New Climate Change Warning

It's because.... by gardyloo · 2005-01-26 15:19 · Score: 5, Funny

This thing was run on so many PCs. They obviously took the simulation itself into account -- good job!

Re:It's because.... by demachina · 2005-01-26 16:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here is a good resource on global warming from EPA and National Science Foundation though there estimates are little lower, 6 celsius is there upper end over the next century. The most impressive thing about this web site is that its created by people in the U.S. government, the Bush White House hasn't shut it down and they haven't fired the people who created it, so shhhhh don't tell them about it because they must know its there because they really hate anyone who says stuff like this.

One of the more interesting sections. Those of you who've been through the big rains on the West Coast and the big snows on the East Coast should note that intense rainstorms and presumably snow storms are a potential indicator of global warming as the oceans evaporate off more water as they warm.

"Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States."

"Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5F (0.6-2.5C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10F (1.4-5.8C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast."

--
@de_machina
Re:It's because.... by Acts+of+Attrition · 2005-01-26 16:21 · Score: 4, Funny

This is no laughing matter.
The avg temp is going to go up 11000 degrees!
We're doomed!
Re:It's because.... by calidoscope · 2005-01-26 18:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0F since the late 19th century.
A complicating factor is that 1850 marked the end of a several century global cooling event. The years 800 to 1200 AD were considerably warmer than from AD 1400 to 1800.

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Re:It's because.... by batemanm · 2005-01-27 00:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Isn't there a theory that global warming will melt loads of ice which decreases the saltiness of the ocean around the artic and this will disturbe the gulf stream leading to cooling of varies parts of the world, IIRC Europe and the east coast of the US. Could have been warped version of that.
Re:It's because.... by ajs · 2005-01-27 01:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Nope, I recall measurements in Australia showing the same thing, and Antartica has been in a warming trend for the last 10,000 years (since the last ice age). You are correct, though that, as we understand it, the North Atlantic and Mediteranian suffered a far stronger period of warming 500-100 years ago (Egypt, as I recall, was significantly impacted).

The grand (or is that grand, grand) parent was concerned that the Bush administration didn't realize that the EPA was saying that the temperatures were rising AND were predicting further rises.

The problem here is a misunderstanding of what the point of disagreement is (and it's really not a right-left issue at all: I'm a liberal democrat myself, but agree with the White House on this). The difference is based, not on the question, "is it getting warmer?" That was a real and significant question in the 80s when there were doubts about the measurements being used. However, at this point we are fairly certain that temperatures have been rising for the last 100 years and have been rising more sharply for the last 50.

The question is: is this a natural warming trend, as observed 500-1000 years ago, is this human-induced or is it a combination of the two.

The most likely answer is that it's a combination, so the disagreement boils down to where you place the division of responsibility. If man is responsible for 0.00001% of the current warming trend then there's no point in worrying about it any more than we worry about tracking hurricanes. Do the math, warn the people, carry on.

If we're responsible for 50% of the current warming trend, then we should seriously re-think out interaction with the environment... and soon!

My personal belief is that, in the current climate of mud-slinging and political pressure, there is no reasonable way to determine the real answer, and so I am left with one overriding fact: for every form of influence man can exert on our world, nature routinely exerts far, far more influence. All of our factories, planes and cars pale in comparison to volcanoes, forest fires and various bilogical processes. The Sun's influence is still poorly understood. For example, what is the exact relationship between increases in solar output and evaporation? Since water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas, knowing if evaporation is a linear, logarithmic or step function with respect to solar radiation is KEY to understanding global warming, and yet the process of evaporation is so complex that we have yet to understand it even enough to describe simple weather phenomenon, much less climactic change.

So, do we change the way we live? We should, but we didn't need a global warming debate to tell us that. We desperately need to police the most obviously damaging influences that man has on the environment. Chemical dumping kills millions every year, around the world. Why is that less of a problem than the THEORY that global warming might have a human influence?! We're over-fishing our oceans. Why is that less of a danger to human quality of life? We've been preventing forest fires the wrong way for 100 years, leading to fires that burn orders of magnitude hotter and more dangerously.

The problem I have with environmentalism is that it is mostly focused on a FEELING that humans are doing the wrong thing, and research is used as a sort of background music to the movement rather than the driving force. I want to be an environmentalist, but as long as environmentalism is defined by owl-squeezers and doom predictors I guess I'll have to just be a concerned inhabitant of planet Earth.
Re:It's because.... by EvilTwinSkippy · 2005-01-27 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Flooding out most habital areas near sea shores, massive flooding in river basins, combined with widespread drought in most other places seems like a fairly corrective measure on nature's part to me.

--
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Re:It's because.... by Cally · 2005-01-27 03:51 · Score: 2, Informative

My personal belief is that, in the current climate of mud-slinging and political pressure, there is no reasonable way to determine the real answer,..
Well, no, I can't agree with that. We're (mostly) intelligent and rational people here. Generally speaking we accept that the scientific method is the best means we have for understanding the world about us. Genuine, respected climatologists do acknowledge that there are areas of genuine debate in the field; however, the basic question you're asking (the extent to current warming trend is anthropic) has ben firmly answered for some time now. Once again I recommend RealClimate.org as an excellent source for information for the intelligent, educated lay-person. (It's mostly built by actual climate scientists but the intention is to communicate with non-specialists,- a grounding in basic science is probably a prerequisite but it's pretty comprehensible with a bit of effort.)

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:It's because.... by ajs · 2005-01-27 03:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

Reduce/eliminate emissions and maybe scrub greenhouse gasses from the air. If man is responsible for global warming then temperatures will stop rising or decrease.

THIS... this right here, is what I was talking about above. No one with a shred of scientific credentials that I've read anywhere has suggested that man has the unbridled power to reverse or even halt global warming. It's unthinkable that we would have that kind of power. All that has been suggested is that the existing warming trend, that current models take as a given could be returned to the track that our current understanding of solar and geothermal forces predict. In plain english: the best we could do is go back to slower warming, not prevent what appears to be a natural period of global warming that began in the late 1800s.

But that's not a valid statement for an environmentalist to make. It *feels* better to say that we could "stop [...] or decrease" global warming, and so science be damned!

Like I said, in this climate, we are almost certain to be unable to extract real meaning from the data at our disposal. Instead, I suggest that we focus on the threats to the environment that are real, provable, and KILLING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE EVERY YEAR. Do that, and you are a real environmentalist. Do that as an environmentalist organization, and I will back you financially.
Re:It's because.... by Cally · 2005-01-27 03:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

There's a lot of debate whether the current temperature increase is actually due to humans. Although most people believe it's due to humans, there is evidence on both sides.
Sorry, you're mistaken. All models that are capable of reproducing the last 1000 years or so of climate fail to reproduce the recent global temperature increase (the 'hockey stick') unless they include the effects of human CO2 emissions. That the recent uptick is due to human CO2 is no longer an area of dispute (amongst those researchers with some grasp on reality, who actually know something about the subject, and are capable getting published in respectable peer-reviewed juornals, anyway. Supermarket tabloids and AM radio shows may not agree...)

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Re:It's because.... by demachina · 2005-01-27 03:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Here is a Washington Post piece on the Bush administration's efforts to suppress this kind of report, at the EPA no less, though I wager unless its coming from Fox news you will probably consider it left wing propaganda since I imagine you are a card carrying member of the American Gestapo(a.k.a the New Repulican Party). You probably shouldn't refer to yourself as incompetent, its not a sign of the strength you need in your line of work :)

--
@de_machina
Re:It's because.... by mrogers · 2005-01-27 03:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

But largely natural temp variations are ok, it's when man creates the changes that we have to worry.
Why? If the sea level rises due to 'natural' temperature variations you'll still drown.
Re:It's because.... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-27 04:00 · Score: 2, Informative

My most serious problem with this well spoken article is, is that it concentrates to much on enviromentalisms and misunderstands the size of each of the factors. Forinstance volcanoes and forest fires do not dwarf human emissions, it's the other way around actually. I think these myths came into being, cause over one day a volcano can outstrip human emissions sometimes, but it totally forgets humans keep outputting year round and volcanoes don't. You can clearly see this from the background CO2 level starting to near double from its normal levels over the last century and a half.

This doesn't mean we should start panicking right now considering that there are ofcourse still considerable problems with creating good models of climate change, just like with weather predictions there are alot of unknown variables. Though you should remember the type of problem is fundamentally different. At current none of the models can without a bit of help properly predict all past climatic events, some factor forcing is required.And this likely points to us not understanding certain factors well enough yet.

Still, it concerns me that any model able to predict past changes the least bit accuratly, predicts that in our current situation there will be considerable warming. Ofcourse they could all be wrong, but it concerns me greatly none the less because I don't believe they can be totally wrong. Expecially there we also have been seeing temperature rises over the 20th century in excess of anything I've managed to find during the Ice Age period, the only one I do know of that might look like it, the PETM (Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum), had a massive temperature spike of 5-10 degrees Celsius.
Re:It's because.... by Syberghost · 2005-01-27 09:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The most impressive thing about this web site is that its created by people in the U.S. government, the Bush White House hasn't shut it down and they haven't fired the people who created it, so shhhhh don't tell them about it because they must know its there because they really hate anyone who says stuff like this.

A lesser man would have interpreted that as evidence that the "conventional wisdom" that the Bush administration covers this stuff up might be in error. I salute your unshakeable faith.

Someday... by davew2040 · 2005-01-26 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Someday people are going to feel awfully silly that they were worrying about terrorism instead of the warning signs of ecological degeneration.

Re:Someday... by Waffle+Iron · 2005-01-26 18:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Krakatoa put out more greenhouse gases than ALL HUMANITY in history. Why don't we hear about that?
Because it's patently false:
There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

...not good news for the planet... by hwestiii · 2005-01-26 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I suspect that the planet will be fine in either case. Now perhaps not good news for it inhabitants...

Re:...not good news for the planet... by savagedome · 2005-01-26 15:28 · Score: 5, Funny

Planet will be fine. This is just the planet's way to get rid of us. We were here to create plastic and that need is over.

In the words of George Carlin:

If plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, 'Why are we here?' Plastic...asshole.

