Slashdot Mirror
Humans are Causing Global Warming
Big_Al_B writes "A Times Online article discusses a new study comparing 7 million real world datapoints with several computer models of global warming. Each model had a possible cause associated with it." From the article: "It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "
"Nothing for you to see here. Please move along."
It's a good thing they have millions of years' worth of climate data to work with. Otherwise their computer models might be irrelevant.
Oh wait...
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Both sides of the debate are too set in their thoughts that no amount of data will change their opinions.
Hmmm.. maybe what we need is more of those microbes from that last "industrial waste may be helping the planet" story..
"There is a reason Linux is free"
~me~
and I thought it was the crab people that was the cause of it all.
Not that it will help. Remember, we need to give equal time to people who think this is caused by thetans.
Humans cause global warming.
Pictures at 11.
Did the include the millions of farting cattle in this model? and what about Guinness drinkers? Are they covered?
404 File Not Found
The requested URL (science/05/02/18/1558239.shtml?tid=146&tid=14) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
Despite that the US the has not signed the Kyoto treaty [yet].
Humans cause global warming? Get out! Next they'll say "humans cause polution" and other cockamany "problems".
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
No way!!! And all this time I was blaming the sun...
Sorry Sol.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Even the Bush White House has said over six months ago that humans are responsible for global warming. Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...
Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is a myth perpertrated by scientists after funding money, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things :
i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Don't be silly. Those data points do not match the political talking points. Politics trumps science nowadays, so ignore this article. Put your fingers in your ears and hum loudly "America the Beautiful" until you forget this article.
Animals living on earth cause changes in their environment in various ways.
Film at 11.
(Yes, yes, humans have the potential to cause *more* change in some respects. From transportation, thousands of years of farming, damming rivers, factories, and so on and so on. As cliche as this sounds, we do have the RIGHT to do things that might make changes - changes which can neither with any certainty be defined as "positive" or "negative" in the broad sense - to our surroundings. Should we go out of our way to destroy life, land, or air? Of course not. But, at the same time, we can't, and frankly shouldn't, have no impact whatsoever. So, once again, it's about THRESHOLDS, and is NOT a black and white discussion. But I think that this continued "HUMANS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING" agenda has taken on a life of its own...)
I mean, it isn't even a topic of debate outside the US, people accept it as fact.
Or better yet, hold all our farts in on alternating days. That way we can decrease the greenhouse gases we're releasing into the atmosphere.
Yeah, I agree.
We'll start with you
Humans? I always thought cows did.
...outside America. Everywhere.
For Americans, this is a natural phenomenon which the human explanation's only goal is to hurt the American economy.
Poor fools.
It seems that every day we have someone coming out with a study that either affirms or denies global warming. Isn't there a scorecard to keep track of all of these?
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
I just wished they had linked to the researchers or the academic paper. I have a hard time taking things in the news at face value, especially about something like this
(disclaimer: Yes, I know there is global warming, I'm just not sure it's all the humans' fault)
I know we produce carbon-dioxide as a result of various...er...bodily functions, but that wouldn't be enough to change anything significantly.
...would it?
I for one say down with those pesky humans!!!
:-P
Give the earth back to the rabbits!
Bush won't take a stand against our ability to pollute because of the difficulties it would have on our economy... Yet if we don't at least try to do something about it we won't be here to have an economy to worry about... So which do we choose? The economy or longer existance on this planet?
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html/
Interesting speech by Michael Crichton on whether global warming is science or politics and what the difference is. Highly recommended no matter what side you are on.
Of course, who wants to be on the side of ignoring or supporting the widespread destruction of the planet by humans? Therein likes the rub...
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
It's funny when you read the articles arguing against Kyoto, though: they always end with "Kyoto is fatally flawed, and it'll cost too much to cut CO2, so we should wait to do it." Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?
The funny thing about all of this is that Canada stands to make out really well. Our four-month growing season will probably become more like the American midwest's 6 -8 months, and our boreal forest ecosystem will shift to a St.Lawrence-Deciduous style forest, which is much more habitable for humans. Also we have a ton of oil here.
Of course, there's the problem of Prince Edward Island probably being under water by then. And oh yes, countries like Bangladesh or the Maldives which will be entirely under water if Antartica (i.e. Ross Ice Shelf) starts to melt. My view is that the best thing to do as an individual is a) bike to work (which I intend to do for the first time this summer), b) keep your house colder than you normally would, and c) evangelize energy efficiency. I don't really see that I can do anymore (aside from reading everything I can) as an just one person with no government connections.
Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).
i heard the same guys who did this study also revealed:
"guns don't kill people, i do"
ok wait maybe that wasn't that funny.
"when the sun sets on the ghetto, all the broken stuff gets cold"
Not that facts often change politics-based opinions.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html
Sieg Hail Sieg Hail Sieg Hail (oh wait. that includes me.) Down with the environmental facists.
404 File Not Found
.001 degrees Celsius each time I tried to reload the article and saw the preceeding text.
The requested URL (science/05/02/18/1558239.shtml?tid=146&tid=14) was not found.
If you feel like it, mail the url, and where ya came from to pater@slashdot.org.
My body temperature rose about
This article... and I stress _this article_ brings nothing new to the table. I would be interested in reading Dr. Barnett's actual study though.
Here's a hypothesis.
1. Global warming will result in colder temperatures in some currently heavily populated regions.
2. People tend to stay inside when it is colder.
3. Staying inside increases the likely hood of procreation.
Therefore, global warming will cause humans.
The real question is how will the earth repond long term? That's a little harder to predict.
.signature not found
Butt gas
damn high-fat foods
Damn liberal submissions and editors!
The Tools Of Ignorance wanna be a tool?
from the article; "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett
So I guess that means that the debate continues for president Bush.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
If you're over 30 years old think about how the world - just your tiny part of it - has changed since you were a kid.
There are many more humans on this planet, with little sign of a stable population anytime in the near future.
No one knows what "critical mass" is regarding population, but don't doubt for one minute that population control will be the "next big thing" at some point in the next 50 years.
Even if the planet itself can support more people think about the life you're living now and imagine even 25% more people crowded into "your" space.
I'm sure once again we'll see more pointless deabate as opposed to thinking over the issues involved.
