Slashdot Mirror
Still More on Global Warming
hype7 writes "The Daily Telegraph is running a piece on the world's temperature. Apparently, it was a lot hotter in the middle ages: "A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""
" . . . Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one--even the staunchest supporters of science and technology--had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years..."
George Reisman, Ph.D, The Toxicity of Environmentalism
This only furthers the evidence that global warming has not been caused by human action.
Since WWII, growing populations and increasing industrial activity have put billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the climate cooled significantly between 1940 and 1975. Since then, surface thermometers show a continued small warming trend up to the present, while satellites, as well as balloon-borne radiosondes, do not. It is possible that loacal warming in urban areas has contaminated surface data, skewing the results.
It was with good reason that the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty.
Have you been stalked by Seth today?
The idea isn't that temperatures have been low and high and now they're REALLY HIGH. The current temps aren't really much higher than they have been in previous peaks. It's that they've been rising and falling in a fairly gradual and random manner since the earliest point we have records of, and now, since about 1800, they're rising REALLY REALLY FAST, about twice as fast as any other temperature rise or drop we have records of, and seem to be continuing to rise really really fast.
Moreover, before when the rising temperatures were more or less random and due to many factors, it was just a matter of waiting until the factors causing the high temperatures went away and stuff started falling again. Now, when there is significant reason to believe that the temp. rise is being caused by human activity, it seems reasonable to expect that if the human activity causing it continues unabated-- as it seems to be-- well, they just aren't going to stop.
By the way, you shouldn't bother debating global warming. Especially on slashdot. Most studies on the subject you'll be able to link are biased one way or the other (note: who funded this current study?) and most people who have something to say on the subject will base what they say on that they want one answer to be true or not.
The ability of the human mind to begin with a conclusion and then look around until sufficient evidence is found to "prove" it is limitless.
--super ugly ultraman
the other problem that people don't realize is that a lot of fossil fuel burns in the environment naturally too and is released naturally. In the gulf of mexico for instance, oil seeps through the earth's crust creating natural oil slicks which harm animal life in that area, oil that if drilled would not slick as much. This proves that in some cases, action or inaction by us hurts the environment not just oil drilling, but perhaps not drilling sometimes hurts the environment. I think we have to weigh the pros and cons every time we make environmental decisions, both sides have to be looked at, not just the environmental side, and not just the economic side.
http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
environmentalism is really a path to world socialism and world government, in the same vein as the UN. every time an "environmental crisis" appears, there is a always a call for money. money from the government. also, each new claim comes with the associated calls for limits to our freedoms.
if you remember the 70's, paul weirich, et al., the big concern was global cooling. now it's global warming. look, you're looking at empirical data for say, 20 years. the earth is 5 billion years old. that would be like saying, what do programmers do, spending 10 seconds while watching the program compile, then writing a book on programming.
i hunt and fish, and love the outdoors as much as anyone. but, i think capitalism and freedom are far more important. do you really want the corrupt third world dictators telling the US how to run its economy?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
/. readers tend to be pretty smart - or so I thought. I find it completely depressing that even here politics override common sense. The preponderence of evidence shows that we really are having a significant impact on world climate. No one really knows what that impact will eventually be, but when screwing around with immense things that you really don't understand and that happen to keep you alive unknown == dangerous.
It hasn't been proven that global warming is true - far from it, in fact - but research has "strongly suggested" (my term, but certainly fair) that it could be true, so it strikes me that any half-intelligent primate would jump to it and try to avoid the possible crisis instead of jumping up and down and screaming "you haven't proved it yet!"
So even if this proves that global warming is not man-made.. which it doesn't until more researchers find the same answers.. we still should have signed Kyoto.
There's a lot more to pollution than global warming. How's about respiratory ailments? Know what the instances of asthma are like now, as opposed to 50 years ago? How about all of the other diseases being caused by contamination of ground water by toxic chemicals. Look especially to heavily-industrialised but unregulated states like Texas for examples of these kind of health problems.