--

Free XBox, PS2
Re:...not good news for the planet... by ErroneousBee · 2005-01-26 23:57 · Score: 2, Funny

Dont anthromorphosize planets, they dont like it.

--
**TODO** Steal someone elses sig.

HOWTO: give science a bad name. by Space+cowboy · 2005-01-26 15:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Disclaimer: I actually do think there's something in the global warming argument. I think putting loads more energy into a chaotic system gives that system the freedom to explore states in its phase space that could cause us some real grief. I actually don't care if "the planet will survive, it's seen worse". I'd prefer to survive personally, and I'd like to keep a few other humans around as well...

However I think the results are pretty conclusive in their own right and right-minded politicians ought to be doing something on that basis alone (they're finally beginning to, as well :-). I don't think that alarmist, over-the-top "reports" are doing any real good - in fact I think they harm the argument they try to represent.

So, by varying the parameters in a simulation, they've found a range of temperature increases which we should engender reactions from "concerned" (2 degrees) through "terrified" (11 degrees). Hey, I admitted my bias in the first paragraph! The press reports the "terrified" figure and it's big news. Until someone points out that it's a Normal distribution, and the massively-more-likely figure is in the "worried" temperature range of (guessing here) 5-6 degrees.

The problem is not that the scientists are lying (they're not), and not that the press are lying either (they're not). The problem is a lack of understanding of the end-result in announcing a catastrophe and then saying "No, we'll be ok". There's a fable about this, and it involves a boy crying "wolf" too many times...

I'm not sure who's to blame. Should the scientists state more forcefully what their expectation is rather than the extremes of their results? Would they ever get published in that case ? Should journalists be held accountable for doing the equivalent of shouting "Fire" in a theatre ? Well, a journalist's job is not to report the news, it's to sell papers, and catastrophes sell better. Perhaps there's a need for a neutral ground, some sort of arbiter that can interpret the results in a way the public can understand (since no-one seems to take science these days), but *that*'s open to *easy* abuse as well.

Perhaps science was better off in its ivory tower after all. That's a depressing thought. Perhaps the best solution would be to comprehensively educate people about science (better, about statistics) and beat the snake-oil salesmen at their own game.

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by pavera · 2005-01-26 15:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree with the sentiment in your post. However, I really don't see how 11 degrees is going to suddenly make the planet uninhabitable.

Personally, I live in Salt Lake City, Utah, in the winter the average temp here is probably around 30 degrees F. My family lives in Las Vegas, NV a mere 400 miles away. The average temp there is probably more like 50 degrees, I was there last week wearing shorts and flip flops, it was warm (60 F) for January.

Now, in the summer it gets up to 120F in Vegas, yet more than a million people somehow manage to live there. That is easily 11C warmer than Salt Lake in the summer, people live all over this planet in all sorts of temperatures. Storms might get worse, but that's not going to make the planet "uninhabitable", the Tsunami killed more people by far than all of the huricanes Florida had last year, so unless you're saying global warming causes earthquakes, I'd say we fear that alot more than having to wear short sleeves instead of sweaters.

Even if "The day after tomorrow" happens, (oh whoops it only destroyed the US.. weird... I'm glad that the climate knows who is creating all the greenhouse gasses, and will selectively destroy only them, maybe I can move to Europe and I'll be ok...) That movie was so bizarre, if things really happened the way that movie talked about we'd have to redefine absolute zero (the temp is dropping 40 degrees per second!!!).

anyway, my point is the media sucks at "educating" people be it the news, movies, whatever, they are idiots and can't "convince" any thinking person of their "science". The complete misuse of statistics in this whole argument also renders it useless.
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by Vellmont · 2005-01-26 15:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem isn't that everyone is going to die, the problem is that an 11 degree temperature rise will cause massive disruption in society. If the global temperature rose 11 degrees (remember this is a global average over the whole year, not what you'll experience) that would melt much of the Antarctic glacier. Sea levels would rise substantially and coastal cities would be underwater. The climate would change dramatically and the key areas for food production would likely change. We'd probbably get more frequent and powerfull Hurricanes and tornados.

The point is that we humans have a lot invested in how the climate is right now. A drastic change of 11 degrees over a relatively short period of time would be a global catastrophe that could cause an economic depression that's make the great depression look like an "economic downturn".

--
AccountKiller
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by thogard · 2005-01-26 15:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Its not the humans getting too hot thats going to be the problem.

Many fish in the Pacific ocean hatch out of eggs on the great barrier reef. That reef's eco system is tired into specific temperature bands and certain fish breed in specific parts of it. There is a very delicate balance in the food chain that does go away with slight changes. The last 10 years has seen a major drop in the number of young fish that hatch and that means there are fewer fish in the ocean to feed humans.

Also don't forget water. If you increase a forest's temperature by about 5 degrees, you double its risk of forest fire. If the risk is high enough you end up with a former forest that can't recover after fires. Forest hold a massive amount of water and are a major part of the local water cycle.

The areas you mentioned can only support that many people because of good transportation and the fact there is a huge river to pump water from. The great salt lake is getting much smaller very quickly and its local evaporation and local rain is a source of a great deal of the ground water. That local water cycle provides a buffer that helps keep the climate bearable.
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by strider44 · 2005-01-26 15:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Firstly, it meant 40 degrees farenheit per second, and it stopped at -200 degrees celcius or lower apparently. As far as I know that scenario has been disproved anyway.

But saying average temperatures rise 11 degrees does not mean "oh it's 30 degrees now it'll be 41 degrees in a hundred years". Lets move away from the fact that I live where it gets to 40 degrees, and I most definitely don't want to live in a place where it's 50 degrees. But other things happen that are just unpredictable. Global weather is so complex we can't predict what will happen, but the following things are likely: For you, the sea levels will raise to at least destroy Salt Lake at least because of the ice caps melting. It is quite likely also the atmosphere will become unbreathable to humans. There will be more storms that are more violent. Entire groups of species will become extinct, especially plantlife and especially in the northern hemisphere since they are not very well equiped for major input of energy and will quite simply burn up (having life's major food source being eliminated isn't neccessarily a good plan), and anyway if the plants are eliminated then basically the planet turns into pure deserts, which makes daytime temperatures rise even more (at a sacrifice to nighttime temperatures), so it may well be in the 60 degree areas. There will also be more frequent and more violent volcanic eruptions because of the extra heat being fed into the crust. But anyway, we have more to worry about than "wearing short sleeves".
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by NatteringNabob · 2005-01-26 16:54 · Score: 2, Informative

The problem is that even 2 degrees would cause billions, if not trillions of dollars in damage to low lying costal areas where the vast majority of the world's population lives. Of course Bush II thinks the problem needs to be studied for another 5 or 10 years, because who knows? If you do enough studies, one of them may crank out a result that you like.
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by ahodgson · 2005-01-26 18:14 · Score: 2, Informative

If all the ice on Antarctica and Greenland melted, global sea level would rise about 80 metres. There is 30 million km3 of water in Antarctic ice.

The ice is miles deep on Antarctica.

It would have to get pretty damned hot to melt all that though.
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by rokzy · 2005-01-26 18:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

>Melting the entire Arctic ice mass will have no effect whatsoever because its weight is already supported by the water it floats in, so it can be ignored - people do seem to forget that.

you seem to forget there's a difference between ice water and sea water (hint: salt). that's what scientists are worried about - disruption to currents when the two mix.
Re:HOWTO: give science a bad name. by tehdaemon · 2005-01-26 19:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hate to burst your bubble, but most of your science here is bad.
"There is evidence that in ages past, the earth was MUCH warmer"
Correct, but the reason we find fossils in siberia, and antartica for that matter, is because they have moved farther from the equator since then. Not because the world was warmer then.
The reason that areas now under water were dry then have alot to do with rising and lowering tectonic plates, similar to how we can find marine fossils on the tops of mountains. This also has little to do with past ocean levels.
If 200 feet of ocean evaporated, the increase in the amount of gas in the atmosphere would cause 'air' pressure to quadruple. I put air in quotes because at that point the 'air' would bo 80% water vapor. And about 4% oxygen. The oxygen levels alone would kill most animal life.
Violent weather is not caused by simple temprature gradients. It is caused when moist air rises. This causes the air to lose pressure, and this causes a loss in temprature. As you said temprature greatly affects how much water the air can hold. So the the extra water in the moist air condenses out. This releases a lot of heat, and keeps the air rising a lot longer than it would if it were dry. The violence comes because more air gets sucked in to replace the rising air. A hurricane is caused when this happens over warm water. The fresh air picks up a lot of water vapor from the warm water and keeps the whole thing going.

--
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.

11K? by t3hl33t · 2005-01-26 15:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

11K? Is that 11 000 *unknown units* or 11 degrees kelvin? If 11 degrees kelvin, why not just say 11 degrees celsius...

Re:11K? by yabos · 2005-01-26 15:25 · Score: 2, Informative

There is no degrees Kelvin. It's just 11 Kelvin. And it sounds more sciencey. Even though 11K = 11 degrees C.
Re:11K? by Teclis · 2005-01-26 15:42 · Score: 2, Informative

11K = 11 degrees C

wrong.. 11K is not 11 degrees C. 11K is -262 degrees C. What I think you meant to say is that a difference of 11K is equal to a difference of 11 degrees C.

--
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right. --Isaac Asimov

Hmm.. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 15:20 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh well. As long as it's the The Century After The Next, and not the day after tomorrow... not my problem.

If I have any kids, I'll be sure to painfully torture them myself long before climate becomes an issue.

The cause by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 15:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's a graphic that shows the cause of all this, in a particularly vivid way.
Almost fell off my chair when I first saw this info...

It's about time! by sdo1 · 2005-01-26 15:20 · Score: 2, Funny

All this snow in the northeast is really starting to piss me off.

-S

--
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

Crichton novel- State of Fear by bach37 · 2005-01-26 15:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

Anyone else read Michael Crichton's latest novel State of Fear?

He has an interesting take on the subject, backed with documentation to his sources.

Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear by Staplerh · 2005-01-26 15:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Hmm, an interesting review was posted on Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2110815

Not so good. I've had some issues with Chrichton and his reactionary, conservative stance before. This could help you take some of it with a grain of salt.