Me? I look at it this way. There's a lot of good information out there and a lot of experienced people have made very sober arguments about the issues of global warming. So, I give them credit, and figure that the efforts to reduce global warming, even if they do nothing, are unlikely to have a significant negative impact.
I'd say global warming appears to be one of those things like evolution . . . but I'd be right in more ways than one.
I do find it amusing to see people argue that a large number of experienced, intelligent, educated people are somehow irrelevant because some pundit shoots off his mouth. I'd like to start a talk show, then begin discussing how only egghead crackpots believe seatbelts save lives and that eating fried lard is unhealthy. I wonder how many people I could decieve into terribly unhealthy habits just by shooting my mouth off long enough.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Too many connections to the oil industry for that to ever happen.
Seriously.
Another one bites the dust
I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
I found this link with some of his data... http://www.solcomhouse.com/Scripps.htm
In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut has established that 20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice melted in the Arctic between 1965 and 1995.
Strange, I've always measured volumes in cubic metres, not square metres...
More seriously, does anyone have a clue what this "20,000 square kilometres of freshwater ice" is supposed to mean?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
When you associate your cause with politics, don't expect to impress people with how smart and right you are about global warming. I might actually buy what the wackos are selling, if it weren't for the million-and-one issues that come with the package of "environmentalism" by virtue of association.
I blame cows. Eat more beef.
Oh come on, a fart joke needed to be made! Laugh already.
It would be interesting to actually read it, so we can determine whether the source data references a historically small slice of time or is able to be corroborated by looking back at past global warming events (like the ones between all of the ice ages we had before man). It would be too easy to make current data support a preconceived end point. I'm one of maybe the few that is still willing to make a conclusion based on data. I just haven't seen good data supporting the "Humans cause global warming" theory yet.
Clearly this is some form of global self-immolation.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Dozens of computer clusters all around the world, simulating Earth in search for reason for global warming, have unfortunately failed. Researchers say: "We need more computing power, more computer clusters full of fastest CPUs to solve this mystery"
Seriously though, I think the increasing extremes in climate are going to start convincing people faster than anything else. We've had clear mild (40s-50s) here in the NW when in the past its been nothing but nut numbing cold. A few more years of this and people will believe. Science might have been telling us this for years, but until the general population actually feels the effects, they won't believe it.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
duh
Freshwater ice is ice collected from sources such as inland freshwater lakes and streams, or from precipitation. It distinguishes from ice formed out of salty ocean water. Ironically, ice in nature contains freshwater, so the distinction is quite misleading.
I've been biking to work winter and summer for about 1.5 years (it's easy here in the DC area). I go 5 miles each way and would happily do twice as much. Most of the time is spent on a peaceful trail and it's very relaxing and enjoyable, only takes me 20 minutes each way.
My bicyles
possibly it means the surface area of the ice melted.
Check out http://www.realclimate.org/ for blog response by climate scientists to stories in the media that often miss the facts. No response to this Times article yet, but they're usually pretty quick.
Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is true, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things :
i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
iii) How a western boundary current is formed
iv) What Meddies are.
v) What a pycnocline is.
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
[ Reply to This ]
Blah Blah Tacos
I have an article from the April 14th, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer. In that article, it tells me that, prior to that time, the amount of energy from the Sun wasn't been recorded.
Excuse me for being skeptical, but I know output from any star can and does fluctuate. If, prior to 2003, this data wasn't being collected, and if as far as I know, this data isn't being used in studies...I will remain skeptical.
I'm sorry. But little things like energy from the Sun are important variables I would like to have mapped against warming trends before I come to any conclusions.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
nm
So Long and Thanks for all the Fish.
How is half a degree celcius change over 40 years significant? Puh-leeze.
at what point when reading a post by a person with "Troll" in their name does one decide, "I better take them seriously. Just in case."?
If we already have all this CO2 in the atmosphere, and even if we reduce emissions... won't the CO2 in the air still keep the earth building up heat?
What work is being done to remove the CO2 in the air that's already there.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
I'm with you on what you're saying, but ranting just bends down to the level of the uninformed person you're trying to dispute. It's frustrating, I know, and I'm 100% with you on that. Someone ought to mod your post up.
...on their factories and plants, is why Bush won't ever sign that. Money comes first, you know. Your own country, its people, and also the planet are not as important as the money in your bank account. Thank you, dumbfuckistan voters for re-electing W.
George W Bush: Making CEOs more wealthy every day.(TM)
So what, in your world only Nobel Laurates and PhD's are allowed to have opinions, and to attempt to back them with argumentation? The odd slashdot reader has far more insight into these things than the hack journalist who is putting the story together. In this case, this article is hardly definitive, so I think any 'egghead' on here has the right to rip a hole in this posting. If you don't like it, you can certainly go elsewhere.
Now, I'm just guessing here. But do you think it's plausible that it has something to do with the fact that his moniker containes the word "Troll"?
How long until the warming trend corrects itself? If this has been building for decades, and it seems reasonable that it has been at least since the industrial revolution, then I think there is a sort of catastrophic momentum in play that we can't stop. Assuming that this study is on the mark, nothing we can do at this point is going to save us from decades of negative effects. Things like Kyoto or even more drastic measures might slow things a bit, but it's still going to get worse and I can't see how we'll be able to reverse the trend short of some scientific silver bullet.
Even if this idea of 'catastophic momentum' is true, I suppose it may be hyperbole on my part to say we're screwed. We'll probably adapt and survive as a species (although many species won't), but it will be a new world.
I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!
Due to the fact that humans have pumped trillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere(in an extremely short period of time) any human with a shred of common sense would realize that it has had a detrimental effect. You don't need fancy degrees to comprehend that. More importantly, you don't need fancy degrees to do something about it. Whether or not i know what a meddie or pycnocline is, is irrelevant.
God controls the climate, not humans.
Somehow I don't think dolphins released tons of CFCs or added an extra protective layer of polutants to the atmosphere.
Yep, pretty sure we screwed it all up...
I knew I should've listened to Dad and not tried to dig my way to China! Gosh! Hhhhhhhh....
Not a single thing in the article other than "We proved it".
