Slashdot Mirror

Yes, I believe we've had this discussion before. If not with you, I've had with someone else. Now, who is National Science Foundation? Or to be more accurate, who makes up the National Science Board? The list can be found HERE. Surely these guys are not biased. Surely their daytime jobs would not be affected by AGW research, right? Let's look at a member, shall we?

Dan E. Arvizu became the eighth Director of the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) on January 15, 2005. NREL, located in Golden, Colorado, is the Department of Energy's primary laboratory for energy efficiency and renewable energy research and development. NREL is operated for DOE by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (Alliance). He is President of Alliance and also is an Executive Vice President with the Midwest Research Institute, headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri.

Hmmm... Director of the US Dept of Energy's Renewable Energy Laboratory. Gee, I wonder what would happen to his funding if we found out that AGW is not really a problem. I wonder what his views are concerning giving grants to those that seek to disprove the current "consensus" of AGW.

How about this guy?

G. Wayne Clough has been a member of the faculty at Duke University, Stanford University, Virginia Tech, and the University of Washington. At Virginia Tech, he served as Head of the Department of Civil Engineering and as Dean of the College of Engineering. In 1993, he was appointed Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs at the University of Washington, and in 1994 he became Georgia Tech's tenth president. In 2008 he was appointed the 12th Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.

Hmmmm. The Smithsonian Institute? What do they have to do with Global Warming? Surely, they can be a non-biased source, right? Let's see.

Within the Smithsonian Institution, global change research is conducted at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, the National Air and Space Museum, the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the National Museum of Natural History, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and the National Zoological Park. Research is organized around themes of atmospheric processes, ecosystem dynamics, observing natural and anthropogenic environmental change on daily to decadal time scales, and defining longer term climate proxies present in the historical artifacts and records of the museums as well as in the geologic record at field sites. The Smithsonian Institution program strives to improve knowledge of the natural processes involved in global climate change, to provide a long-term repository of climate-relevant research materials for present and future studies, and to bring this knowledge to various audiences, ranging from scholarly to the lay public. The unique contribution of the Smithsonian Institution is a long-term perspective; for example, undertaking investigations that may require extended study before producing useful results and conducting observations on sufficiently long (e.g., decadal) time scales to resolve human-caused modification of natural variability.

Well, crap. How about a meteorologist. Surely one can be non-biased. How about this guy. Surely, he has no vested interest in government money going to AGW research:

He also directs the Sasaki Institute, which is a non-profit organization at the University of Oklahoma that fosters the development and application of knowledge, policy, and advanced technology for the mutual benefit of the government, academic and private sectors.

Well, there you have it. I'm not saying that all the members are biased, but here are three that deal with AGW. Many of the others are professors of health, philosophy, communications and other none climate disciplines.

So, yeah, it appears that the NSB, the part of the NSF that directs funding, is quite biased toward research that supports AGW and have jobs that are threatened by research that may disprove AGW.

In case you didn't know, most of the hydro-electric power along the Columbia has large draws and large reservoirs - so this statement is still true even in summer. As a matter of fact, it's late summer and early fall where the draws are lowest, as glaciers stop melting as much.

True.. However we have had several years where the water was less than normal. At that time the AC use and irrigation diversion and pumping is above normal. I can remember being asked to not use Christmas lights in years past.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewpnw.htm

Look at the streamflow graph..
"Relative to present flows (dashed), the wetter winters and drier summers simulated by climate models are very likely to shift peak streamflow earlier in the year, increasing the risk of late-summer shortages. Though the Columbia system is only moderately sensitive to climate change, allocation conflicts and a cumbersome network of interlocking authorities restrict its ability to adapt, producing substantial vulnerability to these shortages."

The streamflow doesn't vary all that much overall. But the local population has changed.. Demand on the system is causing problems. Here is mention of the Seattle area, known for it's wet weather.
"Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) experienced summer droughts and potential shortages in 1987, 1992, and 1998. Their responses to the three events illustrate institutional flexibility and learning. Summer 1987 began with full reservoirs, but a hot dry summer and a late return of autumn rains created a serious shortage in which water quality declined, inadequate flows were maintained for fish, and the main reservoir fell so low that an emergency pumping station had to be installed."

When the pond is low and the fall rains are late, the big pond is useless when it is empty.

The capacity of the ponds on the Columbia has grown little since the 1960's. In the meantime the population has more than doubled.
"The region has seen several decades of population and economic growth nearly twice the national rate, with population nearly doubling since 1970. "

The population has doubled, but hydro capacity has not. The Pacific NW's 80% of the power from hydro will continue to shrink as demand continues to outgrow the fixed capacity of the hydro system.