Or not, I don't propose to be an expert. Just thought it might interest you.

--
"There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
- Bob Dylan
Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear by IvyMike · 2005-01-26 15:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Anyone else read Michael Crichton's latest novel State of Fear? The scientists at RealClimate read it; they're not impressed. For the lazy, here's the conclusion:
In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn't do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would've all worked out differently...
Re:Crichton novel- State of Fear by Jim_Callahan · 2005-01-26 19:47 · Score: 2, Funny

eh, just ignore the political message and Chrighton's books are awesome. I mean, Jurrasic park was something about dangers of cloning blah blah kill science yarr, yet I still enjoyed it because it was a book about dinosaur clones running around eating people. What's not to love?

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~

It rained yesterday by Dancin_Santa · 2005-01-26 15:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

It was sunny today.

The news was unable to predict either of these to any accuracy only 24 hours prior to the weather event.

You want to believe that they can predict the weather 100 years from now?

Re:It rained yesterday by Capt'n+Hector · 2005-01-26 15:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Flamebait, but... I'm gunna hafta bite. Chaotic systems are predictable. A pot of boiling water is chaotic. But I can make several predictions. If I turn up the heat, the water will boil faster. If I leave the pot there for a long time, all the water will be gone from the pot. The atmosphere is chaotic in that it's a bitch to predict whether it will be sunny or raining two weeks from now. But, it's become nothing but painfully obvious to those in the field, people you degrade by putting quotes around their title, that over the long term a very orderly process is occuring. It's called global warming. This latest study is just another nail in ALL our coffins.

--
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Re:It rained yesterday by petra13 · 2005-01-26 15:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

You want to believe that they can predict the weather 100 years from now?
Well, actually, I think you're a little confused on the issue of weather vs. climate. First, predicting weather is different from predicting overall trends in the climate system. So no, obviously, they're not going to know exactly what's going to happen on a particular day a week from now to say nothing of a century from now. However, it is reasonable to predict an increase in the planet's temperature over the next several decades based on amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and so forth.
Using your logic as stated, we'd have to be skeptical that New York City is going to be about 50 degrees F warmer in six months than it was today.
Re:It rained yesterday by metlin · 2005-01-26 15:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The weather system is so chaotic that we do not yet even know of all the factors involved. More importantly, we hardly have sufficient data showing the complete interaction of all the factors and parameters involved to make any kind of effective future prediction.

And yet, we make tall claims. Your water boiling analogy is too simplistic - a better one would be you boiling water using minimal firewood in the middle of a forest on a mountain with wild life and equatorial weather. Can you still predict with certainty what would happen to the water?

Chaotic systems are hard to predict - and there is no shame in admitting that. Rather than do that, most climatologists make claims without bothering to sufficiently back up their data or their analytic methods.

There is a rise in global greenhouse gas levels. There is a rise in Earth's temperature. But there is no absolutely conclusive evidence linking the two.

I'm quite open, show me the evidence and I will believe. Look at what Crutzen, Rowland and Molina did - they proved conclusively the link between Ozone depletion & CFCs and they won a Nobel.

What climatologists are doing today is not science, they're still guesstimating. Educated guesses, perhaps. But guesses neverthless.

We've hardly been here a fraction of time the age of this rock and we hardly even know anything about the planet's weather conditions or its past. And yet, we'd like to delude ourselves that we are somehow responsible for an upcoming global catastrophe. Bah.

Specifics about the model used??? by glrotate · 2005-01-26 15:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Out of sample results? Anything?

it shows there's no such thing as a safe level of carbon dioxide.

Uh. Ok.

BS, FP by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 15:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Both.

Again, why do I have to keep posting the same thing: where are the scientists?

SHOW me a graph of solar infrared output versus Earth temperatures, over a period of at least 50 years.

THEN we'll see how much B.S. this global warming crap is. ... if you think ol' Sol has a constant output, I have a bridge to sell you.

Mankind doesn't have the ability to alter the planet in this way. We're off by dozens of orders of magnitude.

Get real, folks. It's all about the sun.

Re:BS, FP by Capt'n+Hector · 2005-01-26 15:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

There's really two arguments to global warming. One is that it's even happening. The other is that we're causing it. My personal belief? I couldn't give a shit who's at fault. Be it flatulent cows, smog-belching cars, the sun, or... aliens from outer space - it still doesn't do anything for the first argument, that is, it's still happening regardless of who's at fault. We're still left with one of the great problems of humanity: how do we stop it?
Reducing our emissions can only help, and can indeed go a long way, but over the last 50 years its become painfully clear how impossibly difficult it is for such drastic measures to take place. It's unpopular among corporations, politicians and the general population. Not a good way to get things done. Now - if alternative power sources become more profitable and cheaper than fossil fuels, the world will jump on the bandwagon and reduce emissions in an instant.
But should we really hope that an unsure economic turnaround takes place in the next 100 years, before average global temperature rises 11K? And even then, can zero emissions stop anything? As per my previous comment in this story, a pot of boiling water will continue to boil even if its removed from the stove. There IS an alternative solution, though. It involves increasing the earth's albedo - the reflectiveness of the atmosphere and surface. Now, the earth already has a mechanism to do this: storms. Clouds have a high reflectiveness, and storms also kick up the ocean, producing whitecaps. If the temperature rises, storm activity might simply increase, in which case we might just be OK. But just as an additional safeguard (after all, we're talking about the whole planet/life/7 billion people) we might just want to come up with our own method of raising the albedo.

--
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
Re:BS, FP by crashfrog · 2005-01-26 16:11 · Score: 2, Funny

I am yet to be shown how global warming is going to kill all 7 billion people on the planet, or even a substantial portion of them.

Lemme ask you something. Did you ever eat? Or know someone who has?

--
I never have frustrations, the reason is, to wit:
If at first I don't succeed, I quit!

Re:Once Again Totally Irrelevant by Snad · 2005-01-26 15:25 · Score: 2, Informative

None of this is going to be relevant a hundred years from now.

There are some theories that we don't have even 20 years, let alone 100.

Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala by revscat · 2005-01-26 15:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Let's get this over with:

It's all a liberal apocalyptic myth
The planet will be fine. It's been here for billions of years.
It's part of a natural change
Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Fox News told me different, and they're experts on the climate whose opinion I have every reason to trust.
I think it's funny when liberals scream about the environment.

Do conservatives just not think there are consequences, or does it just appear that way? "Pollute the environment? Don't worry about it. Dump motor oil on your lawn, screw it. Make a liberal cry. Hahaha. Torture innocents? Eh. Has to be done. Drive up the national debt? C'est l'vie. Declare war for no good reason? They love us for it, the liberal media lies if they say any different."

I thought America was founded by *scientists*, non? The prevailing scientific opinion is that global warming is real and dangerous. Where'd these religious zealots come from, and when do we start shooting?

Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 15:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

The people who go into environmental sciences, like the people who go into journalism, are a self-selected group who have generally progressive ideas. Not so much with non-environmental Physics or Chemistry.

This leads to an abundance of progressive thinkers in these fields which gives them the general left-leaning slant. It's nothing like a conspiracy, just the general direction that these things take. You'll find left-leaning lawyers making up the bulk of environmental law, you'll find right-leaning lawyers making up the bulk of DAs. It's just the way things work out. People are drawn to areas they have an interest in.

So we can see how the environmental sciences would be filled with people who were actually out looking for problems and thinking up solutions. So you end up where we are now where the prevailing scientific opinion (among environmental scientists) is that doom and gloom await us if we do not change our living patterns NOW.

Well, those scientists have their own political agenda from which they take pre-fabricated solutions and apply them to the scientific problems which they've 'discovered'.

A technologist would look at global warming and see an opportunity to create something to help mankind cross that bridge. The environmental scientist can only consider cutting back current levels of technology to prevent the inevitable from happening.

On a tech site, you'd think you'd find more of the technologist perspective, but instead you find the latter Chicken Little perspective. The solution to global warming is technology, not the repealing of technology.
Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala by ErikZ · 2005-01-26 16:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Good luck with that. Notice that gun control is one of the big lefty policies. Now go look at the states that voted for Kerry. Illinois (Chicago), California, New Jersey, New York...all of them make it very hard, if not impossible to own a gun.

So, when the shooting starts, you'll have a bunch of people who think guns are evil and probably have never touched a gun, versus people who have been using guns for most of their adult lives.

What's your scientific prediction of the outcome?

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:Lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala by LarsWestergren · 2005-01-26 19:57 · Score: 2, Funny

I thought America was founded by *scientists*, non?

What, the people on the Mayflower where scientists?? ;)

--
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

You have to prioritize by DigiShaman · 2005-01-26 15:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's better to deal with one issue then to not deal with any issues at all.

You have to prioritize based on immediate threat.

--
Life is not for the lazy.

Re:You have to prioritize by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

You also have to prioritise based upon possible casualties and cost of the threat.

Terrorism in the USA: A few billion dollars, a few thousand lives, maybe once every 10 years.

Warming: Sea defences, mass migration from low-land, and everything else: Hundreds of billions of dollars, millions? of lives, over the next 100 years.
Re:You have to prioritize by mboverload · 2005-01-26 15:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

More people die in cars than in terrorist attacks every year.
Terrorism is overhyped. Planes are STILL the safest way to travel, yet we have this screening program hiring McDonalds rejects.
Re:You have to prioritize by Darken_Everseek · 2005-01-26 15:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes, and "shock and awe" wars are the best way of letting the rest of the world know that America won't let it's superpower status diminish the respect it gives to other nations.

Oh, and repeatedly saying that Iraq caused 9/11, doesn't make it true; it only makes stupid people think it is. (Darby Conley, Get Fuzzy comic) They didn't have WMD's, they didn't have facilities to manufacture large amounts of WMD's. They had oil, and GWB had a family grudge. Keep your military in your own damn country; no-one likes a nosy neighbour.

Yeah, yeah. (-1, Flamebait). Bring it.
Re:You have to prioritize by mboverload · 2005-01-26 15:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'm an American, and am totally behind you.
Iraq was a HUGE mistake, worse than that, carefully planned mistake. Yeah yeah, think of the troops, we dont want to demoralize them! I doubt the troops want to live in a fairyland, they deserve the truth.
Re:You have to prioritize by Eric+Damron · 2005-01-26 15:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

"You have to prioritize based on immediate threat."

