realclimate.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Historical Data Readings by TapeCutter · 2006-09-26 17:45 · Score: 1 · on Study Finds World Warmth Edging to Ancient Levels

"they won't switch to a different viewpoint in 20 years!"

Who has "switched viewpoints", and please don't bring up the scientists predicted an ice age in the 70's crap, I am also old enough to remember the "hysteria".

"The automatic assumption that anyone who isn't certain about global warming is a republican is one of the aspects of the debate that makes me so suspicious."

True, it is a weak minded assumption and nobody is certain about anything unless we are talking blind faith, but when you have republican senators blatantly hijacking science, it is obvious many people will follow thier lead and resort to partisan dogma themselves. Perhaps if you aquainted yourself with the science instead of the politics you would be less "suspicious".

No, they weren't. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-09-26 09:46 · Score: 1 · on Study Finds World Warmth Edging to Ancient Levels

"In the 70s scientists were predicting an ice age"

Here's why. by Grendel+Drago · 2006-09-26 09:42 · Score: 1 · on Study Finds World Warmth Edging to Ancient Levels

Then my good man please explain to me why temps actually dropped during the CO2 explosion casued by our industrial revolution.

Partly because of smog. Particulate crap thrown into the atmosphere effectively dims the sun. It also causes smog, acid rain, all sorts of other bad things.) Because the air is cleaner than it was, this effect is less than it was. See here.

The computer models they use for these gloom and doom predictions are nothing we should be looking at for reliable info. They are built on flawed and incomplete data sets. Think about it. We can't even reliably predict the weather for a week yet we are supposed to beleive they can predict the weather decades or centuries into the future? Get real. Our climate systems are incredibly complex. We do not understand all the dynamics at work here.

"Climate modeling isn't scientific"

Re:First part is EASY. Second part is hard. by Valdrax · 2006-09-21 02:00 · Score: 1 · on California Sues Automakers for Global Warming

For more info than you'll ever need, go to Real Climate.

Also, why a mere 200 years? 200 years is EASY to find information on. The changes in the atmosphere and weather over the past 200 years is the most double-checked and verified data that we have. It's indisputable.

It's going back thousands or millions of years to verify that earth isn't experiencing a natural cycle that people usually ask for because that's the hard part where the methods to reach back further and further become fewer and fewer until you start being unable to verify against multiple sources of data and have to prove the validity of your data through other means.

The best we can do indisputably to measure CO2 levels so far is 800,000 years from ice samples in Antarctica. We can get measures of temperature through oxygen isotope ratios, and we find that they correlate nicely. Honestly. The data is indisputable to people who are impartial and open to reason like most judges are.

Whatever do you mean? by Grendel+Drago · 2006-09-20 07:08 · Score: 1 · on Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages

Could you be a bit more specific about what you mean by "the ideals of Western Civilization"? It makes me think of the Enlightenment, but maybe you had something else in mind. I went to a school that seemed very up on the whole Enlightenment thing---you must be talking about something else. But what? Western Civilization is a phenomenon thousands of years old, which for most of its history was perfectly okay with slavery, racism and the subjugation of women---things that we're not cool with today. If you're talking about those things, then I'd reckon that you'd only find those things well-supported at, yes, BJU or Liberty.

On the other hand, you'd probaby find things like a belief that knowledge is good, that citizens should be equal under the law, that slavery is evil, and that citizens should be free to practice their religion as long as that practice doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

So it really depends on what you mean by Western Civilization. What did you mean?

Sorry guys, the science related to global warming has been so politicized about all you can do at this point is ask us to take it on your word, and that ain't worth spit anymore.

Which, if you've been paying attention, was the whole purpose of the disinformation campaign. If scientific truth is decided by whoever can hire the better sockpuppet with a doctorate, the concept becomes meaningless.

Scientists as a group have a long record of being on the wrong side of history,

Could you provide some examples of what you mean by scientists being on the wrong side of history? I generally think of science as having done pretty well for people (electriciy, medicine, sanitation, the internet, that sort of thing), so I'm having trouble seeing where you're coming from.

enviromentalists were among the worst of the bunch when it came to aiding and abeting the Soviets.