Frankly, climate simulations should always be taken with a huge grain of salt. Such simulations when run into the future are virtually always wrong when checked with the facts later on. Second, any data points collected are from an insanely short periods of time and/or from an insanely small areas. The data is extremely two dimentional.
This is nothing more than people setting out to prove something they wanted to prove based on statistical models that they came up with and, surprise, they go the numbers they wanted, yet again.
The scarey thing is how they claim that their simulation should "lay to rest any argument". What utter rubbish! Such things are said all the time and decades later are virtually always refuted. Making such a claim in itself is all the evidence needed to completely discount the research as they were certainly "absolutely convinced" about their model and it's outcome.
Complete and utter BS.
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Michael Chrichton is a competent writer of fiction.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
The replys to this thread are highly predictable, and one thing is certain: this issue will never be resolved in any kind of way that leads to a constructive, global course of action. There are far too many pseudo-scientists out there with a political agenda who will cloud the issue, and the average person will in the end be left clueless. And I don't expect that what passes for a news media will do anything to help clarify the debate either. These times are just to fractious for anything constructive to be done. In short, we may be screwed.
I just hope that those who have children think long and hard about what kind of world we want to leave for them.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
This study has not been peer reviewed.
There will be plenty of time to work one's self into a lather once the article has been reviewed.
Seems like everyone is recycling the same "there's a scientific consensus" and "read this Michael Crichton quote" comments I already read.
Next time, can we wait at least a week before posting another global warming article? Give people a chance to think of something new to say.
It's a known fact that methane is one of the gases to blame for global warming, and humans "expell" this gas through their behind several million times accross the world every minute.
So therefore, us humans are causing global warming.
(Would this mean we should really blame most of it on Mexico for its mexican beans?)
How did you know I ate--uh, used crayons? I'm signing this cause they keep melting on my hand with this globular warning thingy.
(Ah'm George Dubya Bush, and I approve this message.)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Hi Dick, I know it's you from your e-mail addres : dickhead@Halliburton.iq But honestly Dick, aren't there a few more chineese in china then there are people in USA, and do you not all use just a tad more than your fair share???
BBC coverage here, probably a bit more detail than the Times. No, I haven't RTFA, it's just a gut reaction based on 20 years' exposure to the rotting carcase of a once-great newspaper, rotten with the maggots of the parasitical MurdochWasp that impregnated it with it's eggs... (yep, I don't like Rupe, does it show? :)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
Because I've about had it.
"oohhh... I didn't know Schopenhauer was a philosopher!"
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Now days? Over the course of Human History where science held sway can be described as *the* period between the 1880's to 1969.
It had it's moment in the sun. Now we're going back to how we've been doing things for most of the last 20,000 years.
but how are they compiling this data? I imagine they can measure the current amount of green house gases and make the correlation between industrialization and pollution. But where is their control data? The tens of thousands of years of data recording past climate shifts. This would support their findings that humans are the cause, otherwise it isn't a finding it's an assumption or at best an educated guess.
I don't think we have kept track of our climate long enough to make the distinction between a naturally occurring shift in climate, or mans outright destruction of our planet.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The end of the cold war is what started global warming!
Breaking News:
After running an intense computer simulation for several weeks using a very powerful cluster of computers, scientists discovered that all the heat generated from intense computer simulations on global warming using power clusters of computers is a leading cause of global warming.
From the article:
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California.
When the head of the team doing the study comes out swinging with rhetoric like that, one can be sure that he's working from an agenda-based motivation, and anything in the study should be taken with several grains of salt.
--When you buy proprietary software, you don't get better software. What you get is the right to complain about it.
1) They only take into account things we know about (obviously). What we know about the most is human activity, and thus, they will tend to be biased toward human explanations of climate change. But it is very doubtful that we understand all the factors that go into climate enough to make long-term predictions.
2) Financial bias. You get more funding by predicting "something is happening, but I need to study it further" than you get by predicting, "nothing is happening". Don't even argue that this isn't a factor -- it is.
Computer models can give you any answer you want, depending on how you set the model assumptions. Until they give me clear evidence that is not based on incredibly crude computer models, I will continue to be a skeptic.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The massive underground coal fires they start through their careless, happless, and downright deadly mining practices wouldn't count against them even if they weren't exempt.
EVERY time there is a story about global warming, this bullshit gets modded up.
ONCE AND FOR ALL, CLIMATE != WEATHER. Pull your American head out of your ass.
It is not worth the paper it is written on. If a treaty's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions and other pollution then why does it create system to buy or sell the right to pollute? That one part alone makes this treaty trash.
Worse two of the bigger economies, economies driven by industries that pollute heavyily, of China and India essentially immune to it?
Also, by 2012 when the treaty comes up for renewal what happens when no one meets their goals? Both Canada and Japan don't have real plans to meet the goals as neither do a few European countries. We all know the glacial pace of politics, are you really thinking they can do it?
This is nothing more than a song and dance treaty. It makes people feel good and gives them villains to put the blame on for increased pollution. It is not based on real science instead it is based on consensus.
The US will never sign the treaty because it does nothing to protect the environment worldwide. Worst case scenario is that it simply transfer pollution from one part of the world to another.
If you want to reduce pollution then come up with a system that applies fairly to ALL countries and get them ALL aboard. Hell, India and China have already expressed concern - as in they won't agree - with the proposed followup treaties in 2012.
Kyoto is politics at its worst. It was only written to score points in the internation cooties game.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
From the article, it looks like the researchers are pretty excited that they have found "proof" that huamns cause global warming. First, they can't get proof of something that complicated. We didn't even understand cold fronts until the 1920's, so now we understand weather patterns that extend over millions or hundreds of millions of years? All I'm saying is that we would blame ourselves if the planet was heading into another ice age. Second, all they appeared to have done is compare a bunch of models to actual data. That's great and it does show that the greenhouse gas models are the best right now, but there are tons of ways to capture the same data. They didn't prove that people caused global warming, they proved that our best models of global warming include greenhouse gas emissions.
I find it funny how many americans choose to believe the stances pursued by energy interest groups who have money to loose on tighter regulations concerning global warming, rather than the independant scientific community.
This guy is from an oil company...let's believe him.
This guy is an objective scientist...he must be lying!!
Will code a sig generator for food
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Chaos is in control.
