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
The telegraph article is a pretty lousy article, and gives few details. A bettle article is available at Space Flight Now. Apparently, the study was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute so I would be especially wary of bias.
There isn't enough evidence in the articles to understand what the study actually found. They published some of their findings in the Climate Research journal, which only gives an abstract without a subscription. However, they haven't even published their full findings which are supposed to be published in Energy and Environment which appears to be more of a policy journal than a scientific journal.
I think it is very hard to evaluate the credibility of these claims without seeing the actual journal article that explains them. Another thing is that according to Space Flight Now article, is that the study is actually "A review of more than 200 climate studies," and we need to look at the authenticity of these studies. However, maybe it will help us look at global warming from a new perspective.
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
Yes it was with good reason, but do you think environmentalism had absolutely anything to do with it?
When I read about it, I remember seeing a lot of US-bashing stuffed between the lines. Stuff like disallowing our rather large forests from consideration as CO2 sinks.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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
there was vegitation in the artic circle, there are frozen remains of Mammoths up there with undigested vcegetation in their bellys (and there was enough of it to sustain a creature of that size as well).
Secondly, where did all the ice from the ice age go? surly mans discovery of fire didnt promote the end of that period in time...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
...just ask any brain-dead hick here in the Midwest (I live in Indiana with a lot of them and this winter was particularly cold and snowy).
Disolve to snowy Indiana January
Brain-Dead Hick: Global warming, my ass. It's durn cold out here.
Me: 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.
BDH: You're one of those fancy college boys aren't ya. You calling me a liar?
Me: No, I was just saying that you can't base such a statement on how cold it is right now.
BDH: Listen here. It's durn cold, that's proof enough to me that Global Warming is a crock of bull. And if you pull more of that college crap on my I'm gonna beat your ass.
Me: Durn it's cold out here. Global warming, my ass.
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
in the 70's, many of today's Global Warming researchers were claiming that the Earth was falling into an Ice Age.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
I was surprised to learn recently that trees are not CO2 sinks--once they die, decay restores their lifetime of consumed CO2 to the atmosphere. There are only two CO2 sinks: - biological matter that is interred deep into sediment (which often becomes oil) -solid CO2 at the bottom of the ocean (where the pressure results in a higher melting point) That there are only two sinks of carbon on Earth makes me suspicious of fossil fuels, as much as my heart goes out to the pro-tech sentiments expressed here.
I've been complaining for a while now that the problem with "global warming" is that we don't have enough long term weather data to accuratly state that this isn't a natural cycle. I'm really glad that the scientific community has taken notice of this little loophole. It might actually get a few environmentalists to do serious research instead of hugging trees. *snicker*
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
So hang on a second... based on one article, which contains no evidence, just a few quotes from researchers on one team, and some ideas you state without reference, you think the US decision was correct? Let me repost...
To begin with, almost all of the "evidence" denying global warming has been put out by scientific groups funded by oil companies like Esso (ExxonMobil) and Shell, and have usually been shown to be flawed by the majority of the scientific community. It'd be interesting to see if this group is part of the same group, or in any way funded by those with vested interests in denying global warming.
Secondly, the US didn't ratify Kyoto for economic reasons, not scientific ones - the US Govt's own sceintists confirmed that global warming exists and is caused by a boatload of human activites - though no doubt some ignorant Congressmen voted against it because they bought the bull from phoney science. It was the protection of major US interests that drove them to not sign it... that, and ignorance and stupidity.
Thirdly, did you read that article? It states that "According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures." Riiight, so the flooding of areas with dense human populations is just a myth, is it? I mean come on, it's fuzzy conjecture in a newspaper, not a detailed scientific study that has been subjected to careful peer review.
/. 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*
That's funny... it never ceases to amaze me how arrogant people can be in thinking we are outside the ecology, or can just trample all over it, quite obviously upsetting balances in drastic ways, and then try to justify it either because we're somehow special, or because "that's just nature". Sure, we're part of the ecology, but it dosn't mean to say that everything we then do in the ecology is a good, natural thing to happen.
Its perfectly natural for our temperatures to fluctuate. Its not that long since we had a fucking Ice age so a bit of warming is not an inherently bad thing.
