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.""

Comments

Will it be cold tomorrow?

[alwsn]

" . . . 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

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[JebusIsLord]

The problem with this argument is that science is a useful but imperfect tool. As a scientist, you SHOULD be distrustful of its application when a failure could be catastrophic. Predicting future climatic changes is a good thing, even if sometimes flawed. building nuclear power plants are NOT a good thing when done wrong.

I am a huge proponent of science. I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded. I support the development of alternative fuel sources (even nuclear) but I DON'T support the blind application of all things "scientific" when the consequences could be catastrophic.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[giminy]

While it's true that environmentalists distrust technological creations' effects on the environment and on health, this doesn't discount environmentalists trusting the scientific method for observation.

Besides, science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island are fine counterexamples). Pesticides do have negatives effects on the environment (remember DDT?). Chemical preservatives cause cancer (More potassium benzoate in your maple syrup?).

Sorry if I don't trust things that have proven themselves untrustworthy.

Observation is something completely different. In fact it is this very same scientific observation that causes environmentalists to realize that this technology is untrustworthy.

George Reisman should go back to commenting on economics and stop pretending to be an scientist.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Three mile island is the result of operator incompetence, not bad science.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[Raffaello]

Since the design of TMI required human operators, the possiblity of operator incompetence was a built in part of the design of TMI. However, the designers failed to implement a system that made it impossible for operator incompetence to cause a catastrophic failure. That's bad engineering. There were insufficient fail-safe mechanisms, which guaranteed that, given sufficient time, there would eventually be a catastophic failure .

BTW, "bad science" should read "bad engineering," because no one disputes the basic science of nuclear plants - there's no disagreement as to whether fission reactors can produce electricity via steam turbines. There is very legitimate disagreement as to whether it is possible to engineer such a plant so that no operator incompetence can possibly have catastrophic effects.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[meta-monkey]

DDT is a perfect example of why you need to be very careful of your sources, and to avoid politically demagoguery when it comes to science. Rachel Carson was a poor scientist, she did not conduct her own research, and she mis-represented other scientists' legitamate work to alarm people over DDT with her book, "Silent Sprint."

The fact of the matter is, DDT is not significantly harmful to people. Certainly, it's less harmful than malaria. Carson's use of DDT to further her environmentalist goals through politics led to the deaths of millions in tropic, third-world regions due to mosquito-borne malaria, and the death tolls continue to rise today. For more information, check http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

That's why we have to be very careful with the highly politcally charged issue of global warming. Within the global warming camp, are those who a) understand the issues and believe, at the advice of scientists who have conducted legitamate research, that the earth is warming and it's our fault, and b) those who are opposed to capitalism and the United States, and wish to wield global warming as a weapon against their political enemies, facts and science be damned. There are also considerable reasons to doubt the methods of scientists who conclude the earth is warming and that it's our fault, and there are also other studies which show just the opposite. So, in effect, the jury is still out. We need to be sure of the facts before we take radical actions with unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded

Not everyone that opposes genetically engineered foods is a technofobic hippie. I see another problem with these things: Large companies like Monsanto sell genetically engineered seeds to farmers that produce plants whose seeds are unusable, so the farmers *have* to buy Monsanto's seeds every year. Sooner or later, every farmer is dependent on Monsanto. That is not a good thing, imho.

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[Rob Simpson]

Chernobyl was the a disaster because of a deeply flawed design and extreme incompetence on the part of the operators. Three Mile Island was the result of operator incompetence - but even then, no actual harm was caused.

What about the effects of breathing tons of coal smoke? Science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe fossil fuel power plant. Or any entirely safe power plant (or anything) for that matter. What about wind farms killing birds, or hydro plants ruining salmon spawning grounds? In many cases, nuclear isn't the best option, but why is it the only one that needs to prove itself 100% safe and environmentally friendly?

Re:Will it be cold tomorrow?

[giminy]

The fact of the matter is, DDT is not significantly harmful to people.