No matter how many 'data points' we have, we still won't be able to make accurate predictions, much less blame specific human influences. (Barring a large scale nuclear war).
Weather 7 days in the future can't be predicted accurately.
We can't even predict which direction a hurricane will turn on a day to day basis.
Their models are limited to facts that these people already believe so it's no surprise their results support those same beliefs.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
While I generally believe that human activity is a non-trivial factor in global climate change, as someone with experience in computer modeling, I have to object that this is not a scientific conclusion.
"In the study, Dr Barnett's team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world's oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change."
Let me get this straight: The group assumed that certain factors were relevant to global energy input, output and flux, that the measurements of these factors were both accurate and comprehensive, and that, most importantly, because THEIR OWN MODELS said that these other factors did not a significant impact, that only anthropogenic CO2 emissions could be the cause of the modeled behavior?
As a graduate student in the 90s I built much simplifer models (geographically) that sought to replicate and predict groundwater transport and the evolution of jet fuel spills at airports. One of the fundamental tenants of such models is that the output depends on both the input data provided to the model and the way that the modeler has programmed phenomena to operate in the model. You do not compare a model against another model to validate its results. You compare a model against the real world and its ability to predict conditions in the future.
Furthermore, you cannot be confident that your model is complete and accurate when conditions change outside of the ranges of calibration data (the histortical data and present conditions produced by your model) that are provided to the model. I can guarantee that the solar flux and deep ocean circulation data used to calibrate the model before the advent of weather satellites and computerized oceanographic probes is of pretty poor quality before, say, 1970. So we have data through say, three solar activity cycles, and data that doesn't even cover a single instance of some of the longer term astronomical cycles. Yes, we have long term carbon dioxide data from ice cores, as well as the basic physics that say that CO2 increases net capture of infrared radiation, but to say that we have complete knowledge of the system is pure hubris.
Mind you, I buy that CO2 emissions play a role, I just don't buy that we know the system so well that we can say, in effect, that nothing else matters. The economic changes and generational sacrifices that must be made will change radically depending on whether 33% or 100% of the anticipated "warming" (really, change in regional conditions) is anthropogenic or otherwise.
"Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday. "It is now time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to reevaluate and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said."
I'm also hoping that this particular paragraph is an example of poor quoting and writing by the reporter. If the lead scientist of the group is taking this strong of a public political position before the paper has even been peer reviewed, it is only going to hurt the perceived quality of the results.
If the US agreed to the Kyoto treaty, we wouldn't have any money for foreign aid!
"What you need help for Tsunami victims and rebuilding? I'm sorry, we spent all our money on reducing CO2 emissions."
The problem with the Kyoto treaty is that you can sell your allowance. ie Russia. Further, the US being a sovereign nation, the best course of action is to impose internal controls. Since we have "balance of power" (also known as Democrats vs Republicans), in about 4 years the Democrats will get another turn and hopefully institute more pollution controls... or do something new with a cigar.
Earth's age: 4.5 billion years.
Amount of reliable climate history data we have to work with: ~100 years.
Amount of time civilization has had a discernable impact on global weather patterns: 6000 years (believe me, thats generous)
So lets do the math:
N is to 100 what 100 is to 4,500,000,000.
X is to 100 what 6000 is to 4,500,000,000.
Humans have only had an impact on Earth's climate for 0.00013% of the planet's history.
We have reliable climate data for only a fraction of that amount -- 0.0000022% of Earth's history.
Name one (one!) other area of science that uses so little data to draw wide-ranging conclusions from. Guess what. You wont. Only asshats try to extrapolate results from such a tiny sample. Real science means it's okay to say "we don't know, and probably never will" when you realize you simply don't know enough to yield a result.
Now shut up and eat your granola. Jesus..
I'm always slightly suspicious of these dumbed down news stories. That talk about undeniable evidence and "no reasonable" person could object to the claims, seems heavy handed. Ultimately, we haven't seen any proof and we're relying on a reporter and a scientist to analyze, interpret, and apply the findings for us. We all have to do this to some degree because we're not experts in every field, but it'd be nice if there was some unbiased fair report of the findings that discussed the weakness and strengths fo the report, and helped answer questions about what the model itself was based on, and hwo trustworthy models are, and what the actual statistics where and what that means to us.
Do yourself a huge favor and learn the difference between precision and accuracy.
The CNN website can be read by people in countries where science is respected for what it is.
Even in the US, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change has been caused by man.
And even the big European oil companies are coming around to that view.
Just read his previous posts and then wonder at how some have been modded up when they are merely insipid attempts to regurgitate rightwing extremist dogma.
You are a dipship.
Yours Truly,
Anonymous Coward
humans tend to populate around areas with specific geographic features which allow human population.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
And if we ignore it and it turns out to be true, what's the worst that could happen? Global catastrophe??
-----
Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.
humans cause global warming. this is as much fact as cigarettes cause cancer.
we're at the stage when the public knows about cigarettes and the conspiracy to cover up the data. but for global warming, we're still in the "don't listen to those commie environmentalists, everyone else drives SUVs, don't YOU want to be cool too?" stage.
the only problem is by the time global warming is a big problem we'll ALL be fucked.
If you've been near Hunts Point you'd want wacky restrictions too. Having grown up there, it's hardly a lush resort town and it's had among the highest asthma rates in New York City. The factories and utter disrepair there are improving a bit but still don't help global warming. Of course, that's only a small place in a massive country and world...
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Who'd a thunk it ?
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
"The most recent glaciation, 20,000 years ago, is called the Laurentide, and Earth is still recovering from it."
i mchng.html
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/cl
Yes, the average global temperature is warming. But, it would be warming whether or not humans were even on the planet. Scientists used to all agree that the Earth was flat and that if people went too far to the edge, the world would tip over and we'd all fall off. Do you see how silly those scientists were?
My comments here are my own; I do not speak for my employer.
I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
There is an extreme difference between modelling accurate weather patterns 5-days out based on hundreds of different variables versus modelling widespread and highly observable change based on thousands of years of data.
Your statement above has absolutely no connection with the modelling of global warming. It is akin to talking about the Superbowl like this: "You can't tell me what the exact score of the Pats/Eagles game is going to be? You know nothing about the game of football."