Also, this does not challenge the damage to the ozone layer, and the probability that it is our doing. What about the tears that have been appearing in it at random, such as the one above Chile that doused a village in direct UV?
Kyoto is also about hedging our bets. As there are methods of accomplishing all of the same industrial goals with less pollution, why do we want to take the chance that it's caused by us, when we can ditch the pollutants and then sleep knowing that if the world bakes, at least it isn't our fault? How will all of you conservative fucks feel in 50 years if you were wrong? "Oops?" This is not something we can go back, say "sorry" and fix. If we are causing permanent damage to the planets ecology, our descendents will pay the price. As long as there is any doubt whatsoever, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I think any rational person would.
+++++++
"Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
I couldnt care less if it's about global warming or the ozone layer or saving pink river dolphins from extinction. Environmental-friendly living is a worthy pursuit in and of itself!
Do you shit on the floor? Do you piss in the kitchen sink? Earth is where we live for crying out loud, we should try to keep out planetary home as clean as possible even if there ISN'T a single dangerous side effect of pollution. Where are your manners? Can we call ourselves truly civilized?
I'm sick of this stupid polluted town with dirty floors and smoggy air. I'm sick of waking up every day around 6AM when the first round of buses start zooming past my windows, which btw, keep getting black with soot.I find it terribly bothersome that, as an amateur astronomer, I have to travel hundreds of miles in order to do any half-decent observation and I really can't understand how the simple logic of keeping our own damn "house" half-clean seems to be beyond the feeble minds of its inhabitants. *shrugs*
It seems some of you have never taken High School chemistry. If you have, you'd know that any stress applied to an equilibrium system will be counteracted by an opposite process. For instance, if you heat up ice, it will melt, a cooling process. If you freeze water, it will give off heat, warming itself up.
It just so happens that the Earth's equilibrium lies at about 50 (give or take, it's different for different parts of the world.) Now, whatever we do, be it release CO2 or keep matches lit, the Earth will not increase its temperature significantly until it has exhausted its ability to cool itself, namely, melting ice. Thus, the only direct indicator of global warming is the elevating sea level, not the change in temperature.
However, it is extremely hard to measure this over a long period of time, but another way of predicting warming is looking for changes in weather patterns. If a location gets 10 times the normal amount of rain two years in a row, you know something is wrong. If an area becomes dry and arid when it used to be damp, something has changed, most probably due to our influences. Why? While melting and freezing ice will hold an equilibrium steady at a certain temperature, the Earth is a gigantic closed system, and thus requires a large amount of mixing to transfer heat from one location to another. Thus, rising temperatures need to be transmitted to the poles for equilibrium to remain constant, and the Earth does this through weather patterns. If the temperature changes, so do weather patterns. And the frightening thing is, they are. Quite a bit too.
Just saying that since the temperature hasn't risen, there is no global warming, is an utter lie. The temperature won't rise significantly until all the ice at the poles has melted.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
It's Aristotle and Plato.
The ecologist ideology "CO2-pollution" is just rubbish. These guys say that global warming starts around 1903 were CO2-levels couldn't have any effects.
Where did you get that 1903 date. All the literature I've read suggests things started when we started polluting, which rather makes sense if you think about it, so towards the latter quarter of the 18th century. And try to substantiate your claim that it is "just rubbish". Go on, I'd love to see you try when the majority of the scientific community disagrees with you, and the majority of those who agree with you are funded by the oil industry.
So I think this is just a pseudo-scientific ecologist scam to scare people away from modern technology and to keep them in the dark without information to control them better.
Riight, because as an ecologist, I just *hate* all technology. You're just stabbing in the dark there, my friend. To be more accurate, ecologists dislike technology that does more harm to the ecology than good (and we include humans in the ecology, before you say something stupid), and think that technology should be used to further the life quality of the ecology, not some short-termist ideal of quality of life for the rich.