It also amazes me how ignorant people can be. Yes, certain temperature fluctuations are perfectly natural, but the question is: are the temperature fluctuations we have seen over the past couple of hundred years normal, or are they the result of human activities? It is a fact that rising temperatures are already causing problems in low-lying areas, and that if they continue to rise, as the majority of the scientific community believes, we will see many more problems for humans and the ecology as a whole. You're just fudging the argument.
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.
Secondly, the US didn't ratify Kyoto for economic reasons, not scientific ones - the US Govt's own sceintists confirmed that global warming exists and is caused by a boatload of human activites - though no doubt some ignorant Congressmen voted against it because they bought the bull from phoney science. It was the protection of major US interests that drove them to not sign it... that, and ignorance and stupidity.
That's not completely true, or at least there's more to it. The Kyoto treaty was meant to cut down on emissions and to reduce possible sources of greenhouse gasses. It was supposed to be binding to all signers. Sounds great, right? But think about the full story -- especially with regard to the two most populous countries: China (~1.5 billion) and India (~1 billion). Conveniently, they were both exempted from the Kyoto accord because the benevolent governments of the world did not want to impact their economic growth potential. So why would the US, a country with less than a 5th of the combined population of those countries, saddle itself with a policy that will not touch those countries? BTW, those two countries are also the largest producers of greenhouse gasses with Mexico and Brazil following way behind them.
everything in moderation
All studies I have seen on Global Warming seem biased so why not do your own study. What the enviromentalists seem to complain about is not that the temperature is so high but that it is increasing at a faster rate than before. Being a Geek I'd like to see this for myself. Does anone know where one could find the yearly mean temperature for say the last 2000 years?
Calculating the derivative of the temperature curve is, what, 6 lines of perl?
Environmentalism is about as far from socialism as it is from right-wing conservatism. Socialism holds that society is the fundamental, whereas environmentalism holds that the ecology is, whereas right-wing conservatism holds that the family and status quo are, etc. etc. Most ecological parties are also essentially capitalist, though they aren't into the laisse-faire capitalism that thinks corporations are trustworhy while states aren't.
When you say freedom, you're just referring to your individual freedom - freedom from the control of others - but there are many more freedoms you enjoy, such as freedom from poverty, freedom from shitty living conditions, freedom from pollution, freedom from a repressive government, etc. etc. Get that into your head, and you might drop the absurd posturing.
And your last paragraph, well, name me an environmentalist who has advocated a third world dictator telling the US how to run its economy!
i think the studies showing that shooting people are all wrong. those studies, and the policies they cause, are restricting my freedom to shoot people. that sucks. same goes with alcohol. and anything else potentially harmful. but damn it, we have a natural right to do anything, right? yup.
... just -maybe- ... it's possible to limit ourselves slightly. market economy is already restricted: no monopolies (theoretically) ... long john's can't fry your fish in animal fat anymore ... we restrict ourselves all the time. this won't be the first, nor the last. as posted elsewhere: even if we're not sure of all the causes and all the effects of our actions, maybe we should still be somewhat careful?
... on another note ... do you really think we should be bossing other countries around? bribing some, invading some, putting up blockades on others ... ? and if you're worried about freedom, you might also look at what our current, completely blameless government is doing to us. they're not corrupt, right? wonder why my rights keep going down the drain every time they get together to worry about my security ...
maybe you're right. maybe capitalism and freedom are more important than at least looking at the possibility that we're screwing ourselves over. but maybe
you're right of course. we don't have enough data. and the people giving us what data we have already interpret the data in odd ways, mostly for their own profit. all of them. but i'd hate for our generation to be remembered as the ones who had a chance to do something about the world before it got too bad -- but just figured it was fine and refused to look. that'd suck.
and
It was with good reason that the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty.
How can you say such a thing. I agree that many environmentalists have too absolute claims about this, but it cannot be ruled out either. Scientific evidence is vague at the moment, but all scientists say that once it is 100% proven it is already too late. I would say: better safe than sorry.
Apart from that, saving some natural resources (oil, gas) for later generations does not hurt either. Some anti-environmentalists (I would not put myself on either side, but trying to be neutral/objective) just seem to be selfish to me, not willing to alter a wasteful and egoistic lifestyle that is parasitism on the rest of the world and on future generations.
From either perspective, it is very very bad that the US did not sign this treaty.
I still have (wishful thinking?) hope that there is no such thing as human induced global warming going on. But it is possible at least, probably likely if you look at the scientific facts, which are unclear at the moment.