You mean not directly significantly harmful to people. Let's not forget what it does to birds, fish, and other wild critters. Disrupting the food chain could have very serious future consequences for people, which is the sort of thing that environmentals wish to avoid.

If we're all starving in 50 years because all the critters die due to some widely used chemical "not significantly harmful to people," killing everything else, you'll change your mind. But then it will be too late.

article credibility

[cronian]

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.

Just for the record

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Of course Global Warming isn't true...

[VitrosChemistryAnaly]

...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.

Re:Of course Global Warming isn't true...

[Carbonite]

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".

25 years ago, it was Global Cooling

[sirshannon]

in the 70's, many of today's Global Warming researchers were claiming that the Earth was falling into an Ice Age.

Re:25 years ago, it was Global Cooling

[sirshannon]

In that article (Schneider S. & Rasool S., "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols - Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", Science, vol.173, 9 July 1971, p.138-141), he said "We report here on the first results of a calculation in which separate estimates were made of the effects on global temperature of large increases in the amount of CO2 and dust in the atmosphere. It is found that even an increase by a factor of 8 in the amount of CO2, which is highly unlikely in the next several thousand years, will produce an increase in the surface temperature of less than 2 deg. K.
However, the effect on surface temperature of an increase in the aerosol content of the atmosphere is found to be quite significant. An increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5 deg. K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!"


Schneider also had this quote on the back of Lowell Ponte's book "The Cooling" (Prentice Hall, N.J., USA, 1976) "The dramatic importance of climate changes to the worlds future has been dangerously underestimated by many, often because we have been lulled by modern technology into thinking we have conquered nature. But this well-written book points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face, and that massive world-wide actions to hedge against that threat deserve immeadiate consideration. At a minimum, public awareness of the possibilities must commence, and Lowell Ponte's provocative work is a good place to start."

In Scheider's own 1976 book "The Genesis Strategy", he predicted that falling temperatures would cause major crop failures by the end of the 70's.

I am not saying that any of the above statements regarding global cooling are true/false or that the statements regarding global warming are false/true, far from that. I am only pointing out Schneider's global cooling stance. I stand by my answer, Stephen Scheider, one of today's Global Warming proponents, was a major voice in the Global Cooling scare of the 1970's.

Re:Questioning global warming

[Telex4]

It was with good reason that the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty.

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.

Alright then...

[Morthaur]

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.

Screw global warming!

[eggstasy]

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*

Re:Screw global warming!

[alkali]

Do you shit on the floor? Do you piss in the kitchen sink?

You should think about where you are posting before you assume those questions will be taken as rhetorical.

Re:Screw global warming!

[YoJ]

Firstly, buses are very efficient for transporting people and so are a much saner choice for a cleaner environment than miles of commuter cars with one occupant each.

Secondly, combatting pollution is not a choice for everyone in the world between cleanliness and convenience. It can be a choice between cleanliness and starvation, or pollution and food. Developed countries have the luxury of choosing cleanliness; other parts of the world don't have this luxury.

Re:Not a surprise really

[Telex4]

It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance among many environmentalists and conservationsist.

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.

Re:Questioning global warming

[randyest]

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.

Re:environmentalism = socialism

[Telex4]

Wow! Congratulations - you win the "most stupid post on /. today" award for that one!

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!

Re:environmentalism = socialism

[Unordained]

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.

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 ... 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?

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 ... 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 ...

So let me get this straight...

[cybercuzco]

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.""

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.

Re:Questioning global warming

[Telex4]

Heh, point taken :) Here you are:

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_Tric ks.pdf

A similar report by Greenpeace USA:
http://www.stopesso.com/pdf/exxon_denial.pdf

Hmm, so Terrorism = socialism ?

[Myriad]

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.

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.)

Re:environmentalism = socialism

[taniwha]

i hunt and fish, and love the outdoors as much as anyone. but, i think capitalism and freedom are far more important.

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

Re:CO2 sinks

[Chris Carollo]

The US is a net CARBON SINK. One of the largest in the world.

Hmmm....This disagrees with you.