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Could this whole global warming just be a case of hubris? I grew up in Los Angeles which was always smoggy and gave me asthma. It was hot as hell there in the summer. I figured that it must be due to greenhouse gasses and we're all gonna be wearing space suits in 20 years because all the oxygen was gonna be used up. Turns out it was hot as hell in the summer because the valley's a toilet bowl and traps all the heat and pollution.
Well, looking at time lapse pictures of LA from space, you get the true picture of human effects on the planet: a dense little toilet bowl of humanity that makes an ugly brown cloud. At night, the cloud gets blown out to sea about 50 miles or so and then dissipates. When you zoom out though, you see how teeny tiny LA really is compared to the total size of the earth. And LA is a big american city! We just don't use that much of the planet yet.
I can understand people's concerns when they look into the sky and see brown clouds. But we're dirty animals that crap in our own nests, so that kind of thing should be expected.
But back to the point, is this whole global warming thing just hubris? Surely the biased (or lazy) scientists have been sampling global temperatures IN AND AROUND CITIES - so duh, all that concentrated CO2 is bound to skew their numbers...
And that is as eloquent as I can get. This article...and I stress _this article_ doesn't discuss the manner of data, doesn't talk about the type of data considered, doesn't try to explain the nature of the models, and doesn't even attempt to explain how Barnett makes the connection from ocean currents to global warming. It's basically says nothing more than "this smart guy says his models accurately mimick global warming, and this proves that humans are at fault".
.9L of dissolved CO2 (this doesn't include CO2 which is sequestered in marine organisms either). As the water is heated, it gives off CO2. If global warming is the result of solar forcing, and that solar forcing is causing the release of billions of tons of CO2 from the worlds oceans, then greenhouse gasses are the cause, not the effect.
And as I read this article, it seems to me that all his report does is prove that global warming is driving climate change.
Incidentally, most people don't realize that there's a catch 22 effect which may have nothing to do with humans. The article I linked to above states that the Ocean's absorb 90% of thermal energy in the atmosphere. Each liter of seawater can contain as much as
Having read the theory and run some back of the envelope calculations myself, I still refuse to believe mankind is capable of significantly altering the worlds ecology. We are but unwitting victims of forces well beyond our control.
Animals living on earth cause changes in their environment in various ways.
Film at 11.
Population explosions, deforestation, fossil fuel depletion, global climate change, or other causes of environmental over-reach, are something we might want to avoid. Jared Diamond's Collapse is a warning we might want to heed. Or, to put it another way, it's one thing to say, "Hey, we've got the right," quite another to be willing to pay for the aftermath. And cleaning up a big mess is almost always more expensive than not making the mess in the first place. Rabbit population explosion leading to depopulation crashes provide a decent model for what often happens in unplanned scenarios. Rabbits aren't expected to have the brain power to plan their population growth, but (hopefully) people noting the potential for severe negative consequences have an opportunity to act accordingly.
Should we go out of our way to destroy life, land, or air? Of course not. But, at the same time, we can't, and frankly shouldn't, have no impact whatsoever. So, once again, it's about THRESHOLDS, and is NOT a black and white discussion.
Isn't that what this debate is all about? The scientific community is saying that we have passed a dangerous THRESHOLD and ought to act or else bad things will happen. Of course, if you think these scientists are wrong, I'd love to see some factual criticism. IMO: "Hey, we've got the right," ain't it. --M
It really is time that the "scientific" community got down from their high horses and accept that "global warming" and "evolution" are no more than *theories*. Not only that, they are shot through with holes.
God created world for us to live in, and sent his only son Jesus to wash us clean of our sins. Do you really think that he would allow us to destroy the world that he has created for us in his infinite wisdom.
When the time comes, he will bless us with a second coming, and reward those that are true to his cause.
I know you will say I am a religious nutter, but I honestly believe that soon the day of reckoning will be upon us, maybe sooner than anyone expects.
And when that day comes, and it will be soon, Satan's servants who are already among as, regretably, the President of this once-great country, and his henchmen, will be shown for the evil that they most truly are.
Jesus is love. Give yourself to him and all will be forgiven.
We've had conclusive evidence for several years that human activity causes immediate direct changes in the weather. People who continue to deny the cumulative effect, or its larger impact in longer timeframes, are desperate to deny our responsibility for our own destiny, our survival. And have to get out of our way as we work to do something about it, to save ourselves before it's too late.
--
make install -not war
With the icebergs melting down there, that's the way it looks like its going to go.
--BR
This just in,
fish make good swimmers.
Back to you Carl
Both sides of the debate are too set in their thoughts that no amount of data will change their opinions.
Not really.
I, for instance, have been a major skeptic on the "humans caused it all" claims. In part this has been because of claims that the global warming models don't match the data, while other explanations fit much better.
For instance: It's well known that we're on our way out of an ice age and haven't yet gotten to the between-ice-ages temperature. Solar variations have been measured that correlate with weather and (at an equilibrium temperature well over 400 kelvin degrees warmer than the sky background temperature) it doesn't take much solar variation to swing us half a degree. And so on.
According to the Times, this study compares measurable details of the WAY each of the proposed alternative mechanisms would heat the ocean, and found a very close match to the human-emitted greenhouse gas models and broad divergence from the models of the other explanations.
If that is accurate (and the study holds up to scrutiny and its approach continues to match well as more data is collected) it could easily convince me that human activity is a, or the dominant, or possibly even the only, cause of the observed global warming. One or two studies using other approaches that produce similar results could clinch the issue, too.
Science CONSISTS OF making alternaive models, comparing them with data, and abandoning those models that don't match in favor of those that do.
But that alone won't get me to make the leap from "We're heating the planet enough that, over the next century, the ideal regions to grow each crop will be about a quarter of a tier of states farther north than it is now." to "The world is about to end unless we gut all industry and drive the economy down to the hunter-gatherer level."
Especially since China, with several times the US population, is just leapfrogging from farming to full deployment of heavy industry on a level comparable to the US - while other parts of the world aren't far behind. The US could shut down everything and freeze in the dark and it wouldn't be a tenth of what was needed to reverse such trends - IF reversal is actually needed.