Actually, the temperature increase started around the same time as the anthropogenic CO2 increase. You seem to believe that humans weren't contributing to CO2 before 1940, but the Industrial Revolution began before 1940, and indeed before 1880. Try referring to a combination of the hockey stick and a CO2 reconstruction, like here. The temperature really started ramping up a little after 1900, during which CO2 emissions were already on their way up.

Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm [usgcrp.gov] "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."

I wouldn't say that calling global warming 'highly doubtful' is inflammatory. While I have no doubt that continued destruction and pollution of our environment will have profound if not irreversable negative impact on our planet, attributing the sinking of an island to global warming is irresponsible journalism at best.

While ocean levels are rising around the world, Arctic levels are falling http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322. stm and the model predicting the globabl warming trend cannot explain why.

Another unexplained action is while consensus is that the planet is getting warmer and glaciers are melting, the Antarctic ice sheet - by far the biggest in the word is actually growing larger: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_She et.htm. Glaciers in California are also growing: http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14317368p -15234887c.html

Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."

But with the increase in global temperature, the worlds deserts would increase in size causing more environmental destruction you say? Not so - the Sahara desert, the largest desert in the world, is actually shrinking, again contrary to the global warming model. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523610.300 -africans-go-back-to-the-land-as-plants-reclaim-th e-desert.html

So given all of these environmental observations (not minor discrepancies but huge anomalies) that are contrary to the global warming prediction, I think its perfectly acceptableto have doubts as to the actual cause of sinking islands.

'You can see "political science" at work when it comes to "global warming". Despite near unanimity in the science community there's now a movement - driven by ideology and short-term economics - to ignore the evidence and discredit the reality of climate change.' -BloomBerg

from Anthropogenic Ozone Depletion: Status

-Monitoring data show that the growth in concentrations of ozone-depleting chemicals in the atmosphere is slowing, consistent with the declining production required by international agreements.

-The maximum ozone depletion (and increase in UV-B radiation) is likely to occur within the next 10 years; thereafter, the ozone layer is expected to slowly recover over the next several decades.

as 'global warming' evidence mounts

you can drive any car you like,
but try to tell me what I can drive, and I'll spit on you

buy all the buzz you want from your neighbor's little windfarm, see if it makes a difference

Why can't you 'global warming' hoes just relax and enjoy yourselves?

The president doesn't write our budget. Congress does. And nobody gives a shit about climate change and 'global warming' because the climate changes and that's just the way it goes. Deal with it. The sun rises, the sun sets. Climates change. Get over it.

11. wait

unfortunately the little ice this wacko struggles to sustain with all his motorboats may actually inhibit the natural absorption of CO2 into the ocean. ...oh shucks and then there are those damn climate cycles

Global cooling and warming were happening long before prognosticating worrywarts like you got here.

100-yr trends are for herdsmen. here's a 440,000-yr trend.

try finding 1985 on this one.

or who simply deny this is happening because of humans.

GASP!

It might be a good idea to sell that beachfront property and start shopping for property further north

All components of the cryosphere (the frozen portions of the Earth) in the Arctic are experiencing change, including snow cover, mountain and continental glaciers, permafrost, sea ice, and lake and river ice. For example, glaciers in Alaska, as throughout the Arctic, have retreated through most of the 20th century. Estimated losses in Alaskan glaciers are of the order of 30 feet in thickness over the past 40 years, even while some have gained thickness in their upper regions.

In fact, there are already numerous ecosystem changes observed due to permafrost thawing. They include: ... increased coastal and riverine (along the banks of rivers) erosion

In the longer term, longer ice-free seasons are likely to bring substantial benefits to marine transport and offshore operations in the petroleum industry

1.) Rather than hydrates being chemically altered by CO2, the implication
is that the process of trying to bury this CO2 could potentially disrupt
any already loose hydrates in that first 300 metres you mention. As you're
aware, the hydrates can then dissolve further in the water, the methane
turning to gas and rising as bubbles.

2.) Even the website for Mallik mentions that gas hydrates are also known
to cause seafloor instabilities. That fact alone should provoke a lot
of research in the feasibility of CO2 storage under the ocean floor.