And what threat did Iraq pose?? No WMD. They Saddam was contained.

Let's face it. This was a blood for votes war started by Bush.

It's costing us billions of dollars and over 1000 American lives. And I don't give a shit if we did capture Saddam. His capture wasn't worth a single American life!

I only hope that history will paint Bush as the evil little mental midget that he really is.

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Re:You have to prioritize by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-01-26 16:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Keep your military in your own damn country; no-one likes a nosy neighbour."

OK. So when the EU can take care of, say, problems a days drive from Berlin, like Kosovo or Bosnia, the United States should leave Europe, of course when the entire Red Army and Warsaw Pact was sitting on the other side of the Fulda Gap, it was alright to be nosy.

What about Korea? Ready for the DPRK to burn Seoul? Or Japan? Ready for the PRC to get back at Japan for WW2? Or Taiwan? Ready for the PRC to get back at them for having the gaul to resist the PRC?

Or how about things no one hears about, like the Green Berets demining all over the world? Or American SAR saving lives in the deep ocean? Or how about the 82nd Airborne keeping the DMZ in the Sinai since 1977?

Or what about the US military being there to assist in the Indian Ocean after the Tsuamni? Australia is the only other one in the region with any sealift or airlift and it's a fraction of what the US has.

As soon as the rest of the World shows the slightest ability to not burn itself down the moment we pull back to the US, we'll be happy to, until you all man up, you are stuck with us.
Re:You have to prioritize by Darken_Everseek · 2005-01-26 16:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Invading a country and shooting people is -not- a good way to reduce terrorism. If your school system taught world history, you'd be able to see that example in Ireland and England. They're -still- fighting for independance. What in God's name makes you thing Iraq will be -any- different?

You know the prayer "God grand me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference"? You -really- need to trade in some of that courage for the other two attributes. You can't change the middle east, and if you'd stay the hell out of it, you wouldn't need to.

Oh, Fuck You Too, and have a nice day. Ya hoser.
Re:You have to prioritize by ErikZ · 2005-01-26 16:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, sorry about that. We'll pull our aircraft carrier and troops out of Malaisa and those other countries hit by the Tsunami. Damn Americans. Providing fresh water, mobile airfields, command structure, delivering food, medicine and other supplies.

To primarily Moslem areas. Americans, keep your military in your own damn country. No one likes a nosy neighbor.

--
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Re:You have to prioritize by Darken_Everseek · 2005-01-26 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I apologise, my intentions were mistaken here. I'm all for peacekeeping and humanitarian operations. Aiding after the Tsunami is a good thing, as is helping to enforce the DMZ. Iraq isn't. Afghanistan wasn't.

Your de-mining bit though; rather ironic considering that when last I heard, the U.S. still hadn't signed the international treaty banning anti-personnel mines.
Re:You have to prioritize by That's+Unpossible! · 2005-01-26 16:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

And what threat did Iraq pose?? No WMD.

Actually, they did have WMD. Sarin gas for starters. What else went over the border to Syria and Iran, we'll probably never know. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Even the report that the media trotted out a few months ago highlighting the "NO WMDs" claim made it very clear that Saddam was going to keep his eyes on the WMD prize.

And this is completely setting aside the question of the oppression of Iraqis.

Let's face it. This was a blood for votes war started by Bush.

Wait, first it was a blood for oil war. But then everyone pointed out we weren't making out on Iraqi oil. (Just the UN made out on that, right?)

Now it's a ... blood for votes war? The war divided the fucking USA. How exactly did that win him votes? He won by a larger majority than 2000, but you act as if the war sealed the deal. I mean, the war was the single most hated thing about Bush by the left.

It's costing us billions of dollars and over 1000 American lives. And I don't give a shit if we did capture Saddam. His capture wasn't worth a single American life!

Is he worth hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Because that's how many his men have killed since he was in power. And they didn't just die from bombings, we're talking rape and torture. And no, not the kind of torture where people have sex in front of you and make you undress, but the kind where things are shoved up your ass that don't belong in your ass, where you are slowly killed, you know, real torture.

And that's not even counting the Iraqis that were just made to suffer under his rule.

I only hope that history will paint Bush as the evil little mental midget that he really is.

Sad to tell you this, but if Iraq gets a taste of democracy and it catches on in the middle east, Bush is going to be the Reagan of the 21st century.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:You have to prioritize by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 16:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

funny, I always thought absence of proof meant innocent, and you are innocent until proven guilty.

Iraqi lives? okay, so why are the US allies with Uzbeckystan (sp?) a country where political rivals of the president are boiled alive? you know, real torture.

Oppresion of Iraqi people? so why didn't the US, or the rest of the world for that matter complain louder when he gassed them? Instead Donny Rumsfeld and Co. probably just gave him more money to buy weapons from the French and Russians. The WMD argument doesn't hold water. The saving the Iraqi people argument doesn't hold water, what other excuse for an illegal invasion of a soverign nation are you going to give us next?
Re:You have to prioritize by Coryoth · 2005-01-26 16:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sad to tell you this, but if Iraq gets a taste of democracy and it catches on in the middle east

Yes, that's one possible outcome for Iraq. Another possible outcome is that out of all the chaos Iraq manages to form itself into an Islamic state - what Zawahiri and bin Laden have been trying (and repeatedly failing) to do for the last 15 years or so. Who knows, Zawahiri and bin Laden believe that, sould that actually happen it will cause the muslim masses to rise up, overthrow their leaders and create a slew of Islamic states throughout the middle east. That was, is, and will be their goal. For the most part the state "jihad against America" is a way to try and rally support - a lesson they learned when their attempted efforts in, for instance, Algeria failed to attract the support of the masses (oddly the general population was rather repelled, rather than attracted by, their violence).

So, we have 2 competing theories:

(1) Install a democracy in the Iraq and watch democracy then sweep the middle east.

(2) Rally support by encouraging people to rise up against the Americans that interfere in middle east politics and institute an Islamic state in Iraq. The Islamic Jihad movement can then sweep the middle east.

To be honest, no matter what happens in Iraq, I don't really expect anything to "sweep the middle east". In the meantime though the two theories seem to be fairly well in balance. Iraq is in chaos, there's ill will by the common people toward the US, and Islamic clerics (like al Sadr) are polling very well leading up the elections. In the meantime Iraq is actually having free and open elections so democracy will arrive. It looks to me if things could go either way - which means I'm not so sure this whole "introduce democracy and watch it spread through the middle east" idea was quite all it was cracked up to be.

Jedidiah.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Re:You have to prioritize by thej1nx · 2005-01-26 17:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

You don't really get it do you ?
Afghanistan was fine. Noticed how the world was with you and cheering you on when you went there ? But let us cut the crap. You didn't really go there to "extend freedom and democrocy". You went there to catch terrorists who had attacked you and to topple a regime which harboured these terrorists, and world agreed that you had the right. Freedom and democracy ? Well that was incidental. You *are* supposed to clean up after the mess you cause. If you create a power vaccum you would definitely be expected to protect the innocent civilians there from anarchial looting and rioting, by helping set up a democratic government.
As for Iraq ... for the umpteenth time, how was it a problem for you ? There are hundreds of tyrannical regime. Last I checked one of them actually became an ally despite having WMDs and caught profilerating the nuke technology *and* being a dictatorial regime, which had actually toppled the previous democratic government via a military coup.
You seem to be the only one buying into your fairytales about "extending freedom and democracy", when in reality you just support dictators usually.
Re:You have to prioritize by DAldredge · 2005-01-26 17:27 · Score: 2, Funny

No, he won't. Reagan was a conservative.
Re:You have to prioritize by RichardX · 2005-01-26 17:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Afghanistan was a total sucess.
I have to agree with you there - it was pretty impressive how Bin Laden was captured so quickly. Uh.. oh.. wait...

--
Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
Re:You have to prioritize by metamatic · 2005-01-26 17:31 · Score: 5, Informative

Is he worth hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives? Because that's how many his men have killed since he was in power.

And guess what? We killed ten of thousands ourselves "liberating" them, and now the civilian death rate is worse than it was under Saddam.

And they didn't just die from bombings, we're talking rape and torture. And no, not the kind of torture where people have sex in front of you and make you undress, but the kind where things are shoved up your ass that don't belong in your ass, where you are slowly killed, you know, real torture.

You mean like the Iraqi teenager who was seen in Abu Ghraib, lying on the floor with his anus bleeding while US troops discussed sodomizing him with metal objects? I guess that story didn't get reported on FOX News, huh?

--
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Re:You have to prioritize by thej1nx · 2005-01-26 18:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

And I agree with you. Feel free to get the world of dictatorial regimes, if they bother you all that much. World *will* thank you.
But then please please stop recognizing dictators as allies and friends when it suits you. Stop taking sides in wars that do not really concern you and are not about democracy. And at least clean up and actually *leave* when you are done setting up your democracy. Especially when the people you went to save, want you to leave.
I am all for idealism. But don't expect me to cheer for hypocrisy.
Re:You have to prioritize by Sciflyer · 2005-01-26 19:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

(sigh)
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134454 &cid=11233688
Re:You have to prioritize by BrokenHalo · 2005-01-26 19:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think you're forgetting the X amount of (billion) dollars that the US spends every year not just on internal but external catastrophe aid.
Look up the US annual military budget, and then say that.
Furthermore, the US is far and away the biggest culprit for causing global warming, and IMO it is fitting that the US should suffer the consequences along with everybody else.
Re:You have to prioritize by Jim_Callahan · 2005-01-26 19:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Uh, your point is valid, but your analogy was flawed. The dog we shot in Iraq had alredy eaten mommy and daddy and had been raping little suzy for a couple decades when we pulled the trigger, if I recall correctly. And we felt responsible for having bought them the dog in the first place (because a capitalist wolf is better than a commie rottweiler).

Ok, I'm done taking the metaphor too far now.