If action is actually needed, it seems to me that it will have to be in terms of improved technology and subtle changes, rather than luddite shutting down of all technology. Energy production that doesn't emit greenhouse gasses (such as improved solar, space-based solar, nuclear fission, or fusion) seem like good starts. (We WILL switch to one or more of those as soon as it's cheaper, too. We already are, in some applications where "alternative energy" IS cheaper. Look around you as you drive.) Albedo management and ocean-farming that results in large-scale carbon sequesteration are two more. Or just orbit a few sun shades. (That could freeze the whole planet if it were overdone. B-) )
Meanwhile there's a lot of dots to be connected to get from "humans really ARE the cause of global warming" through ".... and we've got to DO something about it" through "do THIS" to "do it NOW!".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in World's Oceans"
Straight from the horses mouth.
Strong UV rays break down CFCs into chlorine atoms (C1). C1 acts as a catalyst to destroy O3 (ozone) without being consumed itself. Thus 1 C1 atom can destroy about 100,000 O3 molecules. That is bad...
While anthropogenic and natural gases do add to the warming process, industrial polution caused by us delivers damage several fold worse.
I suppose we could call it chance... I call it apathy. Even though the EPA has regulations for polutants (particles per million for every flavor) over 90 million americans live in an area out of regulation.
It seems to me that much time is wasted looking for a cause of these temperature changes. What's important are two questions:
Ignoring the problem, no matter what the alleged cause, is not only stupid, it is contra-survival.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
You must remember that the original 'Europeans / pilgrims' that settled in what is now the United States were religious fundamentalists who only came to the New World so they could practice their closed minded , xenophobic brand of Christianity freely, with out being persecuted by the rest of the more liberal forms of the religion, (Catholic inquisition aside)..
Take a step back for a moment. Being right on this one SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER.
What does matter is this:
As we reduce greenhouse gases--even if they're not a threat and/or causing global warming: Conversely, if we wait too long because no one can agree on data points to study then on data validity then on data modeling, etc., etc., at least we'll make great pets.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
Unless we humans actually split the earth in two (or more) pieces then there's really nothing to worry about.
:)
Nature will always find a way for something to live on the planet - it just might not be humans. For instance a really warm planet will be just lovely for insects. And there's already evidence of African malaria carrying types heading up into Europe to bask in our now warm and inviting climes (lots of nice water for them to breed in too)
You only have to take a casual glance at all the weird shit that lived in the Cambrian to see what Natures capable of coming up with.
So don't worry. Enjoy your day in the sun and realise it doesn't last forever. Mutate and survive that's what I say
IA ! F'Tagn ! IA Chthulhu !!! WHen the stars are right we will walk again....
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...is looking more and more attractive.
And that salesman thought he was ripping me off.
(Nunavat is Canada's newest province on the Arctic Ocean.)
For the UN illeterate:
The Kyoto Protocol - An International Agreement to solve the problem of "human factors global warming" by transfering industrial technology and capability from developed nations to UNderdeveloped nations.
No worry though, you can now buy carbon credits from the IMF (International Monetary Force) to keep, what factories you have left, open. Otherwise, they will have to move to India or China which again, are exempted from the Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/emissions_tradi ng/items/2731.php/
[n/t]
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Yeah but slashdoters know better than world consensus...
"I think this line is mostly filler"
Kind of off-topic, but what the heck...
I have a friend who worked as support staff at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and he said the scientific staff had an "Ice Before Christ" party, where they used ice from some core samples that were dated to several thousand years ago to make margaritas and use in their cocktails and such. Kinda neat, if a little silly.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
There is a scorecard. It's called the environment.
So the world is heating up. So it may be being accelerated by human activity. So the sea levels rise people will just move to higher ground. So old established agricultural areas become barren. New ones in the Northern and Southern sub artic ones will flurish. So what if the Ozone layer erodes just by sun screen and hats.
There really is nothing to worry about, because as soon as it impacts harshly on our leaders, and their families, have no doubt about it, billions of dollars will be given to industry to try to correct the problem that they and us have created. Remember, they is no money to be made in preventing global warming only in dealling with it once it it truly here.
How about a giant ice cube in the ocean every few years? That oughta take care of it...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
to find what a lot of scientists (Geologists, not "climatologists") think is by far the main reason the planet is warming.
We're spinning in the middle of cold cold space, people can whine about the eskimos who can't hunt Polar Bears now, and the ocean rising 1cm a year. But luckily we can continue to grow crops farther and farther north and feed this overpopulated world. If we were to enter into another ice age we would all be screwed.
So as I understand it, what we have been calling human caused global warming is the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. This says that that increase has been from about 260ppm to 370ppm now; which is noticable and believable to me. So what I want to know is are we talking about those 370ppm molecules reflecting radiant energy back towards the surface of the earth?
By my math, that's 0.000259 % of the atmosphere doing that and now we've got 0.00036% of the atmosphere doing that. that 0.0001% more radiant energy is the concern? Which causes more water to vaporize which is more powerful greenhouse gas, yadda yadda yadda. But is that the core of the issue? We're getting 0.0001% more heat reflected back at us from the atmosphere? How much more energy does the sun send to us when there are big solar flares?
I love the way a lot of folks who post are more concerned in being perceived as clever in the thread by the slashdot crowd than in actually debating the topic at hand. Who are you trying to impress? My advice is that you consider gettting laid, and if thats not possible perhaps we can start a money raising drive on the site so you can hire a professional. To those who do have wives but insist on showing off; you obviously need to find a more attractive woman. As to global warming, these issues need to stop being 'debated' because there simply is NO debate within the scientific community. The 'debate' is created by an increasingly impotent and useless mainstream media, usually by making it seem like there are two sides. This is achieved by tricking a real scientist into a debate with another 'scientist' who happens to disagree (usually this other scientist either an employee of some major energy company or one who found jesus recently and received his degree by fishing it out of a trashcan at his local university) Global warming is an accepted fact by the scientific community, so that leaves us with only two productive paths of discusion: A:- We accuse the MAJORITY of the worldwide scientific community of having some kind of 'political' or 'economic' agenda to perpetuate this 'myth'. B:- We accuse people of blindly following their political parties lie, regardless of how much data or facts are piled on top of us, because we so zealously believe that our party is 'right' and everyone else is just the 'enemy' trying to steer us away from the righteous path of Jesus, hard work, mom, and apple pie. Or taht everyone else is trying to deceive us with their 'high fallutin' ideers. (note, play the classic American anti-intellectualism card here). Oh, and lets not forgot the necessary impulsive whine about a 'liberal' bias in the media, despite the obvious increasing number of conservative neanderthals with talk shows on ALL the major tv networks. Must be nice to have your cake and eat it too. Considering the present modus operandi of the right wing in the US, and their prior record, I am inclined to believe that the answer is closer to B than it is to A. The strategy is simple: Create some enormous lie; repeat this lie ad nauseaum and have your corporate owned media repeat it for you until you have crammed it so deep into the masses subconsciousness that no amount of reason or logic can extract it. Then set your sights on something else you want, and repeat. The problem is this: You dont debate with people who believe that pushing a political agenda is more important than anything else: reason, wisdom, science, etc. Its like trying to politely discuss the morality of theft with a burglar as he's robbing your house. Wake up people! You let these azzholes make you debate your facts while they push their blind naked lies.
