Slashdot Mirror

Fair point! My perception is based on the two excellent analyses posted on Real Climate - still on the front page I think, scroll down a bit. I'm not personally in a position to debate the accuracy of specific statements, but I can easily believe TV programme makers can misunderstand or distort complex phenomena in the interest of ratings.

Ahh..so now we're ignoring what the climatologists say in favour of what...Michael Crichton says?

His book is addressed here. What he fails to realise in the quote you provided is that local cooling does not indicate global cooling.

I don't know anything about anarchists in Seattle. I'm not American.

...that they please go and read the relevant RealClimate.org articles...

Been there, done that. This site seems to emphasize peer review as the ultimate means of assuring scientific correctness. Unfortunately, this is only half the truth. Peer review serves as a filter. The ultimate means of assuring scientific correctness, however, is testing predictions. A theory is consistent with reality if it makes predictions that can be tested in experiment, not if the majority of scientists in a field agree it might be true.

It's a high level report, summing up the science. About proof of raising temperature related to industrial activity, check out this page (look at the figures if you're too lazy to read).

Having followed the previous poster's advice, I found this page to be most illuminating. Check out the graphs.

Pull your head out of your ass. There was no 'global cooling'; changes in weather patterns due to global climactic changes produce local minima and maxima. The overall change has been a steady climb. The global cooling theory is handy soundbite trotted out by conservatives based upon a misreading of inconclusive and rather marginal articles printed 40 years ago, when meteorologists couldn't tell you what the weather was going to do 3 hours from now.

You can do a reality check here. Of course, I don't suppose that having informed opinions is much of a priority for you...

Here you go: There is little evidence for a connection between solar activity (as inferred from trends in galactic cosmic rays) and recent global warming.

If you can find reasoned objections to the Real Climate.org articles, by all means come back and discuss 'em here. Alternatively, I hear that Nature and Science (and GeoPhys. Review Letters and a zillion other journals) are always on the lookout for exciting new research breakthroughs. I know I'd love to hear 'em, so bring it on...

Thank you.

Talking about perspective, how many people die of hunger, malaria, floods and droughts?

The emissions are dropping, due to policies enforcing them, while the GDP is still raising.

A scientist leaving the IPCC, due to politicking

Some perspective on Mr. Inhofes speech.

"Two world church officials have urged political leaders to heed the danger that climate change could pose in triggering disasters like this week's killer tsunami."

Anyway for a beautiful, comprehensive, authoritative debunking of this myth, read this excellent article by respected climate scientists with refs to articles in actual proper real peer-reviewed journals (as opposed to Newsweek.)

This has been a Climate TrollBuster service. YAAT(BYHL).HAND.

The realclimate blog (by real climate scientists, they say) has an article debunking this "we thought that there would be global cooling in the 70s" idea. Basic idea seems to be pop media doing their thing then, and now, it's just a case of pop media hysteria, but a general scientific consensus that there really is a problem.

From the blog you linked to; " The discussion here is restricted to scientific topics and will not get involved in any political or economic implications of the science."

Then the very first blog post on the site starts with "...Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces."

So I'm supposed to trust the credibility when the very first post immediately violates the sites stated policy by presupposing a conclusion. Sorry pal, but scientists are like everybody else - looking to pad their own wallets by capitalizing on the publics inability to grok a subject.

The only scientists I've found with absolute credibility on the subject (i.e., not having their research funded) say "global warming" is bunk, as is global cooling.

It's good to know that in case all the climate scientists on the Earth suddenly drop dead that Slashdotters will be able to take up the slack. I mean, clearly an educated background and field experience in climatology makes one no more qualified to be a climate scientist than reading the latest right-wing blogs. In case anybody cares what actual scientists think about this matter, feel free to read http://www.realclimate.org/, which is a blog for a group of climate scientists.

I've seen reasonable proposals that suggest normal volcanic activity produces greenhouse gasses on an order of magnitude far greater than human activity. If so, changing our habits will only have an effect until some ubervolcano erupts someplace, dumping a ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. Others disagree, saying that human activity dwarfs volcanic CO2 activity.

Realclimate.org has an article titled "How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?". Maybe it will make the CO2 situation less ambiguous in your mind.

The question is: How much and how fast will human pollution change the climate by?
This is where I disagree with people and say: We don't know.

There are wide variations in the historical climate record that we can't explain yet, so clearly we don't know everything. But this doesn't change the fact that our best computer models, with the most conservative settings, all predict that CO2 will cause global warming. We don't know exactly how much, but most of the better models (the ones that have survived being challenged and questioned constantly by their peers) actually agree to a large amount. The scientists on realclimate often make this point: just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we can't say some things with a high degree of certainty.

Instead, we seem to run around trying to pass "feel good" treaties such as Kyoto without considering their effectiveness on global warming or their human cost.

I think this is an exaggeration: the costs were considered--in fact, the majority of the debate around Kyoto is centered on that very issue.

The Crichton book gets a comprehensive and authoritative trashing over at RealClimate.org, and here, too. Good reading (Real Climate, that is, not the Crichton garbage!)