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Re:You have to prioritize by Jim_Callahan · 2005-01-26 19:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Technically, to stop terrorism we just have to shoot all the people. (/straight face)

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Re:You have to prioritize by sarabob · 2005-01-26 21:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

but eventually those people will be better off.
Except the dead ones, natch.
Saddam should have been removed long before now
You just don't get it, do you. The gassings of the kurds and iranians was over 10 years ago, when Saddam was the US's "friend" vs Iran. Dissing him for being "stupid-ass" is a little comical in light of your own leader's academic ability; "power hungry" is laughable in the face of an America hell-bent on bombing anyone who is against the "american way". The question isn't about Iraq. All the reasons that have been given for the war with Iraq are just distractions. Dictator? Lots of those about. Human rights? Oooh. the US executes minors doesn't it? Tortures prisoners, holds people in no-mans-land without recourse to legal representation. Does Saudi Arabia have a wonderful record on Human rights or democracy?
Saddam was no worse than a whole list of other world leaders. He had fewer links to Al Quaida than almost any other middle eastern state (especially those "best buddy" Saudis). The country was fairly peaceful - a little repressive, some disappearances, but nothing over-the-top in comparison to other middle eastern states, or even your own (Hmmm, does the name Maher Arar ring any bells?).
We in Europe "turn our backs" on the US's use of capital punishment, indefinite internment of people without trial, electoral anomalies (Gerrymandering is pretty much a way of life in the US), free trade restrictions (Steel tariffs, for example), unilateral invasions of sovereign states and many other "misdemeanours". We share a world, and each have our own ways of running our countries. You can't just decide that someone made your daddy look silly and therefore you have to kill tens of thousands of people to remove him from power.
War in Iraq wasn't even close to being a last resort unless you decide that Saddam being in power was the underlying "problem".
Re:You have to prioritize by Taladar · 2005-01-27 00:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

We have always been at war with Eurasia...

--
Linux is not Windows
Re:You have to prioritize by idlake · 2005-01-27 00:51 · Score: 2, Informative

I suppose out of "principle" we should have left Afgahanistan in the shit-hole state it was in under theocratic islamic rule by the Taliban. Am I right?

The US was, in large part, responsible for fostering Islamic fundamentalism and creating that shit-hole state in the first place.

Despite that, the world actually was supporting the US in its action in Afghanistan. Iraq is the big problem, where the US has outright lied in order to justify its military action.

Afghanistan was a total sucess. They have freedom and democrocy now.

You are so naive. Afghanistan is probably better off than it used to be under the Taliban, but it will take decades before it has any semblance of "freedom and democracy", and that is only if nothing else goes wrong.
Re:You have to prioritize by That's+Unpossible! · 2005-01-27 11:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

And guess what? We killed ten of thousands ourselves "liberating" them

That is what happens in a war. However, we did not intentionally kill civilians, unlike Saddam. And our goal is to free everyone there, unlike Saddam's goals.

Do you know how many millions died fighting the good fight in WW2? How many innocent civilians? Does this mean we shouldn't have fought that war? There's more to war than just black and white.

now the civilian death rate is worse than it was under Saddam.

Ummm, nope, sorry, it's not. That report you cited examined precisely 14.6 months of deaths in Iraq under Saddam. Or are you saying the people he killed 15+ months before the war don't count?

You mean like the Iraqi teenager who was seen in Abu Ghraib, lying on the floor with his anus bleeding while US troops discussed sodomizing him with metal objects? I guess that story didn't get reported on FOX News, huh?

Not only wasn't it reported on FOX News, nor did I read anything about it from any other credible sources, such as CNN, MSNBC, my local newspaper, etc. I am talking about credible evidence, not hearsay from prisoners. Can you point me to some references other than blogs?

I am not trying to excuse the stupidity of Abu Ghraib, however I find it laughable how much was made of that "torture" by the same crowd that would like to forget the torture rooms of Saddam.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.

Re:Uh, what? by ari_j · 2005-01-26 15:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually, based on this:

The simulations suggest that over the next hundred years we could see average rises of average temperatures of up to 11K

I can only conclude that the average annual rise in the average global temperature* will be up to 11 degrees Kelvin for the next 100 years. In other words, the average temperature will be up to 1100 degrees warmer in 2105 than it is now.

I'm no global warming expert or pundit, but that's certainly my interpretation of the story blurb that made the front page. Good work on the clarity, Slashdot submitters and editors!

* - Saying "temperatures" in the plural is misleading, as global warming is about global average temperature, and using the plural indicates local measurements are what is relevant, which is not the case.

We don't know so, everyone stop doing anything! by pavera · 2005-01-26 15:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Stephen Byers claims to know that 400 ppm is the maximum 'safe' level; what we show is that it may be impossible to pin down a safe level, and therefore we should not focus exclusively on stabilisation."

Ok, so its impossible to pin down a "safe level" of greenhouse gas, so we already might be over the "safe level" or it might not be "safe" if there are only 200ppm, so what we need to do is build this huge CO2 sink that will draw down CO2 to nearly 0ppm, that will be safe right? It has to be!

This is the same logic that causes Superfund in the US to clean up toxins to lower than naturally occuring levels wasting billions of dollars digging tons of dirt and replacing it with new dirt just because arsenic is found in higher than 3ppb naturally in some area.

We don't know what's safe, but we know that at some level it becomes bad, so that means at any level it's bad right?

Re:Uh, what? by Darken_Everseek · 2005-01-26 15:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Just to clarify for all you US Customary unit folks; a temperature change of 1K is equal to a temperature change of 1C. The only difference between the two scales is the zero point. Celsius uses the freezing point of water, Kelvin uses absolute zero. The original submitter was absolutely correct.

Obligatory Futurama reference by Dachannien · 2005-01-26 15:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Lrrr: We will raise your planet's temperature by one million degrees a day... for five days.

I'm doing my part... by Pandion · 2005-01-26 15:47 · Score: 2, Funny

I make sure to never eat my vegetables!

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas by caffeine_monkey · 2005-01-26 15:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

I honestly do not understand how anyone can doubt that humans cause climate change. First of all, it is a fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Nobody can dispute this: you can prove it with a very simple experiment, and of course the planet Venus is a very vivid example. Therefore, all other things being equal, increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause the planet to heat up. It seems obvious that it's better to err on the side of caution than to say the future is too difficult to predict, and therefore we shouldn't do anything.

Re:CO2 IS a greenhouse gas by dustmite · 2005-01-27 02:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

I honestly do not understand how anyone can doubt that humans cause climate change.
(1) Because people (including many here on /. apparently) don't think for themselves and easily believe the (politically and economically based) propaganda claiming otherwise.
(2) People simply don't like being told that their current lifestyles are unsustainable and that they'll have to make changes if we are to survive (i.e. they just don't like hearing that there is something "wrong" with the way they are living, so they'd rather just bury their head in the sand). I mean, nobody likes hearing that there is something wrong with something they rather like, and have grown accustomed to, doing.
(3) The problem "feels" too big to solve, essentially insurmountable, so many people feel helpless so they'd rather just deny there is a problem (again, head-in-the-sand syndrome), it feels more comforting that way, and ...
... (4) many people prefer to believe a comforting falsehood than a discomforting truth.
(5) Peer pressure (which is for adults as much as it is for teens). Certain opinions, even though they're wrong, are "cool" to have, purely by virtue of most of your peer group having them. If everyone else at school or at work acts like it's cool to blew out blatantly false statements like "volcanoes generate more greenhouse gasses than mankind's activities" or to reject pro-sustainability advocates as "tree-hugging hippies", then it becomes "cool" to do that, so if you want to be cool and not be uncool you say the same things.
(6) Group-think/sheeple etc. Most people don't behave based on rational thought and analysis of problems, rather they simply imitate what other people do. So if other people laugh and say "damn bunny-hugging liberals screaming chick little", then they imitate that behaviour, regardless of how immensely stupid it might be to ignore a massive climate change problem, because that seems like more "fun" behaviour.
(7) Combining (2) and (5), nobody likes a "party pooper", i.e. nobody likes the guy that points out the problem with what you're doing. So many otherwise rational, intelligent people don't pipe up and criticise stupid behaviour .. they just watch quietly, not wanting to be the "party pooper".
(8) Another reason people prefer to ignore the problem is that humans are generally evolved for short-term thinking. Only a tiny percentage of the population can think further into the future, so for more people it all just seems way too far in the future to really be something to worry about.
Of course, all these things are so dumb and trivial compared to the problem we're facing.

Help climateprediction.net! by miope · 2005-01-26 15:59 · Score: 5, Informative

The climates models are computed using the BOINC platform (distributed computing in your PC, similar to SETI, etc.).

Please, help the project donating your idle CPU cycles, go to: the homesite of the project and download the client.

The client (BOINC) supports Linux, Windows, MAC OS, etc.

BS or not by Joseph_Daniel_Zukige · 2005-01-26 16:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

We could all benefit from a few more minutes walking, a few less minutes driving, and a few less minutes using electricity each day. We all complain, let's personally do something about it.

Re:HOW I KNOW GLOBAL WARMING IS A LIE by fireboy1919 · 2005-01-26 16:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course, you're forgetting the counterintuitive yet also highly likely result of global warming - an ice age.

Possibly just another one of those problems that we can deal with, but maybe not. At any rate, it debunks your argument that global warming is almost definitely a good thing.

--
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!

Absolutely not. Key word "over". Stil important by Nomihn0 · 2005-01-26 16:01 · Score: 4, Interesting

if there is more than one average rise in temperature from the globe, it denotes a change of temperature in a single location (i.e. from a single sensing station).

Had the article said "for the next hundred years", I'd have questioned its science rather than its grammar. Yes, it is confusing, but 11 Degress Celsius (as it is properly referred to) is still an outrageous increase, especially taking into account the fact that it is an average temperature. This means that the both the mean and extremes increase. Expect some very cold weather in parts due to "global warming". Also, expect scorchers. Of course, the significance is not so much the extremes as it is this mean temperature. Bird migration and plant budding schedules are already off-kilter. This isn't only an inconvenience for Dodo birds, its a serious hazard to the Earth's convenient biological balance. Watch for increased pollution in cities, species die-offs, catastrophic farming years, fisheries collapse, and increased natural disasters. It's in front of us right now. Those places least harmed by the full force of the tsunami had wave-breaking coral reefs and mangrove swamps in front of them. Without these, and many more, of nature's natural defenses, we're in major trouble.