There's also the flip side to this. Last summer, the Northeast had some brutal heatwaves, it was over 90 degrees F for at least a week. The newspapers had numerous letters to the editor snidely asking "Still don't believe in global warming?". These people have been strangely silent this winter, one of the coldest on record. The point is that people on both sides of the argument make judgments based on anecdotal evidence. It's not just the "brain-dead hicks", it's also the "highly-educated liberals".
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
The US is a net CARBON SINK. One of the largest in the world. Why should the US be punished by Kyoto when it is currently sucking up more CO2 than virtually any other SINK nation while other nations are PRODUCING CO2 but suffer no penalties? I wonder...
1) These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
2) Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
3) The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
4) if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
5) even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
6)Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Terrorism is really a path to world socalism and a world government - in the same vein as the UN. Every time an "terrorist threat" appears, there is always a call for money. Money from the government. Also, each new claim comes with associated calls for limits to our freedoms.
It's easy for (some of you) Americans to shout "socialism!" everytime there is something you don't like, isn't there?
i hunt and fish, and love the outdoors as much as anyone. but, i think capitalism and freedom are far more important. do you really want the corrupt third world dictators telling the US how to run its economy?
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty damned sure I DON'T want the US telling the world what to do. I mean, how can the US sit and pontificate when their Congress" is corrupt? Or how about profiteering from a war which the US started preemtively and unilaterally on "humanitarian" grounds? Or actively supports terrorists" and backs dictatorial regimes when they are in the apparent best interest of the US? Or the best interests of certain member's of government?
Do I really want the corrupt nuclear supperpower to be telling the world how to run their affairs? No. And you should be worried too. The US is becoming the Land of the Progressively Less Free.
(I apologize for this being off-topic. When someone spouts off like this person did, I feel a need to respond. As for the current war in Iraq and the soldiers on the ground there: I support you and hope you come back safely. I do not support the government who sent you, or the reasons they give for doing so.)
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
en-vi-ron-men-ta-list n. 1. A political activist whose main area of concern is the environment. 2. A scientist whose area of research is the environment.
The Telegraph seems to be attempting to discredit those scientists by painting them with the brush of political activism.
Few scientists, regardless of their political views, doubt the reality of global warming. The evidence is increasingly difficult to refute _and_ there is a strong theoretical basis to the observations being made. Whether or not there were isolated areas which have actually been warmer in the last 1000 or so years is of little consequence. This is not mathematics. It will take a whole lot more than one counter-example to disprove the theory.
For two basic reasons:
Firstly, as well as sinking a lot of CO2, the US also
produces a lot. You'd get more global benefit from a
5% production reduction in the US than a 50% reduction
in, say, Bangladesh.
Secondly, follow the money. The US can afford more proactive
measures than can a developing economy.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
100% of the carbon in the biosphere is of volcanic origin, as is 100% of the carbon in the fossil fuel supply. That's hardly relevant to contemporary CO2 increases, which are about the conversion of fossilized carbon to atmospheric and biosphere reservoirs.
My reference is Biogeopchemistry W.H.Schlesinger, Academic Press, 1991. Figure 11.1 shows contemporary natural fluxes near equilibrium, plus an annual artificial input 5 x 10^15 tons of carbon. Weathering and limestone deposition fluxes are about two orders of magnitude smaller.
It was the standard textbook on the subject a few years back, but it may be a bit out of date. What are you using?
mt
There is no way for a family of seven to use a Toyota Prius for anything worthwhile.
Perhaps, but in the 21st century even Mormons and devout Catholics have less than five kids. Really, having more than two children when the world is overpopulated already is not a good idea.
These conclusions, if sound, would ordinarily be reached by dramatically different scientific methods, and therefore by members of different communities. I am therefore inclined to conclude that 1) the authors are not serious participants in the relevant field in at least one of the papers and 2) the authors' work is politically rather than scientifically motivated, since the only common thread is to cast doubt on the consensus opinion about climate change.
mt
So whether this change is natural or man-made, we need to figure out how, or if, we can stop it, or at least slow it down. That's where our energy should be going. Obviously, studying past patterns of weather is important for this, but let's face the fact that we have a problem and stop taking the attitude that well, if it's natural, if it happened before, it's ok. Sorry - but we're just as wet and hungry if it's natural as if it's not!
