Slashdot Mirror

Why should they be conflicted?

http://www.wmich.edu/corekids/Climate-Change.htm

Any child in the audience for that webpage can take one look at the graph of temperature vs. CO2 and tell how well-correlated they are.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/historical03.jsp

The same child can tell from this graph that CO2 began rising sharply at the beginning of the 1900s and was followed by a very well-correlated rise in temperature.

These aren't models, they're data. If modellers have any problems, it's with their ability to create a mathematical theory to predict temperature from CO2. The Earth does a rather fantastic job of it experimentally, and a non-formulaic, table-driven, statistical method of predicting temperature from CO2 falls out of the data. Using that, plus the rather easy deduction that fossil-fuel consumption created the rise in CO2 over the past century, anyone with any idea what science actually is can tell you that if we don't start to turn that curve flat or down, the temperature will continue to rise along with the CO2.

No conflict there at all, except one manufactured by an industry that pays scientists to pretend they're telling the truth when in fact they're working for the industry.

The folks at the National Academy of Sciences must be either more politically isolated, or they are so married to their "demon sciences" that they aren't into watering down the truth to save funding - I visited their (admittedly small) museum a few months ago and their climate change display pulled no punches (i.e. "CHANGE OR DIE" was the overriding theme).

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/11 10_051110_warming.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. html
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/ causes12.jsp

These are only some of the links you get when you google water vapor and global warming. You might want to read them.

Look at this and this and tell me if it looks like mother nature action:

It'd be at least a pretty damn coincidence if Mother Nature suddenly reversed its slow cooling trend at the very same time humans started using fossil fuels, wouldn't it ?

Have you even bothered to try to google for the relevant research?

Here's a hint - the Earth has cyclic patterns. The problem is that right now there is only one major source of C02.

"The problem is that these phases normally last millions of years, and the transitions between them are often extremely slow"

Antarctic ice cores from the last 300,000 years show something different from what you claim.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/ historical02.jsp The data that I have seen shows that the ice-age cycles last 100,000 years, not millions, and that the transitions can be abrupt. (data from 300,000 years of ice cores from Vostok, Antarctica)

Climate can exhibit abrupt shifts over large regions of the world. As the last glacial period was giving way to the current warm interglacial period, average temperatures in Greenland returned to glacial levels for more than 1,000 years. This unusual period, which is called the Younger Dryas, ended abruptly about 12,000 years ago. Evidence from an ice core drilled in Greenland indicates that temperatures there rose approximately 15F (8C) in less than a decade.

http://www.weathernotebook.org/transcripts/1999/10 /20.html "Scientists used to think that climate took hundreds, even thousands of years to change. Now we know better. Hi, I'm Dave Thurlow from the Mount Washington Observatory and this is The Weather Notebook.

An example of an extremely quick climate change came during a period of time known as the Younger Dryas, which happened right after the last ice age ended, about 12,000 years ago. The Younger Dryas itself lasted about 1,000 years. What we didn't know until recently was just how quickly the Younger Dryas started and stopped. In a period of less than 50 years, the climate from the eastern US and Canada to much of Europe went from climate conditions much like today's, to frigid readings more like the Ice Age, at least a ten degree Farenheit change. That's how it stayed for a thousand years - and then the climate flipped back to normal in as little as 20 years."

Are you just making up your claims?

Do you have data to back them up?

Antarctica goes through cycles every 100,000 years

This is the worst argument I've ever heard, and opponents of global warming just keep citing it, over and over, often associated with the Vostok ice core data

The resolution on that graph is a little over a thousand years. The most dramatic change on the graph is 20 degrees over 10,000 years. The arctic and antarctic have changed 5-7 degrees in the past *200 years*, and the rate seems to be accelerating. Of this 5-7 degrees, about half of it has occurred in the past 50 years alone. At the current rate (ignoring things like the rapidly expanding industrialization of China), it would implement that fast 10,000 year change in 250 years.

Furthermore, the Vostok cores drive home an additional point: The temperature is almost always correlated with CO2 concentraions. CO2 concetrations are rising rapidly, and completely predictably. We consume >80bbl per day; that's 12.72 trillion liters, which is about 10 trillion kilograms. Assuming heptane as the average length, that's 7 carbons and 16 hydrogens, about 63% carbon, so 6.3 trillion kilograms of carbon per day (i.e., 6.3e12 kg CO2). In 50 years, that's 1.15e17 kg CO2. The mass of the entire atmosphere is 5.3e18kg, and a current (already high) 0.0353 percent CO2, that's 1.87e15 kg CO2. I.e., at our current rate alone, we would put *61 times* more CO2 from oil alone into our atmosphere in the next 50 years then are in our atmosphere currently.

Now, if you want to look at the balance of how quickly that CO2 will get eaten up and compares to natural generation, we can do that calculation, too - I just wanted to point out the fact that the amount of CO2 we're adding is really quite huge in comparison to what's in our atmosphere.

Ok, well, what if there's some rapid changes in historic temperature that are too high resolution to show up on the Vostok cores? We have much more detailed methods for the past two thousand years - here's the graph for that period

Any questions?

And global warming is caused by cows farting.

From the website:
"Best enjoyed by visitors ages 13 and older, the museum will explore current scientific issues at the core of many of the nation's public policy decisions, as presented in reports by the National Academies."

Admissions:
Adults: $5
Seniors (65+), Active Duty Military (w/ ID), Students (w/ ID), Children(ages 5 - 18): $3

So the target age range is a little higher... Interesting to note that children 5-13 have to pay $3 to see exhibits that are not meant for them.