It's not just "The Day After Tomorrow", people.

Mod Parent Up by thelizman · 2005-01-26 16:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's about the only thing the "global warming is our fault and it's going to kill us all" morons can agree with the "if the earth is warming why do we have record snowfall for the second straight year" idiots on.

First test of this distributed model by Kohath · 2005-01-26 16:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

Put in the conditions for 50 years ago. Run the model forward 50 years. If the model correctly predicts the conditions today, report that. Then tell us what it predicts about the future.

Until you have a model that correctly predicts the present to a high degree of accuracy, shut up about the future..

Re:First test of this distributed model by chickanmonkey · 2005-01-26 16:52 · Score: 5, Informative

From climateprediction.net Introduction to climate modelling
The equations are tweaked, within reasonable boundaries, so that the model does as well as possible at producing past and current climates (compared to archived observations).
I really can't beleave you give them so little credit as to think they would overlook something so bleading obvious as to test the model before using it. Do you discount everyone you disagree with this easily.
Re:First test of this distributed model by Jim+Logajan · 2005-01-26 18:19 · Score: 4, Informative

It seems neither you nor the person(s) who modded you up didn't know that the researchers actually used the method you proposed to select the best models. The AFP story on Yahoo, http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=15 12&e=6&u=/afp/scienceenvironment/, states that "Once the first batch of results was obtained, the researchers selected those models that had simulated the past climate accurately. These best-performing models were then asked to predict how much the Earth would warm after CO2 concentrations had doubled from the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm)."
Re:First test of this distributed model by nels_tomlinson · 2005-01-26 20:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Put in the conditions for 50 years ago. Run the model forward 50 years. If the model correctly predicts the conditions today, report that. Then tell us what it predicts about the future.
Sorry, that won't help.
The conditions for 50 years ago are nothing like the conditions that the Chicken Littles are claiming we'll see in another 50 years. A model which accurately predicts 2005 from 1955 could fail utterly to predict 2055 from 2005.
The problem is called ``out of sample prediction''. The model can be expected to be accurate for the range of data used to calibrate it. When you try to predict the future by plugging in data which is outside the range of the data you used to calibrate your model, there is no reason to think that the model will still work.
I'd say that out-of-sample prediction is right up there with ``consensus'' as a sign of bad science.

--
See what I've been reading.

Real Questions: by feelyoda · 2005-01-26 16:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

Serious, too often ignored, questions:
1) Is it serious, i.e. causes big problems?
2) Is it caused by humans?
3) Is the cost of stopping negative effects lower than the cost of the negative effects?
4) Is there an alternative?

What is known now:
1) Who knows... worst case forecasts trumped up to guarantee continued funding for one's research projects are over-excited at best and morally bankrupt at worst.
2) Who knows... could be natural cycles or the sun.
3) Probably not...Kyoto would cost America $200-300B/yr for decades, and save little compared with money spent on research into alternative fuels or space energy mining.
4) Growth & Wealth

The real protection against nature is the wealth that arises from free societies. The third world would not only pollute less if they entered the first world, but they would also be much better prepared to handle any possible problems.

Compare the earthquakes in Iran last year to those in California. Or the system to prevent casualties from tsunamis in Japan to the non-existent system in nations recently affected.

The body count from the recent tsunamis is close to 300,000. Who are environmentalists kidding themselves to say potential global warming is a greater threat than other natural disasters, malaria, and poverty in general?

--

Robo-Blogs of the world: UNITE!

Re:Real Questions: by Anonymous Coward · 2005-01-26 16:29 · Score: 2, Informative

1) Yes. Most of the land between the Mississippi and the rockies (you know, that flat, empty place most of your food comes from?) is one good drought from becoming a desert as it is. An 11 degree rise in average temperatures isn't going to help that.
2) Maybe. Maybe not. The more important question is "can it be stopped by humans?".
3) Importing all our grain from Russia and Canada is likely to be a little expensive. How much is it worth to avoid that?
4) Responsible use of resources?
Re:Real Questions: by NatteringNabob · 2005-01-26 17:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

You, my friend, are seriously ignorant. The answers to these question are in fact already known by everybody except Bush, who is a moron, and people that get their science education from Rush Limbaugh instead of say, science books and classes. I would guess that you are in the later group since reportedly Bush II has not yet figured out how to use a computer. In short.

1) The effects are serious. At the very least, most of the worlds population centers will be flooded and uninhabitable. And that's the good news.

2) Absolutely no doubt that greenhouse gases contribute, and absolutely no dobut that human activity is responsbile for most of those additional greenhouse gases. The only question is how much it matters.

3) The cost of preventing it is negligable. Banning monster trucks masquerading as passenger cars would be a good first step and would cost very little. Replacing CRT's with LCD's will help and will cost the economy almost nothing. It might even help. Wind power could help. Nuclear might help. There are alot of things that could be done that might even help the economy as much or more than they hurt. They will hurt big oil and Detroit in the short term, which is of course why there well funded propaganda campaign to ridicule solid science.

4) Growth and welath don't work so well when your assets are, literally, under water.

Seriously get yourself into a science class ASAP. You are fantastically ignorant or trolling.

The problem with the simulations by Ogemaniac · 2005-01-26 16:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

C02 is not the major contributor to global warming, either now (yes, we have quite a bit of us as it is, which is why it ain't -40C outside), nor under the projections. Rather, it is water vapor that is the real greenhouse gas. The problem with the simulations is positive feedback, and anyone who has ever dealt with such a phenomena knows how chaotic it can be. The simulations that predict these really high numbers essentially get caught in a loop - more C02 = slight rise in temp = more water vapor and C02 = more rise in temp = more water vapor and C02, etc However, we have been hotter than this before. If positive feedback was really that easy, we would have already triggered it and wouldn't be where we are now.

Re:Scare mongering by IdntUnknwn · 2005-01-26 16:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

The quote doesn't say that the safest level of C02 to have is 0 ppm, it says that there is no way you can define a certain level as safe and unsafe. The fact that you choose to interpret the quote in the way that you did shows that you read the article with a bias against the ideas of global warming.

I also find it funny that you criticize the results of a very well-known study without actually seeing the results, then you proceed to ask for definitive results. Maybe you could actually visit the climateprediction.net website for more information before criticizing their research? For example, go here for a detailed description of their model: http://www.climateprediction.net/science/index.php

Its a good thing... by nwbvt · 2005-01-26 17:01 · Score: 2, Funny

...that we don't live in a computer simulation. Otherwise we would have destroyed our planet a dozen times already.

--
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.

Please don't call it Climate Change by judapeno · 2005-01-26 17:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

Climate Change is a euphamism marketed by republicans to confuse the issue. Whichever side of the debate you are on, what we are talking about is Global Warming.

Peak Oil vs Global Warmining by TheNarrator · 2005-01-26 17:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

I am far more convinced that Peak Oil is going to be the next big catastrophe to hit humanity. Peak oil has far more evidence going for it in that oil supply's have followed the Hubbert's peak model in many different areas where oil has been discovered. Of course if world oil consumption falls this means that Global Warming is going to be a non-issue 100 years from now and we are either going to be somewhere in between the scenarios where we'll all be living in a nuclear powered hydrogen economy utopia where fossil fueled powered engines are as common as horse and buggy or living in poverty with 1/5 or less of the world's population due to mass starvation.

Re:Peak Oil vs Global Warmining by Paradox_001 · 2005-01-26 19:12 · Score: 3, Interesting

Peak Oil will is coming to a theatre near you. People who don't know about it better learn soon, the peak will probably come in 2007 sometime from what it looks like, but surely before the end of the decade. Buckle your seat belts people. For more information on Peak Oil and a concise list of the resources out there check my research website http://ospmm.sourceforge.net/research.html
Re:Peak Oil vs Global Warmining by m0llusk · 2005-01-27 02:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stop thinking that these issues are apart from each other! These are two great tastes that go great together: Running low on oil? Just use coal instead, as there is plenty available. Most of that is brown coal and overall the result of transitioning to coal will increase pollutants including carbon dioxide. So the two disasters are not apart from each other at all, but are actually part of the same problem. We consume a lot of energy, most of that with great inefficiency. This is what brings us global warming. Over time these problems will worsen unless solved or mitigated, and increasing costs for oil associated with the peak oil phenomenon are a part of that.

Global warming saved us by D+H+NG · 2005-01-26 17:14 · Score: 2, Informative

A recent study suggests that global warming might have saved us from the next ice age.

Re:And when there is no significant immediate thre by Cyberherbalist · 2005-01-26 17:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love it. It's not bad enough that 400K Americans die from cigarettes each year, IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT FOR 2 MILLION OF THEM!

Jeeze, what does BUSH have to do with it? You can't quote a negative statistic without mentioning Bush in the same thought? How about this: 3.2 MILLION AMERICANS WERE KILLED BY CIGARETTES ON CLINTON'S WATCH!!! Makes no sense, right?

...why isn't the government grabbing the tobacco manufacturers and throwing them in jail?

It's because millions of workers would be out of their damned jobs (assuming they weren't in jail) and ready to vote the jerks "in the government" out of office, if not start outright rebellion.

Dude, get real. Every smoker out there made a concious decision to light up for the first time. My father died at 46 due to a massive heart attack, massively influenced by his two or three pack a day habit. His father died at 40 for the same reason. But I know whose fault it was --- both of them knew it wasn't healthy. Nobody forced them to light up.

--
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance."

Re:Since when did computer models become gospel? by IdntUnknwn · 2005-01-26 17:21 · Score: 3, Informative

The model involved in this research was tweaked to reproduce the climate data for the last 50 years. I do make the presumption that if the model can do so with reasonable accuracy that it can predict the future with reasonable accuracy.

Re:Probably as silly as... by arminw · 2005-01-26 17:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

...Global Warming supporting scientific community have mountains of evidence...