"Despite the fact that land sinks help remove carbon from the atmosphere, the U.S. continues to emit more carbon than it removes. In 1990, for example, the country released 1.337 billion tons from fossil fuel emissions, making it a net source of between two-thirds and 1 billion tons of carbon per year."

Got a reference for your statement?

Re:CO2 sinks

[Chops]

The US is a net CARBON SINK.

Care to back that up? The Dept. of Energy says we emitted 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon via CO2 emissions in 1999.

This site puts us at the top of global carbon emitters. I don't recognize any of ucsusa's members' names, but their figures for the US approximately agree with the DOE's; I see no reason not to trust them.

Re:Questioning global warming

[djmurdoch]

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.

Re:The actual facts

[Jonathan]

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.

Re:environmentalism = socialism

[TKinias]

scripsit b17bmbr:

environmentalism is really a path to world socialism and world government, in the same vein as the UN.

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!

missing the point

[opaqueice]

I think most people are missing the point when discussing global warming. The fact is, global temperatures are rising rapidly. Whether or not they are rising more rapidly than they did at some other period in history is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter so much what fraction of this effect is due to pollution. The point is, the ice caps are melting and the sea is rising, weather patterns are changing, etc. And if this process keeps going, we are screwed. Think of how many major cities in the world are on the ocean. What will happen to them if the sea level rises by 20 or 30 feet? What will happen to millions and billions of poor farmers in most of the world if the weather patterns change drastically?

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!

Trust? Truth? Perspective, please.

[fygment]

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 :-)

Re:Questioning global warming

[blackpaw]

From the article (emphasis mine)

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

Whoops?

[barakn]

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.

The most important quote from the article.

[furry_wookie]

Here is the MOST important quote that anyone should get from this article:

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.

Get a clue...

[CSieber]

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

Re:CO2 sinks

[mesocyclone]

When the scientific community cannot even find where 30% of the carbon flux goes, why should we believe any assertions about carbon sinks. This is one of the many reasons that Kyoto is bad policy - it is based on an infant scientific field with lousy data. That doesn't mean that the science is bad - it means that it is insufficient, by a long ways.

As far as Kyoto went, what nobody seems to mention is that it was a fraud and a trap. If you believed the numbers that the Kyoto framers themselves used, Kyoto would have resulted in an unmeasurable change in global temperature over the 100 year timeframe of its scope. Or, put another way, it would have delayed whatever warming there was by just a few years.

Kyoto was meant to do two things:
1) Hurt the US economically compared to Europe, by hitting us harder
2) Provide a start to a process that would have required drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - cuts that would have been politically impossible if called for in the first treaty, but cuts that would be necessary to achieve Kyoto's goals.

Without breakthrough technology and massive investment, those cuts would have been impossible. But there is no way to cause breakthrough technology - it is like pushing a rope!

The ultimate conceit in Kyoto was its assumption that its CO2 emissions rules could be maintained, world wide, for 100 years. That requires an absurd faith in the stability of international life that is unprecedented in history. If Kyoto had been put in place 100 years ago, is there anyone alive who believes it would have made any difference? Do the Kyoto planners really believe that the world will be stable... that monstrous regimes will not arise (which will give a fig about the environment - witness the USSR)... that unforseen technological innovations will not occur? After all, 100 years ago there were no airplanes, electronics, computers, antibiotics, totalitarian regimes, Naziism, Marxist-Leninism, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, etc.

Finally, one almost never hears any support for the cheapest, most reliable anti-CO2 emissions technology around: nuclear. France would have an easy time with Kyoto, BECAUSE 70% OF ITS ELECTRICAL POWER IS NUCLEAR. But US enviros have completely killed nuclear power, in spite of its free world history of ZERO deaths - the safest power ever invented.

This in itself is enough to make me strongly doubt either the sanity, education or honesty of almost every pro-Kyoto proponent!

Re:Questioning global warming

[JordanH]

• 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.

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.

Re:Environmentalist = Communist in Drag

[Watts Martin]

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?

Re:Not a surprise really

[Loki_1929]

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.