It isn't called common sense and you're an idiot.
1. How much is a trillion tons in comparison to those natural greenhouse gases that the Earth produces on it's own?
2. Where do those green house gases go, and how much actually ENTERS the atmosphere?
What's that? You don't have a clue? But I thought it was common sense! Oh no wait, you're just a fucking moron.
It is not all self-centered. Trying to introduce your policy is tricky. You can't do it immidiatly after an election because there is to much to do and your people ain't worked in yet. But after everything is settled in you only got a very small window to do something before the next election starts for the other part of goverment (senate vs congress?) and doing it to close to election is risky because the other side might capatalize on any bad publicity about it (true or not). Win that election and most of your people will have started to become to settled to influenced (corrupt if you like) and perhaps thinking about the next election where they might loose their jobs. Then it all starts over again.
Tackling the enviroment problems would be a huge headache. With only 2 years between elections no US goverment can really afford to cause an upset. Worse any halway decent effort would span several years. Introducing a tax rise now wich creates jobs in the next term? So the other side (because a tax rise will loose you the elections) can claim the job increase? Noway. Instant fixes or nothing.
It has nothing to do with wether it would really cost jobs or far more likely create jobs but with what the headlines say in the run up to the election.
Try to find out when was the last time older goverments really DID something. I mean something they pledged to do during election and then did and stuck with it.
Only a few generations we had things like "new deals" "national health service" "moon race" etc etc. Now ever minor reforms and projects get mired and just fizzle away.
Lets not forget that clinton did absolutly nothing for 8 years. And he is remembered as a good president. Americans don't like their goverment to do things. Other countries are not much different but america is hurting bad because of its two party system. Note that england wich is pretty close to only having two parties ain't doing to hot on reducing CO2 either.
In a country like the netherlands left wing means something entirly different then in the US and central parties better listen unless they want to loose massive votes to the left from people on the center left. In the US what are the left wing people going to do? Everything left of extreme-right has no choice but democrat unless they want their vote to be thrown away.
Even here we got a huge problem wich nobody wants to taggle. Farm subsidies. Effectively because of EU subsidies to farmer most of the food bought in stores is subsidised. Meaning that the prize you pay is not the real price but that part of it is payed through your taxes. Coupled with over production it leads to EU tax money being spend on shipping food under cost price to third world nations wich are pressured into buying it destroying the local farmers all at huge cost to the EU tax payer who could get the same cheap food from 3rd world countries who could also really use the income from selling their own food rather then importing western food.
But any party that would cut subsidies can count on blaring headlines about poor farmers being made jobless. Electoral suicide because even if you cut subsidies you will in the beginning have to spend the money saved on transit deals so no tax cut until much later (AFTER you lost the election).
First shoot the lawyers might be a nice thought but if we really want to fix the world it would be better to first shoot the reporters. As long as they make their living by creating hype and fear no goverment can do anything.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
In other news -
Tobacco companies deny link to cancer, or that nicotine is addictive.
Fast food and soft drink manufacturers deny link to obesity.
For the love of everything holy, get a grip and open your eyes. There's no doubt that we are contributing to global warming, none, despite what vested interested try to spin you. Yet people still seem to enjoy sticking their head in the sand, and try to stick to the old "oh, but there's always been fluctuations in climate, and there isn't even any consensus amongst scientists" crap.
There are fluctuations, but we're a huge catalyst. And outside of the sort of rubbish that speaks the same tongue as the old "scientific reports" commissioned by Phillip Morris, there is consensus. Every piece of due diligence and scientific method to enumerate the doubt in *any* study is seized upon as if to discredit it. But that's ok, we'll just wait a couple of million years to collect the data that'll make you happy.
The Poll at CNN which you didn't link doesn't say ANYTHING about if the changes are 'man-made'. The Poll says:
Do you agree with climate experts that global warming is well under way?
So I guess the CNN website can be read by people in countries that CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE POLL QUESTION IS ACTUALLY ASKING.
Now, I believe that 'global warming' is going on, since we are coming out of an Ice Age but I don't believe it is man-made.
CNN words the questions in this way on purpose, they lead you to a conclusion by asking a question that will have the result they want.
The previous issue (Feb 12) has some good summaries of global warming, particularly addressing a number of "tipping point" dangers - problems that will be much more difficult or impossible to fix once a threshold had been passed. See http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg185248 64.300
for a teaser. You'll have to get the magazine for the full article. However a brief summary runs as follows:
Ocean conveyor belt shuts down=much colder climate for Western Europe.
Greenland's ice cap melts=higher sea levels (7 meters) over a long period (1000-3000 years). However, the problem is that a tipping point could be reached with only a 2.7 degree C rise - this means the meltdown would begin but not necessarily reverse even if temperatures subsequently dropped.
Methane released from undersea sediments (methyl hydrates)->accelerated warming because this is a greenhouse gas. The estimate is that there is something like 5 trillion (10^12) tonnes of methane under the ocean in this form.
Oceans become more acid because of dissolved CO2. This could disrupt CO2 sequestration by interfering with sea organisms like corals and shellfish.
Rate of CO2 buildup may increase because, after a little warming, organic material will decay more rapidly. The short-term effect of more CO2 is faster plant growth, hence more absorption. However, this trend can reverse at some temperature as decay speeds up.