But they have NO evidence that this warming is caused by human activity. Climate, like much in nature goes in cycles, some of very long periodicity compared to the short human life time. There were times in recorded history when it was much warmer and also times when it was much colder, all long before mankind started using fossil fuels. So right now we may be in a warming cycle, the duration and extent of which NONE of the smart-@ss scientists can predict any more than the lottery numbers.

--
All theory is gray

Only 11K? What kind of contestants are these? by SEWilco · 2005-01-26 17:56 · Score: 2, Funny

rises of average temperatures of up to 11K

Shucks, Team Slashdot is still running and their score is up to 55K! Those others are way behind!

Re:Tried looking forward? by Coryoth · 2005-01-26 18:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

bin Laden does have a stated intent to kill Americans yes. The fundamental goal they are striving for, however, is the for muslim states of the middle east to become Islamic states. As to killing Americans... yes, he will try, and is limited only by his capability. I am not questioning intent, I am questioning capability.

Aum Shinrikyo was a japanese cult that had billions at their disposal, and were interested in making chemical and nuclear weapons. With all that money, and recruiting intelligent young grad students from major Japanese universities they managed a single sarin gas attack in 1995 killing 12 people.

al Qaeda has used coventional explosives in all their attacks, and have, aside from 9/11, failed to show anything resembling global reach. In fact there is much evidence that al Qaeda is more of a venture capital firm for anyone wanting to attack Americans, and don't have any extant network at all - and never did.

Which raises the point that really the issue is constraining capability, and capability mostly takes the form of money. In theory the US has a vast and powerful foreign intelligence agency (NSA) that is supposed to be good at tracing and shutting down money flowing into terrorist causes. That, it would seem to me, would be the most effective way to fight the war on terror: quietly and efficiently in the background, not drawing attention and inspiring other random terrorist groups to act in sympathy. I'm sure that's probably happening. All the rest - the tromping around of military, the random security measures applied piecemeal to random points of infrastructure in the US, the arrests of terrorist cells (usually innocent) - that's all for show. To be honest, it's probably more counterproductive than anything.

Jedidiah.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts

Re:Since when did computer models become gospel? by Coryoth · 2005-01-26 18:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Does anybody remember how Chaos Theory was first postulated?

Yes, I seem to recall reading about Henri Poincare finding a "homoclinic tangle" while trying to solve the problem of the stability of the Solar System (to win a prize put up by the King of Sweden). It amounted to a strange attractor, and a chaotic system. That probably wasn't "the first" being only around 1890, but it was one of the earlier points. Why what did you have in mind?

The crux of Chaos Theory is that some systems will NEVER be predictable because there are so many variables that it is impossible to know all the starting conditions.

Not really. Chaos Theory generally has more to say about what you can predict/say about such systems, and the fact that your predictions will have to be formed differently than those of nice classical linear systems.

Or were you talking about "Popular Chaos Theory" where people who don't know what they're talking about make vague generalisations about what they think "Chaos Theory" probably means, largely based on a few half assed descriptions from MIchael Crichton books and Hollywood films?

If a computer model can't even predict weather more than a few days out, how is it that it can predict weather a hundred years from now?

Really? I can make quite a few fairly accurate predictions about the weather over the coming year: It will be (in the northen hemisphere) warmer over June July and August, but will cold come the end of the year. On average Florida will be warmer than Maine this year. Seattle will see a lot of days with rain this year.

You see, despite it being a chaotic system, it's still possible to discuss some of the more qualitive aspects with some accuracy. I can't predict exactly what the weather will be like on July 23rd, but I can make a fairly accurate guess that it will be warmer than the weather tomorrow (unless you're in the southern hemisphere). They can't tell you exactly what the weather will be like 100 years from now, but they can make qualitive broad statements about it.

Chaos Theory has to be the single most misunderstood and misrepresented theory next to Quantum Physics. Could you please refrain from further spreading this bizarre contaminated view of what is, actually, an interesting field of mathematics.

Jedidiah.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts

Please, no more climate change articles. by rokzy · 2005-01-26 18:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

no offense, but no one on this site has enough knowledge or understanding to talk about this subject.

it seems like there'd be less bullshit being posted if the topic were creationsm or some bollocks like that.

Obligatory RUSH quotes by starglider29a · 2005-01-26 18:45 · Score: 2, Informative

"The people who can hold politicians to account are the public; and with this project we are bringing cutting-edge science to the stakeholders, the public."

Sing it with me... "And the men who hold high places, must be the ones who start.. to mold a new reality.. closer to the heart."

Or, Perhaps...

"When they turn the pages of History,
When these days have passed long ago...
Will they read of us with sadness
For the seeds that we let grow?

We turned our gaze from the Castles in the Distance
Eyes cast down on the path of least resistance!"

AF2K.com (A Farewell To Kings), my Hypernovel, the kernel of which was written in 1990, before I knew what a distirbuted grid was, addresses this issue and quotes Rush along the way. In the novel, the simulation, SYnergistic Resource for INformation eXchange (SYRINX ;-) found that ecosystem collapse would occur in 2150, but that the "tipping point", the Paddler's Index, occurred in 2015.

Oddly, the 11 years to go from 378ppm to a "dangerous level" of 400ppm at 2ppm per year is 2015! Lucky guess? You decide...

What makes this post 'on-topic' is this quote from the article:

The scientists behind climateprediction.net believe their project, because it is distributed to individual PCs, can help inform people about climate change - and that, in turn could bring political change.

When one thinks about how to remedy the situation, you often end up with such resistance that the will to make it so causes "political change". That went to an extreme in the novel, trust me. The key was three-fold:

Michael Gavon made then think
Marena San Leoni made them feel
Adrienne made them get off their a55s and do something

Perhaps we need to adopt this model as well. "Knowing the answer isn't all there is... you have to get someone to listen to you. And to make someone listen to what they don't want to hear, takes a gift..."

starglider29a
author, A Farewell to Kings
http://www.af2k.com

I should expect this here by RJNFC · 2005-01-26 18:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I always hear the same thing on Slashdot: "We need more mirrors!"

The real deal by null+etc. · 2005-01-26 18:58 · Score: 2, Funny

I think it's important to remember that what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger. I think the planet abides by the same philosophy. So after a few centuries of global warming, it should be indestructible.

If we should need to solve the issue of global warming, it should be fairly easy:

Set up solar reflection panels to direct concentrated rays of sun towards the ice caps, so that not only will the ice melt, it will evaporate as well.
Set up a huge thermal vent so that evaporated water can waft up to space and out of our orbit.
The planet will naturally start to spin faster as a result of reduced mass.
A planet that spins faster will expose any given portion of the planet to the sun for shorter increments, allowing the sun less time to "heat up" the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the evaporated water will freeze once it reaches space, making a nice little shiny reflector shield to block out some of the sun's radiation.

I honestly don't understand why no one consults me about this problem. Thank gosh I can share my productive fruits with the slashdot population.

First-Worlders pollute less? by CreateWindowEx · 2005-01-26 19:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

That doesn't make any sense. Developing nations tend to use energy in dirtier and less fuel-efficient ways, yes, but they also use vastly less per capita then we do. Oh, and by the way, they spend a lot of that energy producing crap that we buy. Imagine everyone in India and China owning a car. The cars in the US are pretty clean from an emissions standpoint, but likely generate more CO2 per vehicle than your typical 3rd world vehicle. Leaving the SUVs aside, a high tech 200 hp V6 hauling a 3500 lb sedan doesn't get any better gas mileage than the cheap, light, small-displacement cars common in poorer nations, and so the CO2 emissions will be comparable. (We're talking about greenhouse gases, not smog here) Modern engines are incredibly efficient, but due to cheap gas and the fact that externalities (e.g., pollution) are not accounted for in the cost of operating a car, we just "spent" the technological gain on more power to haul heavier vehicles, plus due to uncontrolled sprawl, lack of public transit, and other changes we're driving more, and due to globalization more of our goods are shipped long distance.

"The real protection against nature is the wealth that arises from free societies"

Protection against nature? the problem isn't "nature", it's the distinctly unnatural effects of dumping billions of tons of extra carbon into the atmosphere.

The deepest irony is that right now in the US we've got a sweet deal, climate-wise, in the status quo, with our temperate climate and fertile breadbaskets. From purest self-interest, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot if we continue to perturb the system. On a geological time frame most of the time the earth has either been incredibly hot with no ice caps, or frozen in ice ages; our current temperate, interglacial state is the exception, not the rule, and while it won't last forever, we still have a huge vested interest in keeping it that way as long as possible. It's true that we really don't know how the system works, but dumping tons of carbon into the air is equivalent to blindly conducting a major climatological experiment. While it's theoretically possible that we could introduce enough "dimming" from particulate pollution to counterbalance greenhouse effects, the presence of many positive-feedback systems (melting ice sheets releasing stored CO2, forests switching from carbon sinks to carbon sources, etc) make that rather unlikely. It's like saying that the best way to good health is to drink lots of beer, lots of coffee, smoke lots of opium and lots of crystal meth because they'll all cancel each other out, instead of not doing any of them and maybe get out of the house every now and then.

This happened before with CFCs--the scientific community pointed out the harmful effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, the world acted to reduce CFCs, and it appears like we might have acted in time--the ozone holes seem to be shrinking.

Maybe we'll act in time for climate change. Or perhaps invading Iran would be a better use of our time.

Re:100 years 100 years 100 years .... by nounderscores · 2005-01-26 19:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

No, the big scary predictions are there to scare us back onto the straight and narrow.

It's like when you tell a friend "You're drunk. If you drive home you'll kill somebody," when you know that he only has a 1 in 10 chance of actually killing somebody on that night, you still might be able to stop him and drive him home yourself, preventing a potential accident.

Plan for the worst. Hope for the best.

Having a let it ride attitude is a good way to meet with the day you really needed that gun, and didn't have one.

Re:And when there is no significant immediate thre by Gob+Blesh+It · 2005-01-26 19:33 · Score: 2, Funny

According to Google, the natural death rate in the U.S. is 0.121879864 hertz. What this means for humanity at large, I couldn't say.

Re:Probably as silly as... by LarsWestergren · 2005-01-26 19:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

...Global Warming supporting scientific community have mountains of evidence...
But they have NO evidence that this warming is caused by human activity.