Nuclear Power: You cite two examples of operator failure.
:-)
DDT: saved immensely more people from pest borne disease than were remotely affected by environmental impact
Preservatives: when was our last famine?
Observation: Environmentalists, like most of us, focus on "evidence" that supports their point of view i.e. observation is wildly subjective even when gathered by the finest technology available simply because data must be interpreted.
Fact is, from based on "observation" we should intensely distrust other people. Mind you, my computer is a close second. Now there's an untrustworthy piece of technology
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
While a healthy skepticism about all things is generally good, the vast majority of people, especially on this site, will simply accuse anyone they disagree with of bias. This kind of smear makes it impossible to have a rational discussion of any sort. You have all got to realize that sometimes research won't support your position. Just because someone has data you don't agree with doesn't mean they are evil tools of the government/corporations/Orwellian evil/the Zerg. There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money, beliefs, or a particular ideology.
That's important. Let me repeat that.
There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money or a particular ideology.
I should know, after all. I am one. I also know others!
I have realized that if, in science, you attempt to defend any particular position because you like it or believe in it, you *will* end up skewing the data to support you. This is bad, I think. Many other scientists think the same way and try to pursue the data to where it leads, regardless of politics or personal views. This can be unpopular, but it is VERY frustrating when people accuse valid data and research of bias...because they don't agree with it. Again, people on this site and elsewhere have the extremely bad habit of picking a side an defending it, and looking at the data later. "Bad beats."
The continuous, general anti-science rhetoric by deliberately ignorant people on this site is also tiring and silly. It acts as a red flag of illiteracy to the rest of the world as well. If anyone on this site wants to be noticed, they should restrain their criticism of science to legitimate questions, not accusations of bias with little grounding in fact.
The main theses of this particular article have been ignored by basically everyone on this site. The main point is that if we are coming out of an *ICE AGE*, then reports that the world is warming quickly probably exaggerate the effect purely by accident--of course we're warming up if we were cold earlier! Evidence that the world's climate undergoes natural shifts of much magnitude casts doubt on the severity of the current warming trend and gives rise to the possibility that it is entirely (or at least mostly) natural. While theory obviously dictates that humans are having an effect, this article is pointing out that the current warming trend may not be all due to humans.
Now, I'd have to see the article itself (and it's Sunday so I ain't going to the office or library) to make a full judgment, but people on here spewing against it without that same research are simply spewing political rhetoric--not valid conclusions.
The best piece of advice I ever took was discarding political ideology in favor of the facts.
Now, let me get back to my frickin' research. Thanks.
--
Christian Sieber
"And yet, it moves." -- Galileo Galilei
"You know, you can't just decide whether Global Warming it true or not based on such a short sampling period like this winter compared to last winter."
To that, the guy would really say:
"You know, you can't just decide whether Global Warming is true or not based on such a short sampling period, such as 20-30 years. You need to look at it over a much longer period of time. In fact, through the 70's environmentalists were convined we were in a period of global cooling. I'm afraid that if we wait another 20 years, we'll be back to that thinking (global cooling) and we will waste untold time and resources fighting a problem that doesn't exist".
While I should know better than to get into this, it really pisses me off when people damn others for making huge, sweeping generalizations while making huge, sweeping generalizations themselves.
"True environmentalists" don't believe in taking people's rights away, no. News flash. You don't have a right to pollute the river that flows past your property because that river then flows past my property. You ever hear the old Libertarian maxim, "your right to swing your nose ends at my face?" It applies to the environment, too. You don't have a right to do things with your property that affect my property, or anyone else's.
Water and air are a common good that cannot be owned by anyone. This ain't communist propaganda. It's fucking common sense, people. And it means that sometimes as a property owner your rights are going to be curtailed. Deal with it. I support gun rights, but they don't include a right to fire your gun without paying attention to where you're pointing it.
