The above article is full of over-generalizations and reports taken out of context. I have lived in California, both Northern and Southern, since 1989. From my own personal experience, it has been cooler here in the past several years than it was when I first got here. I don't have any scientific logbooks, but I can make these observations:
-I barely run my A/C in the summer yet my heater (and pool freeze protection) have to run 24 hours most winters.
-We have to wear long sleeves in the middle of summer except for a few hours a day.
-My pool has been much cooler on average in the past 3 years or so than it was previously.
-We still suffer from heat waves, but the rest of the summer is MUCH cooler by comparison.
I don't know. I think all of this reportage conceals the ulterior motives of the organizations behind these various studies. For example, the US Forest Service leadership have wanted conduct controlled burns. I would argue that they should do this since it has historically proven to be healthy for our forests. If linking poor forest management with global warming would turn the tide of public opinion in favor of controlled burns, then have at it USFS. That doesn't mean that I agree with the global warming link. I think it's a stretch, quite frankly.
Many people, including some of my relatives, believe that we should be "acting now" to prevent more anthropogenic global warming. How do they know that their "acting" will actually help and not hurt? Maybe the scope of the recent fires was augmented by previous policies that involved putting out wildfires as quickly as possible as opposed to letting them burn?
We have people feeling so much guilt over all of this that they pay others to plant trees to make up for the CO2 they produce day to day. Guess what? This "action" could me more harmful than doing nothing! Even in the above-mentioned article, there is one nugget pointing at the link between increased tree coverage and surface warming:
"The peak time of melting snow is already about 10 to 15 days earlier in different parts of the West. Scientists have projected a speed-up of 25 to 35 days earlier by the end of this century. A study just released by Purdue University found that at the end of the century, the snowmelt could come 70 days earlier. The effect of the lost snow, and increased heat from solar radiation absorbed in the exposed ground and vegetation, would raise temperatures more than have previously been expected."
There is even a study to show that trees produce methane gas, which contributes to global warming. The trees also give up CO2 when the trees die and rot.
In fact, replacing grasslands with forests, particularly in the high latitudes, probably have a net warming effect on the planet.
Here's another source. I challenge you to find that study reported about, quoted, or even referenced in any mainstream media any time soon. All of these guilty do-gooders might be doing a lot of harm.