There is quite a lot of evidence, or at least indicators. A simple one:
As a child, did you ever make a small ecosystem? Basically a plant sealed in a bottle. If you did not, I can tell you that increasing carbon dioxide increases temperature. And as a comparison, burning fossile fuels releases a lot of stored carbon dioxide. Now, the earth is not a closed system like the bottle, but we can suspect that the same principles apply. Get it? Or was I too smart-@ss for you?

Climate, like much in nature goes in cycles, some of very long periodicity compared to the short human life time.

As I, and many others, have mentioned before on Slashdot, scientists do not dispute that climate changes over time. What they worry about is a much more rapid change than has been seen before. And before you say we don't have measurements from the past, we do. We can check trees, sediments, ice layers in the Arctic and Antarctic to see temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide.

Think of it as a pendulum slowly going back and forth. It was already going in the direction of slightly warmer, and no, it has not reached the temperature levels it has in the past. However, when we compare the speed of change, it looks like someone whacked this pendulum hard and sent it rocketing in one direction. And this at the same time that humans started releasing a lot of greenhouse gasses. How far will the pendulum go? Where will it stop? Is there something we can do about it? That is the questions being discussed.

And before the old lie of volcanoes releasing more greenhouse gasses pop up - read this. Volcanoes release more pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, but NOT as much carbon dioxide. Not even close to what humans release.

--

Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

Re:Since when did computer models become gospel? by nels_tomlinson · 2005-01-26 20:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

The model involved in this research was tweaked to reproduce the climate data for the last 50 years. I do make the presumption that if the model can do so with reasonable accuracy that it can predict the future with reasonable accuracy.

Bad presumption, I'm afraid. I've explained that a bit in an earlier reply, see here.

What it boils down to is the model is only assured to be good for the range of data that you fitted it to. Plug in data that is outside that range (which you must do, if you believe that the future will be significantly different than the present!) and the model is suddenly unreliable.

Of course, I've assumed that the model isn't suffering from spurious correlation or over-fitting. In those cases, it could be wrong for the range of data you fitted it to!

--
See what I've been reading.

Super Scary Climate Blog (SSCB) begun by Rudi+Cilibrasi · 2005-01-26 21:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

A while ago I was inspired to create this blog, and ever since it seems to be writing itself. I have set up Super Scary Climate Blog. I've got an Instiki Wiki started there for the purpose of tracking climate variability. Please feel invited to contribute.

Re:Uh, what? --- We in the US use FAHRENHEIT by basingwerk · 2005-01-26 21:19 · Score: 3, Informative

The british often use Fahrenheit as well, and always use it when talking about the weather, except for the forecasters, who mix everybody up by using Centigrade. Some pedants in Britain also correct you use the term Centigrade, because they reckon it should be Celcius, but Centigrade was taught for years in schools, and nobody uses Celcius except for a few boffins. Also, only boffins use Kelvin, which is odd because it is named after a British scientist, (Lord Kelvin). The British generally use imperial measures (inch/foot/yard/pint/pound/stone/mile/gallon/furlo ng(!)) interchangeably with metric (or SI) units, so there is a generally air of confusion about the exact size of things in the UK. Multiple trips back to the hardware store are required to get the part you need. The government has tried for years to make a conversion, but it has resulted in a kind of permanent half-way house situation. I believe the same thing is happening in Canada. There was a case a few years back when a probe to mars hit the surface at 10 thousand miles an hour because of a units mix up between british and american boffins!

--
I stole this .sig

Virginia scientist shows long-term human infulence by SuperKendall · 2005-01-26 21:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

This study is interesting as it posits that in fact the rise of CO2 levels really began 8000 years ago when people began clearing large tracts of land for farming.

That accounts for half of the CO2 changes from the norm; the last 150 years accounts for the other half.

He also notes that from climate models it seems the rise in CO2 has served to shield us from a large scale glaciation phase that was scheduled to hit long before now, and kept the climate more stable!

The study is rather interesting (full link to study in article, check end) as he really ties together a wide variety of data from different sources.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Re:The Models Suggest... by SilentTristero · 2005-01-27 00:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually each machine runs the model with a varying set of parameters: different initial conditions, different responses to CO2 overload, etc. The idea is that nobody actually knows the values of most of these constants, so just try thousands of scenarios.

First they ran the parameter sets on known data (the 1800s); the ones that ran wild then don't model reality. The remaining ones are possible candidates, and are run using 1900s data. Then those are statistically analyzed (you can see the overlaid graphs of all the param sets on the climateprediction.net web site).

Re:And when there is no significant immediate thre by CmdrGravy · 2005-01-27 00:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Not true WMD definitely exist, I think we are all beginning to realise now that not only did Saddam obviously ship all his WMD's to Iran but that Iran is also a much greater support of terrorism and evil than we previously suspected, after all what else would it buy the WMD's for if it didn't plan on using them it's self or selling them on to Al Quaeda.

11 Thousand Degrees! by MadMorf · 2005-01-27 02:22 · Score: 2, Funny

The simulations suggest that over the next hundred years we could see average rises of average temperatures of up to 11K, more than twice what was previously thought.

Ok, who else besides me read that as 11 Thousand Degrees, instead of the intended 11 Degrees Kelvin?

Come on, admit it!

--
Goofy, Geeky Gifts and More!

'Worst case' context by Cally · 2005-01-27 02:31 · Score: 2, Informative

Here's some relevant bits of info I dug up whilst researching my own rejected submission on this story....

These results were collated from approx. 60,000 separate climate model runs. Here's a link to the actual paper published in Nature (PDF). ClimatePrediction.net passed the 50,000 run mark only a month ago, so it looks like participation is on the up. Kudos to everyone running it! Personally I've switched from SETI@Home to this project. (Of course, you may feel that cancer research into protein folding is more important. One of the nice things about the BOINC framework is that you can contribute to multiple projects at the same time.)

The 'eleven degrees rise over the next century' is of course the worst-case scenario. Of course, climate disruptions of that magnitude really would be catastrophic to human civilisation - for one thing, massive loss of agricultural production, the loss of large areas of expensive real-estate (many of the world's great cities would certainly be under water. I don't know precisely what magnitude of sea level rise 11 degrees would produce but consider that the Greenland ice sheet, which is already showing signs of increased melting, would produce approx. 7m rise - that's goodbye to London and New York and Amsterdam for starters.) Here's a chart from the IPCC's 2001 report showing the various scenarios they based their predictions on. As you can see, the worst-case they foresaw was about 5 or 6 degrees C. The significant thing about these results is that the upper bound of the range of possible temperature rises is shown to be about twice as severe as previously thought. Not only is more and more solid evidence being produced to back the fundamental prediction that human CO2 emissions are causing significant changes in our climate, but the magnitude of those predicted changes is getting greater and greater as time goes on. Note as well that the charts don't suddenly flatline at the year 2100...

Finally I'm looking forward to a discussion on RealClimate.org on this. I've found it to be utterly addictive to see discussions amongst actual researchers in the field, not only showing the areas of legitimate disagreement, debate and uncertainty, but also the solidity of the scientific consensus, as well as busting various common myths - the Crichton garbage, the hockey-stick stuff etc etc. Strongly recommended.

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe

Re:Uh, what? --- We in the US use FAHRENHEIT by EvilNTUser · 2005-01-27 02:58 · Score: 2, Informative

"The original poster was fine, though why they converted TFA's Celcius into Kelvin, I'm not sure."

It's better to use K, because you can't perform calculations on the Celsius scale. For example, 20 C + 30 C != 50 C. It is in fact well over 300 C.

20 C + 30 K = 50 C, however.

--
My Sig: SEGV

The Sky Is Falling!!!! by Androclese · 2005-01-27 02:58 · Score: 2, Funny

They can't even predict what the weather will be like this weekend.

How are we expected to believe then with forcast that far out?

The prefix kilo... by The+Creator · 2005-01-27 03:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Is not capitalized. You'd have a point if it was "11k".

--

FRA: STFU GTFO

Re:Uh, what? by mwood · 2005-01-27 03:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

While you're informing us US Customary unit folks, you might go ahead and remind us that 1 degree C or K is about 1.8 degrees F. So, we're looking at average temperatures up to twenty Fahrenheit degrees warmer, about the difference between "I might need a jacket" and "man, it's hot today."

Again False by Ironsides · 2005-01-27 03:45 · Score: 2, Informative

There is no doubt that volcanic eruptions add CO2 to the atmosphere, but compared to the quantity produced by human activities, their impact is virtually trivial: volcanic eruptions produce about 110 million tons of CO2 each year, whereas human activities contribute almost 10,000 times that quantity.

If the above were completely true, humans would produce about 1 TRILLION tons of C02 each year. according to http://www2.biotech.wisc.edu/jeffries/faq/carbon%2 0dioxide/CO2.html and http://www.mindfully.org/Air/CO2-US2000-DOE.htm US CO2 production is about 1.3 to 1.5 Billion tons each year. Given that the US produces about %25 of CO2, that means that Global CO2 production is at most 6 Billion tons or about 55 times as much as volcanic eruptions. Hardly anywhere near the 10,000 number you and they throw out.

Using the USGS All of humanity produces 22 Billion a year and volcanoes 130-220, that is 100-170 times the volcanoes, still much less than 10,000.

Now for large volcanic explosions such as Mt. Saint Helens and, Krakatoa? Still trying to find info on them, but has to be much more than their average.

--
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars

Has anyone read State of Fear Yet? by bamurphy · 2005-01-27 10:40 · Score: 2, Informative

It's the new Michael Crichton book, and is an action/thriller as most of his are, except it deals with a band of ecoterrorists and the people trying to thwart them. What's interesting is how many graphs, charts, and footnotes he has in there that point to the idea that global warming really isn't occuring. I just got done reading it, and it was a pretty good story. Haven't had time to look at any of the footnotes first hand yet, but seems to present a pretty strong argument. One of the big points he makes in the appendix is that all these studies are biased in some way or another, and that unless there are true double blind studies done, it will stay that way. Industry of course wants to discredit global warming, and beaurocrats want to see reports like this. It's silly to think either end is going to be totally honest.

132 of 1,023 comments (clear)