Are you... calling me a commie?

Apart from that, you'll find that most social justice struggles that we consider a done deal today (women should be able to own property, black people should be able to vote) were heavily supported in their day by liberals, progressives and yes, Communists. They may have been supporting monstrously murderous regimes on the opposite hemisphere, but if you're going to start tarring every movement supported by Communists over the last fifty years, you're going to look mighty strange.

That said, I still don't see how that would make a difference, even if you had backed up your claim with evidence. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here.) Linus Pauling had wacky ideas about Vitamin C later in life. We're not all megadosing on Vitamin C, despite Pauling winning that Nobel Prize. William Shockley may have invented the transistor, but that didn't make his racism fly in the scientific community.

And I'm old enough to remember that back in the 1970's it was the Impending Ice Age that was going to kill us all, yet the proposed solution of eliminating industrial civilization (but only in the West, the 'developing world' had to be left alone) was the only way to save the world! When the science supporting an Ice Age evaporated we instantly went to Global Warming and amazingly both the cause (the wretched excesses of Western Civilization) and the solution were the same.

Finally, an actual claim. The scientific press never claimed an impending catastrophic ice age. The popular press did. The scientific consensus, then, was that more research was needed. The scientific consensus, now, is that anthropogenic global warming requires public policy changes. The current situation, the current consensus, is without precedent.

Plug for plug by Mateo_LeFou · 2006-09-19 07:56 · Score: 3, Informative · on Big Tobacco Funded Anti-Global Warming Messages

Response to MC by professional climatologist. Summary: He's not right.

Re:I predict by thegnu · 2006-09-14 02:01 · Score: 1 · on The Hard Drive Turns 50

Minutes was most likely an exaggeration. I'm still repeating what I've heard from scientific reports. The basic premise is:

http://exploreourpla.net/2006-08-16/greenlands-gla ciers-are-melting-faster.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=267
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=5298864

And if a large enough piece cracks off and falls into the ocean, we're all gonna die. Well, me, because I live in Florida. The problem with the ice in Greenland is that since the ice is on top of land, as it falls into the ocean, it drastically increases the ocean levels, whereas glacial mass already floating in the ocean only increases it slightly.

Anyway, regardless of who's smoking crack, search for greenland on this page:
http://www.climatecrisiscoalition.org/blog/?cat=2

Re:The Gurdian lies by TapeCutter · 2006-09-11 21:31 · Score: 1 · on Faster Global Warming From Permafrost Melt

Not a bad summary. I am probably not telling you anything new but one of the best places on the web for in depth reporting of climate science is RealClimate. It's also and excellent source for articles that debunk common myths and assumptions. One of my favorite examples is the false (but common) assumption that economic models are more robust than climate models, leading to the politicaly inspired myth that international regulation of CO2 emmisions will "destroy the economy".

As for TFA, methane from permafrost is nothing new to people who follow the science. I think it was last year when they picked out the large methane "anomoly" hovering over siberia. What is new (and bad) is the observed rate (5X what was expected). Another study observed a huge increase in the number and area of fresh water lakes across siberia and interpreted the results as a faster than expected permafrost melt. Same sort of results from a study looking at the output from siberian rivers.

Results from climate models have consitently underestimated the volatility of permafrost. A half dozen years ago models were predicting permafrost would start melting in 20-50yrs, yet buildings, bridges and roads in Russia and Alaska are already sinking into the ever expanding mud. The one ray of hope in all this is that acctuaries in the big insurance companies have taken a good look at the risks and those (very influential) companies are now starting to act accordingly.

Do I think it's "the end of the world"? No, but what happens when I combine "global warming" with "peak-oil" and "the sixth great extinction"? Suddenly my grandkids suffering through a major downward "correction" for the "population explosion", followed by a second dark-age in an environment only fit for goats, becomes a very real possibility. Much more real than someone like OBL enforcing it on us via kamakazi tactics and home made videos.