Yes, in the past it has been warmer, then came a period of cooling which came to a very abrupt end in a quite good (though not perfect) correlation with rise of CO2 levels. Indeed there was some cooling (not very significant, but rather unevenly distributed over the world) between 1940 and 1975, but after that there has been an extreme warming. These processes are still badly understood.
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.
Heh, point taken :) Here you are:
c ks.pdf
f
The studies funded by oil companies were largely published or commissioned by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC)...
A decade of dirty tricks: Esso's record in funding these suspect scientific reports...
http://www.stopesso.com/pdf/Dirty_Tri
A similar report by Greenpeace USA:
http://www.stopesso.com/pdf/exxon_denial.pd
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'
I come from a part of the world that's under the ozone hole - I want freedom from skin cancer - I WANT the right to stop the US from dumping stuff in the atmosphere that will kill me - it doesn't make me a 3rd world dictator
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.
BTW, those two countries [China and India] are also the largest producers of greenhouse gasses with Mexico and Brazil following way behind them.
That's not true, according to the US Department of Energy. According to them the top producer is the USA. China is second, and India is 5th.
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.
scripsit b17bmbr:
Really? No shit. I need to stop making fun of environmentalists. I mean, all this time I was thinking that we were going to need a serious revolution, with all the messy liquidation of the national bourgeoisies, having to organize a dictatorship of the proletariat, etc. I never realized that I could bring about world socialism by just recycling my beer cans!
Workers of the world, recycle!
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
On the political front, most environmentalists are also believers in big, powerful governments that take a very active role in managing the economic well-being of their citizens, and the kinds of interventions that are required to manage these potential environmental risks require such powerful governments. Ergo, successful arguments for greenhouse emission controls help to achieve big governments that can then accomplish other tasks.
More fundamentally, any cause with can be effectively politicized is political. Environmental issues can and are used to great effect to sway voters -- consider the fact that the Greens parties are not only widespread, in many locales they're very powerful -- and that makes them political issues, and of significant political value. People like nature, so candidates who claim to protect nature can get themselves voted into office, regardless of whether or not they can protect it, or even truly believe it needs protecting (much less whether or not the science underlying their platform is meaningful).
The economic motivations are just as obvious: In the first place, many environmentalists make their living from being environmentals, whether because they're academics, lobbyists, environmental engineers, etc. Beyond the personal profit motivations (which many not necessarily be obvious even to them -- I'm not saying they're mercenary, but there *is* a conflict of interest) there's also the fact that, again, most environmentalists tend to be leftist and there's a host of reasons why they think many of the negative economic impacts may in fact be beneficial, based on who they hit.
I'm sure that nearly all environmentalists sincerely believe in their cause, but it's foolish and naive to think that all of their motives are pure.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
Ranking of the world's countries by 1999 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring.
That specifically excludes the largest source of greenhouse gasses - domestic animal farts, aka "methane", of which India & china are huge sources.
Its a such a significant problem that New Zealand is considering a genetically engineered bacteria that lives in a cow or sheeps gut that will reduce methane production by 30% - this pretty much covers New Zelands Koyoto commitments.
I wonder how the green party (part of the government in kiwi land) will cope with that ?
- reducing greenhouse gasses good ...
- GM bad ...
- Baaa! baaa !
They'll probably go with "GM Baaaad...", logical thinking and compromise is not their strong point
Sure, we're part of the ecology, but it dosn't mean to say that everything we then do in the ecology is a good, natural thing to happen.
Uh, what? If we are a part of nature (and I'd have to say we are) then EVERYTHING we do is natural. Maybe not "good" (who the hell decides "good" and "bad" here anyhow?), but it sure as hell is natural.
When a beaver makes a dam, its all natural and "good". When a man makes a dam, HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THAT ABNORMAL ABOMINATION! Get your head out of your ass. We are animals. The only difference between us and a shit flinging monkey is a few abstract ideas.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of our environment. I am all for saving our biodiversity and keeping the air/water/earth clean. I don't want to live in a shithole. But that doesn't make anything we do unnatural, it just means we have a little bit of sense about what is going on and can choose to do things differently if we please. I bet if that beaver knew any better he'd make up some concrete and block the whole river. But the beaver doesn't know any better, and yet we do. Still, doesn't change the fact that we are both animals doing natural things that animals do.
In the end if we nuke the entire planet 100 times over, it is nothing but nature continuing on as it has for all of time.
