to take after the past winter, which seemed, to many, to last a lifetime. But despite annual variables, the study says the long-term trend is consistent with changes previously documented on the New England springscape: lilacs blooming earlier in the past decade than in the 1950s and '60s; ice disappearing sooner from lakes. And, while the scientists resist blaming any human causes, they point directly to the rising thermometer as the Grinch stealing the ski season."
A week or two shorter? That is a 100% margin of error.
The study is likely to become another flashpoint in the debate over how much human releases of carbon dioxide and other so-called ''greenhouse gases'' are contributing to global warming.
This study just proves that the flow patterns of selected NE rivers has changed in the last 30 years.
Having said that, I think that "the other side" is not too different from me. This article, as you point out, focuses not on the quality of the winters, but on the duration. I suspect (maybe 'cause I'm paranoid) that if there was nothing to talk about in terms of duration, they would cobble some data together about the quality of the winter. And if they couldn't get the "right" data on either duration or quality, they'd go with something else: "moisture-content of the snow has reached unprecedented heights", or some such.
I am not scientific in my disdain for Global Warming.
I feel that many scientists are not scientific in their promoting of Global Warming.
It's called noise. The winter length might be going down, ON AVERAGE, but that does not mean that every single winter is going to be shorter than the last. Statistics 101.
That's hard to judge based on a media report about a scientific study. It would be much better to read the report's conclusions. But I took a quick look and found the USGS press release about the study:
Rivers Indicate Earlier Spring in New England
Critical section in determining what they actually conclude in the paper:
"The scientists compared the dates by which half of the total volume of winter/spring runoff has flowed past a river gaging station. Significantly earlier dates were noted at all 11 gaging stations in northern and mountainous areas of New England where snowmelt runoff has the most effect on spring river flows. The “center” of the winter/spring runoff near the end of the 20th century is as much as two weeks earlier than it had been at the beginning of the century."
Meaning: when the media interprets a scientific study, they look for the upper bounds, rather than the mean. My guess is that the mean for all of the rivers is about a 10-day earlier peak streamflow, which is consistent with the winter freeze/spring thaw data for lakes and rivers compiled a couple of years ago.
Doesn't a lot depend on which way the winds are blowing over Lake Ontario and Erie? (And how warm they are, to generate lake-effect snow?)
Oh yeah. If the wind is right, you are in for a treat. Unless you have to venture out in your car. But this is rare. Extreme cold is rare. Hurricanes are rare ['38 was interesting, they were still talking about it in '58. In other words, don't count on a great winter. If you stay 20 years you will probably experience a couple decently memorable winters.
Last year was pretty awful - the winter that never ended. Where do these idiots come up with this garbage? From their private homes in FL?
You bring up points that I frequently bring up when this topic comes up. To date, I never met an astronomer who believes in global warming. There are far too many variables: the output of the sun being the biggest. A tiny, tiny change in solar output can really ruin your day/month/year here. And there is NOTHING we can do on this planet that effects solar output.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.