Re:Here comes the flood... by Chops · 2006-09-06 04:56 · Score: 1 · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

Sudden massive uptrend in CO2? So what? If, as you choose to believe, the uptick in CO2 is purely manmade, and the uptrick in CO2 is purely the cause of global change, then you might have a point. I'm not at all so sure that either are established.

Okay. Climatologists worldwide are convinced; you seem to be saying that they should be less confident than they are. I'm not going to debate the science with you, here on slashdot, but answer me this: If the downside to them being right and the world not doing anything about it is a worldwide catastrophe, how much evidence should we have before dismissing their claims as "not certain"?

I'll just touch on a few of your sillier points.

Why should things ALWAYS be the way they are today? It's somewhat interesting as the kind of ultimate in conservatism.

That's so ridiculous that I think I'll just let it stand on its own :-).

Melting icecaps--well, that doesn't totally jive with actual evidence out there--in fact there's been some recent articles discussing glacial growth.

Glaciers are growing in some areas because of increased precipitation, which is often a local effect of global warming (as is local drought; it depends on the area). Are you actually saying that that means that the ice caps aren't melting right now?

You seem awfully invested in being sure that EVERYTHING that happens environmentally is a sign of the coming apocalypse that you laid out in your last post--THIS is the reason I have trouble with people that take stands like you, and I don't think the so-called global consensus is anything like you make it out to be. Besides which, since when has "consensus" EVER had anything to do with science? Science isn't a consensus game--we're not talking english lit or such here.

I should warn you, I also take stands on the existence of gravity and evolution :-). Conviction is fine as long as you back it up with evidence. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. Broad agreement among scientists does actually mean that the thing being agreed upon is more likely to be true than not. I can't believe I even have to argue these statements.

Again, let's talk the 1970s--30 years ago, there was STRONG consensus towards global cooling.

We already talked about this.

When I read your post I see fear fear fear, in that many words--look back on your posts--they are obsessed with how bad things will be. I don't get it. Things always change.

That's it -- argue the person, not the facts. That's the spirit!

Re:Here comes the flood... by Chops · 2006-09-06 04:56 · Score: 1 · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

Sudden massive uptrend in CO2? So what? If, as you choose to believe, the uptick in CO2 is purely manmade, and the uptrick in CO2 is purely the cause of global change, then you might have a point. I'm not at all so sure that either are established.

Okay. Climatologists worldwide are convinced; you seem to be saying that they should be less confident than they are. I'm not going to debate the science with you, here on slashdot, but answer me this: If the downside to them being right and the world not doing anything about it is a worldwide catastrophe, how much evidence should we have before dismissing their claims as "not certain"?

I'll just touch on a few of your sillier points.

Why should things ALWAYS be the way they are today? It's somewhat interesting as the kind of ultimate in conservatism.

That's so ridiculous that I think I'll just let it stand on its own :-).

Melting icecaps--well, that doesn't totally jive with actual evidence out there--in fact there's been some recent articles discussing glacial growth.

Glaciers are growing in some areas because of increased precipitation, which is often a local effect of global warming (as is local drought; it depends on the area). Are you actually saying that that means that the ice caps aren't melting right now?

You seem awfully invested in being sure that EVERYTHING that happens environmentally is a sign of the coming apocalypse that you laid out in your last post--THIS is the reason I have trouble with people that take stands like you, and I don't think the so-called global consensus is anything like you make it out to be. Besides which, since when has "consensus" EVER had anything to do with science? Science isn't a consensus game--we're not talking english lit or such here.

I should warn you, I also take stands on the existence of gravity and evolution :-). Conviction is fine as long as you back it up with evidence. There is a scientific consensus on global warming. Broad agreement among scientists does actually mean that the thing being agreed upon is more likely to be true than not. I can't believe I even have to argue these statements.

Again, let's talk the 1970s--30 years ago, there was STRONG consensus towards global cooling.

We already talked about this.