- I love animals. I try to eat at least one a day.
The sun is getting brighter. Also, there is a remarkable correlation between solar activity and climate, like the Maunder minimum (cessation of sunspot cycle) coinciding with the Little Ice Age in Europe. If the sun does have an influence on climate, then the problem is not outside the area of expertise of astrophysicists. This current study doesn't rule out the role of solar variability, and actually makes it a stronger argument.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
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.
Many people misconcieve what golbal warming actually is (much of this based on the incorrect use of terms) a better term would be "climate instability." Basically, the weather (already very unpredictable) would be even more unpredictable. A previous slashdot article I believe covered the fact that the
whole of Europe would become much cooler. This would be because their warm fronts would be disrupted.
"Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
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
It's interesting to note that the thinking these days suggests that famines are the result of a widespread loss of income, whereby large groups of people simly cannot buy food, as opposed to a limit on the amount of food available.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
What is your source for this? Here's my source for a Scientist that doesn't appear to agree with you.
Here's the fact about the Kyoto Treaty that is often overlooked. Kyoto did not cover much of the developing world. China (currently the 2nd largests emitter of Greenhouse gases), India and Brazil are exempted. All of these economies are projected to grow at a rapid rate. Under Kyoto, Greenhouse gas production will grown sharply in the next few decades.
It's pretty clear that Kyoto's only real effect is to boost the economies of certain countries, such as China, at the expense of the US. Since Greenhouse emissions will probably not go down at all under Kyoto, if the assumptions of those who posit Human-activity induced Global Warming are true, things will continue to get worse.
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.
And as far as cancer-causing agents? I think this is hilarious. The "scientific" community takes rats that are genetically predisposed to cancer, even in a clean environment, and then feed them enormous amounts of these chemicals. When one or two of them get cancer, it is declared as a carcinogen.
First of all, you forgetting that they have two groups of rats, one of which doesn't get the chemicals. This way, they can compare and see if there's a "statistically significant" increase in cancer. I agree that it's not always clear how well these things transfer to humans, but what do you propose. Stop testing and say that everythings's safe until you discover that millions have died because of some product? Test on humans? What?
In crimimal cases, you're innocent until proven guilty. For health-related issues, it doesn't work that way (if there's evidence that a drug might be dangerous, it's just not approved). Last think how long the cigarette companies have been able to stall things by repeating that there's no proof that cigarettes are dangerous and all. It might not be 100% proven that CO2 will lead to a catastrophy, but there are some signs... do you want to take a chance and discover too late that you were wrong?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
You honestly believe we could eliminate every single bacteria in the world? To answer yes would show that you have a very limited understanding of biology and bacteria in general. Aside from that, when you look at the astroid impacts of this planet's history, remember that they would have caused something very similar to nuclear winter. Would nuclear winter wipe out all humans on this planet? More than likely, it would eliminate virtually every single higher life form. Would nuclear winter eliminate other life forms, such as bacteria? Hardly; there any many types of bacteria which would thrive in such an environment, and many others which would lay dormant for however many millions of years it took for the ecosystem to begin to reform.
You forget that life on this planet started in conditions that were staggeringly uninhabitable by today's standards. We could launch every single nuclear missile and release every chemical and biological weapon ever created and we'd still end up with tons of organisms surviving. Within a few million years, you'd never know humans existed.
"we could seriously fuck up the ecosystem beyond all hope of repair if we're not careful'"
That's just arrogant. Could we fuck it up to the point that humans could survive in it? Yes. But nature doesn't revolve around man - man's existence "revolves" around the center of the galactic toilet bowl, hoping nature doesn't decide to flush.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
They are blasphemers who dare challenge the doctrine of Global Warming!
> You honestly believe we could eliminate every single bacteria in the world?
r eation/isotop e_list.html
:-)
Clearly you didn't actually read my post, or you wouldn't have bothered to ask this. I said we could destroy all life larger than one cell in size. I still believe this to be true.
And an asteroid impact bears absolutely no resemblance to what would happen if you impregnated the atmosphere of the world with extremely radioactive compounds with a very long half-life. Dramatic climate change is a bear, but it's nothing compared to an environment that takes self-organizing life forms and corrupts the information that they need to pass on to their progeny. I think it conceivable, though not obvious, that we could in fact wipe out the vast majority of unicellular life as well.
> Within a few million years, you'd never know humans existed.
