Climate Changes Shift Springtime in Europe

gollum123 writes to mention a BBC article on a study of Europe's changing climate. The study collated information from 17 nations and 125,000 studies involving 561 species. The results indicate that, at least in Europe, 'Spring' is coming earlier and earlier every year. From the article: "Spring was beginning on average six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago, the researchers said. In regions such as Spain, which saw the greatest increases in temperatures, the season began up to two weeks earlier. The findings were based on what was described as the world's largest study of changes in recurring natural events, such as when plants flowered. The team of researchers also found that the onset of autumn has been delayed by an average of three days over the same period."

Comments

30 years ago?

[ZakuSage]

Wasn't there a cooling trend in the 70s, that one that made everyone concerned about global cooling? Wouldn't that skew their results? How is it compared to say 50 years ago?

Re:30 years ago?

[slightlyspacey]

As a matter of fact, there was ... from Newsweek "The Cooling World" April 28, 1975, page 64:

In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

So, as a rough estimate growing seasons are about the same as they were in the 1950s. The researchers only went back 30 years so they wouldn't have to deal with this "anomaly". That is known in some circles as "cooking the data".

Do NOT be alarmed!

[Icyfire0573]

Our president assures us that this is both not a problem, and not happening.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[RsG]

The mods probably saw "cooling trend" and "1970" and assumed the poster was bringing up the tired old arguement that we used to think the earth was headed into a new ice age.

The arguement usually goes that before 1970 we thought there was a new ice age coming, due to a global cooling trend. This is usually followed by the arguement that climate scientists don't know what they're talking about, and that man-made global warming is a myth. What this "talking point" ignores is that the so-called "new ice age" never had much scientific credibility; it is primarily remembered because it had a great deal of press coverage. Further, IIRC the global warming hypothesis goes back to at least 1968.

In every single /. discussion involving climate change, the above arguement is made as a talking point by people who dislike the notion that humans are affecting global temperature. So, after a while I suspect that moderators get a wee bit trigger happy whenever someone mentions the words "cooling" and "1970" in a post about climate change.

Note that the GP's point is valid, as there was an observed period of lower temperature 30 years ago (which is what sparked all the media speculation regarding a new ice age). However, I'm sure the scientists who did this study took that trend into account, and in any case the cooling trend was both brief and comparatively small.

Re:Yes....well......

[Coryoth]

The climate changes on Earth are entirely explicable as natural variation as the IPCC TAR made clear in 2001. The man-made hypothesis is based upon the attribution studies based on climate models.

It's interesting you say that - could you provide me a reference for where the IPCC TAR concludes that the changes are "entirely explicable" as natural forcings? When I read through the conclusion of the attribution chapter I don't see anything about natural forcings providing adequate explanations. On the contrary we have

• "The observed warming is inconsistent with model estimates of natural internal climate variability."
• "The observed warming in the latter half of the 20th century appears to be inconsistent with natural external (solar and volcanic) forcing of the climate system."
• "The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing."
• "Anthropogenic factors do provide an explanation of 20th century temperature change."
• "It is unlikely that detection studies have mistaken a natural signal for an anthropogenic signal."
• "The detection methods used should not be sensitive to errors in the amplitude of the global mean forcing or response."

The best I can grant you is: "Natural factors may have contributed to the early century warming." but the warming in the last several decades cannot adequately be attributed to natural factors alone.

Re:Is it us or is it mother nature?

[evilviper]

If we knew for sure that we humans are causing changes, then we should mend our ways rapidly.

Nonsense.

If the climate change is minor and tolerable, we don't need to do much of anything, even if it's man-made.

If the climate change is going to be catastrophic, we should do something serious about it, even if it is natural.

Whether it's natural or not, has little bearing on whether humans (society) will be able to survive it.