When I read your post I see fear fear fear, in that many words--look back on your posts--they are obsessed with how bad things will be. I don't get it. Things always change.

That's it -- argue the person, not the facts. That's the spirit!

Re:Here comes the flood... by Chops · 2006-09-05 10:38 · Score: 1 · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

I regret to inform you that you have scored only two boxes in global warming skeptic bingo. They are, however, connected -- if you merely claim that 17,000 scientists signed a petition claiming that global warming is a lie, and that urban heat islands are contaminating the surface record, then I may complete my column and possibly win valuable prizes.

Also, what's this about "zeal and fervor?" I'm posting to slashdot, for Christ's sake. I'm assuming from your post that you don't believe any of this book larnin' about the planet getting warmer, so just look at it from my point of view: I believe that the planet is being pushed (essentially irreversibly) across a climatological barrier the far side of which contains massive flooding of costal cities, crop failure, drought, hurricanes, massive migration of starving or displaced people, war, and certainly the end of the comfortable first-world standard of living I (in the US) have become accustomed to.

What am I doing about it? I'm typing words into a little computer box, communicating with anonymous people who are picking their noses in basements thousands of miles from here and will never meet me or care what I have to say. That's basically my strategy.

And you're accusing me of too much zeal and fervor? Huh. That honestly hadn't crossed my mind.

Re:Skeptical by uncadonna · 2006-09-05 10:09 · Score: 2, Informative · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

Ah, the Mars thing rears its head, as usual.

Let me be the one this time to point out that it's completely irrelevant, as explained here.

Re:Here comes the flood... by Chops · 2006-09-05 09:39 · Score: 1 · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

I call shenanigans all over that. It's not some vast conspiracy of SUV-loving, gas guzzling eco-terrorists that keeps things as they are

I'm not sure how you can call shenanigans on the idea that there's effective astroturf that pushes the idea that global warming is a myth.

I agree that sheer human laziness is a big part of the problem as well.

Re:Bad science by Coryoth · 2006-09-05 09:32 · Score: 5, Informative · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

However AFAIK there is no solid proof that human activity is a major or even significant factor in the changes over the last 200 years.

I would have to disagree. Aside from the simple correlction of timing of changes, and accounting of carbon dioxide emissions, there is the analysis of carbon isotopes in atmospheric carbon dioxide. In summary, by measuring the ratios of different carbon isotopes in the atmosphere, and knowing that carbon from fossil fuels will have different isotope ratios than carbon from natural sources, it is possible to establish how much of the recent change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are due to human activities through burning of fossil fuels. The results are that the rise in carbon dioxide levels of the past 200 years are almost entirely anthropogenic.

This claim has been made many times, but so has the claim that human activity is only responsible for some tiny fraction of global CO2 emissions.

I have never seen any credible evidence to support the counter claim that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is not due to human activity. It is true that in terms of the total carbon dioxide produced in the carbon cycle, human produced carbon dioxide is just a fraction, but if I have a tank that is draining water at 10 liters per minute and having water added at 10 liters per minute then adding more water, even at a small fraction of that rate, will cause the otherwise stable tank to overflow. In terms of change human factors are very relevant, and quoting other figures about total carbon produced is, while accurate, disingenuous and misleading with regard to the actual issue at hand.

Our current cycle of global warming isn't natural. Note "hasn't happened before" isn't proof.

Well this isn't something that can be "proved", but in terms of history (last 800,000 years) we are in the middle of an interglacial which peaked some time ago, so we shouldn't be expecting further increases in temperature from the galcial/interglacial cycles. From a more recent historical perspective (last 200 years or so) the recent warming is quite unprecedented according to almost all historical temperature reconstructions (and there are many). In terms of our current understanding of climate and all the things that could effect it, without including atmospheric carbon dioxide changes, we cannot properly account for the present warming. That is, to the best of our current knowledge the warming is not natural. That could change, but we would have to learn some significant new informnation to change our understanding of the climate for that to occur.

Human activity is a major factor in global warming.