We could fix this, too. Take a radioactive substance with a really long half-life... on the order of 20 or 30 million years. Spread it far and wide through the atmosphere.
Here are some good candidates:
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/c
> Could we fuck it up to the point that humans could survive in it?
Um... I'm pretty sure it's fucked up to that extent already.
> But nature doesn't revolve around man
Yes, but at some point you have to decide what IS important. If you don't think that life is important, then that's fine, because nothing we're going to do is going to have much effect on *geology* in the short term. If you think that us destroying everything except for unicellular life is a negligable change, then that's clearly true from the universe's perspective and clearly not true from the earth's perspecitve. The biosphere is thin, but it has had an extremely large impact on the composition of the surface of the earth.
You clearly don't even believe we could have that much of an effect. But I submit to you that, given the even distribution of a few million tons of highly radioactive materials with a really long half-life over the surface of the world (and, of course, in the oceans as well), we could probably prevent any even modestly complex self-replicating organisms from existing for an extremely long time. If you don't know enough biology to understand why this is, the conversation stops here, I'm afraid, because I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you.
Suffice it to say that the human capacity for destruction is nearly as great as the human capacity to ignore facts that we don't want to acknowledge.
If we were (in some bizarre, science-fiction way) to produce a hundred kilograms of antimatter, would you still claim that anything we could possibly do would have any real impact on the earth? E = 200 * c^2 = 1.8 * 10^19 kg * meters^2 / seconds^2 = 1.8 * 10^19 joules.
This would be enough (by a couple of orders of magnitude, in fact) to bring the moon down onto the earth. Would you consider that 'serious'?
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
It's clear that the climate changes, and we don't really know why. There are lots of good reasons why we should develop replaceable energy sources and stop burning fossil carbon as our principal energy source - not the least of which is that the fossil carbon is going to run out some day. But global warming caused primarily by human interference? Unproved, perhaps unprovable.
[this
I live in Poland. Ten years ago I used to wear T-shirt, sometimes a pullover in April. Today I see the snow behind the window. Brrr. And this year winter was one of the coldest I remember.
If someone could warm it a bit, I'd be grateful.
The temperature has risen steadily this century, but that does not mean that it will continue to do so. But it means that we are leaving the equilibrum position that the global climate has been in since the last ice age. More over, this rapid change in the climate is claimed by a majority of climate scientist (or environmentalist if that is what you like to call them) to be caused by human energy consumption and other human activities.
When we leave the equilibrium that we have come to depend on, the system will at some point become unstabel. Such unstabel systems can be seen for instant in a simple pendelum with an external force out of frequency with the pendelum motion; the motion will become chaotic and the behavior of the system very hard/impossible to predict. The system will often come back to a new equilibrium position, but where it will end up is again very hard to predict.
The climate is of course a much more complex system than any simple mechanical model you can make in the lab. What we do know is if we get too far away from the equilibrium, the climate will become unstabel, and we will see some uncontrolable changes, before any new equilibrium, i.e., weather pattern set in. If the new weather pattern will lead to global cooling or global warming is anyones guess. But rapid changes in the climate on a global scale will definitly wipe out huge eco-systems and will probably wipe out the poorer parts of the world, if not also richer countries. The economic cost will of course sky rocket (think of the costs money wise if Miami and Manhatten suddenly are under the sea level , as one example).
There are scientific reasons to belive the earth has been into such externally driven climate changes before. Everyone knows of the theory of the dinosaurs being killed of by the climate change due to a meteorite. Similar changes have happened in the past when the sun has gone through changes. The resent change in the climate is most probably due to human beings, and therefore is unique in that we can actually do something about it.
I do not really understand the economic argument of Bush (and his oil friends). First, the cost will be much greater if these climate changes comes. Second, it makes sense to not be so dependent on burning fossile fuels, and to use energy sources that pollute less but equally importantly, are renewable. Third, what ever country or company develops the technology that makes sun, wind, waves, thermal energy competetive, or likewise, make burning of fossile fuels more effective or makes technology to not let CO2 out in the atmosphere, will have a technology that they can sell for hard bucks all over the world.
The Kyoto agreement will force industrialized countries to make investments now, that will cost some part of our budgets, but it is an investment in the future that one can hope will lead to a more stable climate, but for sure in more viable energy sources and useful technology. I think it is a more valuable budget cost than tax breaks for the rich 3% of the US population.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
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.