The Crichton book gets a comprehensive and authoritative trashing over at RealClimate.org, and here, too. Good reading (Real Climate, that is, not the Crichton garbage!)

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...

Crichton's book is a bad joke that has been thoroughly debunked.

Regarding extensive bibliographies, it's an old junk science propaganda trick, used by slimy characters on the fringes of any serious issue. Just because someone has a lot of references doesn't mean the references say what they claim.

Regarding Chrichton, he twists science around for his living, which is fearmongering for entertainment. His accusations might be just based on projection of his own behavior rather than any deep understanding of science.

Regarding extensive bibliographies, it's an old junk science propaganda trick, used by slimy characters on the fringes of any serious issue. Just because someone has a lot of references doesn't mean the references say what they claim.

Regarding Chrichton, he twists science around for his living, which is fearmongering for entertainment. His accusations might be just based on projection of his own behavior rather than any deep understanding of science.

Why don't scientists use the word 'concensus' when talking about things we actually understand? (The consensus is the Earth is round. The consensus is matter exhibits properties of both waves and particles. The consensus is...)

it was clear that the oceans would die by the turn of the century, the ozone hole would be so large it would cover parts of Africa, people would be dieing of radiation poisoning from the sun... etc etc etc.

Weren't the ice caps supposed to be all gone soon?

Proof has been constantly cited since the 70s and yet all the dire predictions have come to naught.

A few good volcanoes provide visible effect that the public can see and in some cases experience.

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

And the reason you think this, in spite of the evidence gathered by thousands of scientists and decades of research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals is... what, exactly?

> A volcano can dump more greenhouse gasses in an hour than man can
> produce in a year.
>

This is completely incorrect. It's just > WRONG. Human CO2 emissions are many, many times larger than the largest volcanic eruptions. I don't know where you think you're getting your information from...

> We can little affect the global climate fir good or bad.
>

You're so badly misinformed it hurts. Go get yourself a hot steaming cup of clue:

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

Hey, fella, guess what? You're in luck!The consensus on human CO2 emissions causing climate change is about as solid as you can get - despite what the oil-lobby, uninformed trolls and assorted net.kooks would have you believe.

• RealClimate.org
• The Discovery of Global Warming
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c
• International Panel on Climate Change

Only in the sense that 'no-one really knows how gravity works'. Strictly speaking it's correct, but it doesn't mean you want to go jumping off a tall building.

Please educate yourself.

• RealClimate.org
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

Thanks to all those who responded. It now turns out that some much more authoritative and better-informed people than I are already doing this! Please, if you're posting some pet theory about why all this peer-reviewed science is baloney to this story, do yourself a favour and check one of these sites out before you make a fool of yourself in front of your peers.

• RealClimate.org/a>
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

Thank you.

Some references to further information. Google can supply nonsensical 'sceptic' links if you really want to see what the oil lobby and AM radio types want you to think. Personally I'll take the likes of Science and Nature journals, thirty years of research by peer-reviewed scientists over Rush Limbaugh any day.

• RealClimate.org/a>
• http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
• Global Warming FAQ
• http://ebulletin.le.ac.uk/features/2000-2009/2004/ 12/nparticle-vkt-hgf-t4c

Oh and by the way: the world's fastest moving glacier, in Greenland, doubled it's speed according to NASA research. If the Greenland ice-shelf slides into the sea you'd better be living in the Rockies with a large stash of tinned goods.

cheers

It turns out that a far more authoritative & informed group than I could ever hope to be ahve already set up something very like what I had in mind. Check out RealClimate - hopefully a few accurate links will be posted in response to the usual garbage that will get trotted out again next time /. does a climate change story.

But I don't think so. I think they view the evidence, think very hard about it, build their climate models carefully, review other published ideas in the field, and that over the last two decades this has brought them to the consensus that man-caused global warming is real and that there will be around 3 degrees C +/- 1 degree C of increase in global mean temperatures over the next century (unless there are reductions in human greenhouse gas emissions).

See, for some basics written for general readers, www.realclimate.org

Your whole "it's just a theory, they haven't proved it yet" argument is the same crap that creationists trot out against evolution (falsely) and that tobacco companies trotted out for years against the "smoking causes cancer" scientific consensus.

Climatologists have proved it to their satisfaction. You got evidence they're wrong, submit it to a refereed journal in the area. If it's not good enough to be published in such a journal, then it's not good enough.

And if you think your evidence is good enough but that there's a vast conspiracy of scientists plotting together to prevent the truth ever being published in any scientific journal, then say so explicitly and reveal yourself as a crank.

Sean
PS: and regards your specific claims, of course we have evidence about how much sunlight the earth has received and how much C02 there was in the past - do you think that we take core samples for the fun of it? And of course our evidence is not 100% complete in all ways - that's how science works. Nor is predicting the weather a month from now the same problem as predicting overall long-term climate trends - so why do you conflate them?

You might like to check out http://www.realclimate.org/ - I'd hate to reinvent the wheel and tehse people seem to be much better qualified that I am! :)