As noted above, recent increases in carbon dioxide levels are the only way to account for the recent warming given our curent understanding of climate. Also noted above is the fact that human activity has been a major factor in increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. If you want more details on how attribution of recent warming has been determined so far the IPCC TAR attribution chapter is a good place to start - it summarises a number of different studies using a variety of techniques to attempt to determine the most likely factors driving the current warming.

dentify the other factors influencing global warming.

That is certainly being worked on. I'll again refer to the IPCC TAR for a figure showing various radiative forcings, which is to say factors affecting global warming (both positive anmd negative effects). There are several besides atmospheric carbon dioxide. One of the most s

Re:Carbon Dioxide and Climate by Chops · 2006-09-05 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

If you are going to claim that as CO2 went up, the climate changed, and vice versa, then you are stating, unequivocally, that CO2 drives climate.

... and vice versa, yes. You said that right in the previous sentence -- you should wait at least a few sentences before you claim that someone said it was a one way street :-).

So, the question then becomes, if the CO2 varies from 200-300ppm over the last 800,000 years, then what drove those changes?

Wait -- are you saying that their measurements are in error, or are you saying that you believe the measurements, but would like more explanation of the process they reflect?

Once again, this article confuses correlation with causation. If you are going to state that CO2 changes cause climate change, then you must also demonstrate a mechanism for the changing CO2.

The article didn't actually state this, but it is accepted science at this point. All the article really stated was that the level of CO2 is drastically higher now than it has been within the visible past.

If, on the other hand, climate change causes changes in CO2 levels

It does. It works both ways.

, then you need only explain climate change, something which has been adequately explained by solar cycles. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/vars un.html and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

These are fascinating links. The first is to a discussion on usenet, and the second is to an ice age causation theory from 1941 (which may well be true -- it's just that that being true doesn't magically mean that the connection between CO2 and climate is untrue). I would find them more compelling if they were links to, say, papers published in peer reviewed journals which cast the "CO2 theory" of global warming into question. I can understand that you might have trouble finding one of those, of course, since there aren't any to speak of.

(I know, I know, the scientists are all league in a secret cabal. They all know it's a lie, but they keep saying it is so they can get their grant money. The global warming "skeptics" like Bjørn Lomberg are in it for the pure love of truth, but the poor fellows just can't get their reports published because it threatens the monied orthodoxy. I know. I know.)

In fact, it's more correctly stated that CO2 levels tend to lag behind climate changes by up to 900 years. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299 /5613/1728 Although the folks at RealClimate like to just sweep this little fact under the carpet as unimportant. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 To them, apparently, man made CO2 causes instant warming, but natural CO2 takes up to 800 years to have an effect.

The realclimate.org rebuttal you linked to above is actually pretty good on its own. For the peanut gallery, I'll quote the nut of it: "The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. ... It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun

Carbon Dioxide and Climate by jnaujok · 2006-09-05 08:23 · Score: 3, Insightful · on Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

If you are going to claim that as CO2 went up, the climate changed, and vice versa, then you are stating, unequivocally, that CO2 drives climate. So, the question then becomes, if the CO2 varies from 200-300ppm over the last 800,000 years, then what drove those changes?

Once again, this article confuses correlation with causation. If you are going to state that CO2 changes cause climate change, then you must also demonstrate a mechanism for the changing CO2. If, on the other hand, climate change causes changes in CO2 levels, then you need only explain climate change, something which has been adequately explained by solar cycles. http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/vars un.html and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

In fact, it's more correctly stated that CO2 levels tend to lag behind climate changes by up to 900 years. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299 /5613/1728 Although the folks at RealClimate like to just sweep this little fact under the carpet as unimportant. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 To them, apparently, man made CO2 causes instant warming, but natural CO2 takes up to 800 years to have an effect.

Again, be very careful about assigning cause and effect in a system as complex as the atmosphere.

In other words, this extra datum is nice to have, but it changes nothing in any ongoing debate.