And, no, companies not wanting to clean up their act is not hogwash. Companies want to spend as little as they can and charge the highest prices they can. This isn't because they're evil, it's because they're trying to increase their capital. Hello! That's why it's called capitalism. Not all companies are responsible citizens. Some of them will do exactly the same calculation Ford made with the Pinto: balance the cost of expected fines and lawsuits from doing things sleazily against the cost of doing things the right way, and doing things sleazily if it's a lower expense. They can do this because when they're caught, they can apologize profusely and know that they will have lots of defenders saying thing like: "The presidents of these companies are pople like you and I."
Furthermore, people with your attitude seem to be really hep on bashing environmental groups for having "vested interests" in scaring people. You never once seem to be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, corporations making billions of dollars on practices those environmental groups are criticizing could have a vested interest in making sure that you dismiss the environmentalists as kooks. Individual donations to the Center for Science in the Public Interest make it a scare group, but the blatant industry backing of JunkScience.com couldn't possibly influence their reporting, right? Check.
Funny, to me being about individual rights has nothing to do with promoting corporations and bashing government any more than it does to do with bashing corporations and promoting government. Many libertarians have figured that out. Have you?
Scientists who aren't on Exxon's payroll aren't arguing about whether the temperature's rising, and they're not even arguing about whether humans are having an effect--the debate has moved to what effect we are having, and how to control it. If you think this is just the province of Greenpeace kids hanging signs from smokestacks, congratulations! The industry is keeping you in the '80s. This debate isn't going on in Granola Crunch Quarterly anymore, it's going on in Nature.
Wake up. By and large environmentalists are not out to send us into the dark ages or to create a happy Marxist utopia. They're out to make us think about the resources we use and to convice us that we should use less, even if using less is going to be inconvenient. And, yes, using less might mean some industries have to change. It's happened before. Why is it so horrific to consider that it might have to happen again?
These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming. I have seen Leftists and environmentalists finding a new excuse to hate American industry and hate the fact that Americans drive cars when and where they want to.
Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
Show me the evidence. Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!" I won't accept your ad verecundiam and ad numeram arguments. I, too, can list a bunch of scientists who say that your claims are excrement.
The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
So what? You're still stuck on #1 and #2. Start with a flawed premise, and you will reach a flawed conclusion.
if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.
even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
So you are admitting that there are other factors. It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?
Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism. It also just so happened that so many communists and America-haters have found good company in the Church of Gaea.
Environmentalism is a religion. It has as much to do with science as does Christianity.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Yes, sarcasm. It's solace for those who have a poor argument.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The US currently emits about 25% of the world's CO2.
"Politically impossible" doesn't mean it's a bad idea. The people making it politically impossible are, in fact, the problem in this situation.
Look -- there's nobody here, right now, except us. The people who are on the planet right now have a responsibility to do what they can to keep it in a livable state for humans, to the best of our ability, with the poor tools and inaccurate foresight we have at our disposal. Do you think there's a single climate scientist that doesn't wish we could just figure out what's right, sign an agreement, and forget about it for the next thousand years?
This business about 100 years; what the fuck? You're assuming that we can just ignore this problem, because anything we do about it will be destroyed by "the future," and anyway we'll have new technology then and stuff? This isn't a technological problem; according to currently available science, we will encounter significant difficulties as a species unless we cut CO2 emissions (check the sidebar on PDF page 94, document page 89; it's very succinct.) We can do that now; as you rightly point out, the problem is political and societal -- it's difficult to get people (in this case the Bush administration) to agree to cut CO2 emissions, and so humanity will suffer.
What we do with these mice is expose the to a putative carcinogen, measure the frequency with which cancer occurs in the exposed groups and the control group, and then determine if the frequency in the treatment groups is significantly different from the frequency in the control group.
We call this way of working 'science'. You should find out about this 'science' as it can be very useful to you in a number of ways, not the least being preventing you from exposing in public, what a moron you really are.
Round-up is a herbicide, not a pesticide. It kills plants, not plant pests.
By reading this sig, you agree to the terms of my sig license.