3.) I don't dispute that hydrates are a possible alternative energy source. And
I certainly agree that the rate of consumption of fossil fuels is absurd. But Mallik
seems at a cursory glance a research project to determine production methods and
feasibility by drilling some permafrost cores. My primary concern would be how
invasive production techniques would be in order to mine the susbstance from
permafrost regions. As it is, the rate of loss of permafrost across the world.
Mt. Kilimanjaro seems to have "already lost some 82% of its permafrost
since 1912 - and 33% of this in the past two decades." Alaska could
potentially lose "as much as the top 30 to 35 feet (10 meters) of discontinuous
permafrost thawing by 2100." Granted, it's hard to play fortune teller, but the
rate of loss of permafrost globally has increased quite a bit over the last two
decades. Depending on the depth of the hydrates in the permafrost regions,
it would seem logical that these hydrates could thaw and further escape into the
atmosphere. If this is true, above-ground hydrate mining doesn't seem so feasible.

You may know much more about this than I do so your thoughts are appreciated.

-Shawn

The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has not met any of the maximum levels reached over four distinct CO2-rich periods during the past 420,000 years. So what exactly would the purpose of this ridiculous exercise be?

In real life, we have to take into account the costs

Thankfully we have oilmen to do all that tricky math for us.

the sum of all of the above

$2.63/gal

global warming

global what?

I worry about a runaway greenhouse effect, where global temperatures rise above 100C from when you perturb a chaotic system

systematic temperature records

Parent is correct. The number of hurricanes globally is not increasing. However, there is evidence that Hurricanes are becoming more intense because of global climate change.
Linkie.. (Lots of papers.)

That's not what the record shows.

The industrial revolution began 150 years ago. The question is, when did the current warming trend begin?

actual scientific input

If it melts as the planet warms, and then (gasp!) refreezes again as temps go back down, then can it be called permanent?

big SUVs

global warming would have been much less noticeable then it is now

...or was 120,000 years ago... or 240,000 years ago... or 330,000 years ago... or...

is it us or nature?

figure it out yourself, 'dip wad'.

GW Critic: There doesn't appear to be any evidence that global warming is caused by human beings.

GW Wacko 1: "Troll!"
GW Wacko 2: "Dip Wad!"
GW Wacko 3: "You Shut up! That's Flamebait!"

GW Critic: OK? So you're telling me the warming of the earth is because of humans? Long term climate cycles really are just... just.. Wait... so what are they?

Here you are: 420,000 years of evidence

For one thing, I guess the earth's normal climate cycles could, eh... 'interfere'...

They're just saying that climate change leads to mass extinction, be it normal cyclic (like the last 100,000 years) or cataclysmic (think dinosaurs - they didn't die because asteroid shards hit every single one of them, they died because the debris in the atmosphere blocked out the sun, causing the major producers of the time to die out). Right now the climate is changing, we're approaching a peak, anthropogenically aided or not. Will that lead to another mass extinction? That's the question they're raising. Nice jump to reactionary politicism, though.

Pretty, but why don't take your graph and lay it on top of the Vostok 420,000 yr graph (from the parent) then come back here and chat about what you've discovered.

civilzation is turning up the thermostat on ol' Mother Earth

No it's not.

http://www.junkscience.com/

Of course I'd rather base my decisions on real science, as summarized in the IPCC reports and validated by the US National Assesment on Climate Change.

"Correlations have been shown, and some effects have been linked to the temperature increases, but while many people, including some Slashdotters, have said that other ideas have all been debunked, I've still seen no evidence of it."

New Scientist

The New Scientist is the UK's preeminent scientific publication produced weekly.

Relevant Climate alteration page

The major point is that the Bush Administration backed away from other nation's reports. Another poster in the thread mentioned other nation's motives, but this is a misnomer because this isn't a national issue, but a global one. Given Governmental speed in dealing with such things, it would have been an idea to entertain the notion in 2002 rather than roll out think-tank advisors, which is actually what happened.

"That bothers me, because it just seems that the people arguing against them don't want to deal with them as they might upset their worldview."

Likewise some of us trying to get people to avoid dismissing the whole idea of Global Warming on the basis that it's not proven find that worldviews or personal paradigms are the hardest thing to change. I'm personally willing for the whole thing to be bunk; I've frequently argued against the 1970s idea that the population of the world would increase to the point where it cannot support itself. Starvation and disease are a feedback loop in themselves, the latter looking more interesting in the light of recent avian flu's crossing species lines with startling ease.

Likewise there are problems with the green movement in terms of a lack of real knowledge, but to dismiss everything based on the label 'tree hugger' is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Well, you could do worse than the documents linked to from the first site. These look like particularly relevant ones (adjust as needed for /.'s URL-breaking behavior):

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1 _T AR-FRONT.PDF

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR -0 7.PDF

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/WG1 _T AR-FRONT.PDF

If a site calling itself environmentaldefense.org seems a bit leftish to be trusted, you might want to consider the current official study by the US government. When even the Bush White House acknowledges what's going on ...