Re:Yes....well...... by Lars+T. · 2006-08-27 11:45 · Score: 1 · on Climate Changes Shift Springtime in Europe

Too bad that doing it the "right way" hardly changes a thing.

Re:Yes....well...... by NeutronCowboy · 2006-08-27 05:26 · Score: 1 · on Climate Changes Shift Springtime in Europe

Besides the fact that you seem to think that the House Energy commission is somehow "independent", you're just plain wrong. Read the (peer-reviewed) articles at the bottom for your enlightment. Also, McIntyre and McKitrick are not statisticians, but simply people who work in the mining industry and as economists, with no known previous peer-reviewed articles related to climate change. Their critique of the PCA used by Mann et al has been widely dissected and found to be wanting by scientists who know PCA from a hole in the ground. In short, you seem to have readily swallowed the critique of the Mann paper, but never bothered to follow-up on what climatologists had to say about this entire deal.

Jones, P.D., K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett and S.F.B. Tett, High-resolution palaeoclimatic records for the last millennium: Integration, interpretation and comparison with General Circulation Model control run temperatures, Holocene, 8, 455-471, 1998.

Esper, J., E.R. Cook and F.H. Schweingruber, Low-frequency signals in long tree-line chronologies for reconstructing past temperature variability, Science, 295, 2250-2253, 2002.

Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, Proxy climatic and environmental changes over the past 1000 years, Climate Research, 23, 89-110, 2003.

Soon, W., S. Baliunas, C, Idso, S. Idso and D.R. Legates, Reconstructing climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years, Energy and Environment, 14, 233-296, 2003.

Re:Is it us or is it mother nature? by Coryoth · 2006-08-26 20:17 · Score: 4, Informative · on Climate Changes Shift Springtime in Europe

Yes. Now we know that the centerpiece of that summary, the "Mann Hockey Stick", turned out to be a scientific fraud.

Which is to say, you didn't read it. Honestly, have a look at chapter 12 (Attribution) of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. You'll find just a single mention, buried in the qualitative section, of Mann's study, listed amongst 5 other different palaeological climate reconstructions by different authors, and only to note that "the 20th century warming is highly unusual." You can see those reconstructions (plus several others) charted together if you're curious. Mann's studies, let alone the "Hockey Stick", far from being "the centerpiece", get scant mention. Instead the attribution factor considers many studies using indices and time series methods, pattern correlation methods, and optimal fingerprint methods. This table provides a summary of the attribution studies considered, along with the method, the uncertainty, the timescale considered etc. You might care to note that Mann is not involved in any of the studies considered.

Of course calling Mann's work a "scientific fraud" is rather unfounded too. You may note, in the chart linked above, that there are many other historical temperature reconstructions, done indepdently by different people, that arrive at a similar result to Mann. There is also the recent National Academy of Sciences report on the subject which concluded, with high confidence, that the earth was the warmest it had been in 400 years, and that while there was less confidence in reconstructions going further back, they still point to the earth undergoing unusual recent warming. On the other hand you have the Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and an economist and someone from the mining industry claiming it is all bunk. At least McIntyre and McKitrick wrote some semi-respectable papers, though there is considerable dispute about their methodology (at least as much, if not far more, than there is about Mann's).

Let's cast all of that dispute aside however, and assume that Mann was full of crap - that still makes no difference whatsoever to the content of the attribution chapter of the IPCC report I linked to, and which you so very clearly didn't bother to read. I don't mind people having differing opinions, but when they are based on apparently willful ignorance I am a little appalled.

Re:And the level of ignorance is also astounding by hawkfish · 2006-06-29 05:02 · Score: 1 · on Scientists Blocking out the Sun

Here are some accurate counts of these values with references to the literature.

To sum up: 30% of the carbon in the atmosphere is of human origin, volcanos produce about 5% of what humans produce, we know which is which because of the isotope ratios and the amounts in the atmosphere and ocean add up to within 10% or so of what we are estimated to have released.

(While I applaud the initiative you guys are showing, next time you might want to see if someone has actually done the calculations in a peer reviewed journal just to check your results.)