Oh, here's the URL for the full report:

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2004-5/o cp 2004-5.pdf

Yes, and even before the Earth Simulator was built the US was falling behind on environment and climate research, to be behind even some smaller European nations.

Even so, the US preaches to the rest of the world how they should do and think. I think you have reached the state of "being so dumb you don't even KNOW that you are dumb".

Firstly, it is a troll, and it's one of the best that I've read. If I was wearing a hat, I'd take it off for the author.

As for the line "The world is heating up, it's largely Mankinds fault, and this is a bad thing that we must put a stop to", I think that first two points can be defending scientifically, the third is harder for me to answer as I haven't studied it.

The heating of the world has been well and truely observed. The ground, sea surface and deep sea all have been observed heating up at a significant rate. The upper atmosphere has shown a slight cooling, however this is line with loss of ozone and the addition of more particles to the atmosphere. A very diverse range of scientific bodies have agreed on this. Also boreholes, and other paloclimatic data supports this hypothesis.

That CO2 is significant cause of this is also well known. The greenhouse effect (of which CO2 is a very significant part) is a well accepted scientific principle, and it can be fairly well shown (by studing radioisotopes) that the rising CO2 levels are from human sources.

As for the third part, I can't say that much about it, but this link may interest you. It's a IPCC report on to the regional effects of climate change. I should note that I haven't read it myself (but I do intend to).

Well frankly I think none of us (those of us who aren't in the field) are qualified to say "this study's right, that model's wrong"; thus we can only make a judgement about the credibility of the people advanccing the various cases. And the the IPCC [www.ipcc.ch] have the most credible findings - if anything, they err on the conservative side so as not to freak out certain wobbly 'Western' nations with shakey commitment to doing anything. (The IPCC was set up to establish the global consensus amongst eveyone working in the field.)

Er, look at the name "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001" Does "Intergovernmental Panel" suggest anything to you? In fact, there are *NO* scientists on the IPCC, it's entirely composed of political appointees! Here's their organization information, not a single scientist listed. In fact, if you look at IPCC's forecasts for the near future dating back to their initial conception, time has proved every one of them wrong.

"In terms of real forested area, over 65% of NY state is forested, more than there was 150 years ago."

Ah yes the fine art of lying, you practice it very well my friend. Yes what you say is the truth but it's not the whole truth or nothing but the thruth. as This report shows there is less forest in NY then there was in 1600 and 1700. Not only that but the rate of reforestation has leveled off and is possibly dropping again. Again that's just in the north.
As the report I mentioned also makes clear the forests elsewhere are being cut down to make up for the offset.

That's just America though. Of course we stripped the northwest first and then replanted some of it as we started logging the west.
Worldwide the picture is a whole lot different. Right now for example it's cheaper to buy logs from canada then to log them here. We will probably stabilize and the canadians will cut more. In other places they are going to run out trees withing a hundred years.

The business community would like us to put our heads in the sand and forget about all these pesky problems steamrolling our way. But the consequences of inaction could be devastating for life across the planet, and our species survival. To continue to trivialize the debate by turning the issue into one of belief instead of verifiable facts simply accepts the common US big media propaganda and spin. This is not a debate of the number of angels on the head of a pin, it's a scientific debate whereby the vast majority of academic scientists the world over have accepted a common view that global climate change is real and could be devastating to life on earth. Please also see: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development documents on the issue as well.

--Maynard

• Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (PDF)

However several rather frightening changes have been seen in the temperature and saltiness (haline) of various important currents off the northern coast of Scandanavia . One apocalyptic scenario is indeed for the Gulf Stream to shutdown, which would ****up western Europe nicely.

However this is a *local* effect in the context of the global climate. The whole system is *extremely* complex (chaotic, even) and hard to model or predict. Broad, long-period predictions are easier to make than short term ones - we can model nice equilibrium states, but it's highly likely that in the short term (a few hundred years) that the entire planet will see wild fluctuations in precipitation, temperature, sea levels, yadda yadda.

Ob links:

• UN IPCC Third Assessment Report: Summary (PDF) This is especially sobering reading; contributed to by ~1000 leading world authorities on the science)
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change main site
• GEO-2000 report
• Worldwatch
• EPA Global warming site
• New Scientist special report

Note to the inevitable sceptics: if you accept (say) evolution, Relativity, Quantum mechanics (random eexamples) as being very very very likely to be true, then at least read the damn docs, look at the scientists who are putting their reps on the line on this, and consider whether it's more likely that we *are* affecting the global climate in unpredictable ways, or that vested interests are funding astroturf movements to try to convince American voters that it's all a commie plot...

--
If the good lord had meant me to live in Los Angeles