Do you think that maybe the errors are going the OTHER way from "everything is normal".
When they say "it will get 0-12 degrees warmer in a century", some people say "see, they admit it could be no change". Not many people say "Hell, it could be 12!".
"It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "
If it's not A, it must be B.
No way could it be C or D or any other possible explanation or combination thereof.
Fucking MORONS.
"We BELIEVE and want to TESTIFY that we have EVIDENCE in the form of minor correlation between two observations, one of which generates huge funding, and that we ESCHEW ALL CONTRARY EVIDENCE and consider logic to be a RED HERRING!"
SHOW ME THE RAW DATA, not a condensate of the massaged data and a logicaly deficient interpretation!
By RAW data, I mean facsimiles of the actual recorded observations and where existing, photos of the collected materials and experimental methodology. I've seen enough BOGUS, funding preservation based, science to be skeptical of any highly funded theory or model. Show me the damn lab and field notebooks!
1)War on drugs.
2)War on terror.
3)Global warming.
=
The three biggest feeding troughs and patronage engines of our lifetime.
Let me see...
There used to be an ocean in the middle of North America.
There are records that show thru out geo-history great freezings and greater warmings.
Yes, I know we have millions of cows releasing flatulants...but didn't we have millions of buffalo before we killed all of them? So that kinda balances out.
Have we released green house gases. Yes. Have they had an affect. Probably....but when you read how black the skies were in London 200 yrs ago from all the wood burning and carbon emissions.
And so although I believe there could be a global warming I am very skeptical about whether that is due just because of mankind or natural occurrences.
This site helps explain as well: http ://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=no+shit +sherlock&r=f
I didn't link to the website I just made it up on the spot!
I believe this goes under the 'no shit, sherlock' category.
I think most right-wingers silently accept global warming as fact, but know that people don't like having to spend the money to fix it. They'll still push for a Hydrogen Economy and Nuclear power... probably the easiest ways of addressing Global Warming
I believe that global warming is caused by all the farting that Americans do. It's that high fat diet, I tell you! :)
I have to ask this...so what? So what that we're causing global warming?
What will that do?
Well, it will melt the icecaps at the North and South Pole.
So?
Well, it will raise sea levels and flood coastal areas.
So?
Are you heartless, millions of people and animals will have to move out and go inland!
So?
But we can stop this, this isn't natural! We caused it!
So? I mean, aren't we part of nature? Hasn't there been over the history of the Earth ice ages and warm ages? Things melt, things freeze. Species die, species evolve. Why are we suddenly out of the picture just because we can think and walk on two legs?
The world will evolve around us...if we're here or not. What does everyone want? Want the world to evolve "naturally" without are involvement? How is this possible? How do we know what is natural and what isn't?
I don't mean to sound crass or flippant about all this, but SO WHAT? The world will survive us...trust me. To paraphrase George Carlin, the Earth isn't going anywhere...WE ARE! The Earth will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
We have absolutely NO idea what the climate will be 100 years from now. The computer models can guess all they want but they're always be just that, guesses. Guesses built upon old guesses modeled after other computer guesses.
And these guesses are no better at predicting the future than Karnac. I can make a prediction also! I predict, according to computer models and research, that the sky will turn purple in 200 years due to the fact that people are spraying more lavender air fresheners into the atmosphere! Yes, in 200 years the sky will be purple. YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!
Now give me some grant money so I can study this in more detail....
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
I mean, come on - Sol has published previous studies that claim 100% uptime for 1+ billion years for itself, while most humans can't go for more than a few months without getting attacked by viruses, and every one of them succombs to worms in less than 200 years. Whatever!
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
So, one degree of warming in the 20th century.
Scale the graph so the axis is the normal temperature range of the northern hemisphere (25C), and you won't see anything.
Plus, it's unclear what is "anomolous". Anomolous is a judgement call. Give us the temperature ranges of each year, in a high/low format.
That's without questioning the underlying methodology of determining the temperature from those sources.
"Every Reputable Scientist on the Planet" believed in Global Cooling in the 70s and early 80s.
Does that make them more reputable, that they were apparently all wrong only 30 years ago?
I think the grand parent's description is more accurate than yours. The real difference it seems to me, is:
.5 degrees. Their models may strongly suggest that the cause is greenhouse gases, but its not proof.
With weather, we have a computer model tracking actual real physical chunks of air around the earth. With climate, we are just looking at what happened in the past and extrapolating data into the future. ie making a guess. Its the difference between tracking an asteroid and knowing it will hit earth, and calculating the probability of some random asteroid hitting earth in the next fifty years.
The problem with this is that scientists a. don't know for sure what weather is going to be happening in fifty years -- its just a guess based on the past -- and b. they don't know what is causing the trend and therefore how to prevent it. before we freak out and destroy the world economy, lets make sure of these two things.
The headline on this article is bizarre to me. They haven't proven that global warming is man made. They have a model that uses past data to guess at future data. This may be helpful and useful and points a person in a certain direction, but its hardly proof of what the weather will be in 50 years or that man is changing global weather. Honestly I don't even see it proving that global warming is occuring. The only thing it proves is that the temperature over the last 40 years has gone up
Am I wrong?
The writer is assuming "Signed On" means "Signed."
While the Clinton Administration may have gotten on board, in the sense that it was for it, the Clinton Administration never signed anything, as "in force."
The President can't sign a treaty before it's ratified by the Senate.
Trust a college newspaper to get the facts wrong.
Aliens cause global warming...
s pe eches_quote04.html[/url]
[url]http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/
GREAT read. I am sure many here won't though.
Yeah that is why the results are 84% to 16% right now? I mean you guessed and you came within 1 percentage point of an actual CNN poll? Why don't you just admit you were wrong? Oh let me guess, because you are a coward.
I was going to post this, but keep in mind there have been several separate debunkings of the hockey stick by different researchers.
In 7 days God created the heavens and the earth.
One question, How long are Gods days?
Number 1 seems to be the real sticky one.
In the short amount of time that we have been able to accurately gather climatic data we can definitely say that the average temperature on the Earth has risen by x amount.
The interesting thing about accurate data is I remember a story on my local weather station that stated that a lot of the record highs and lows record in our area in the past were caused by improperly placed (e.g. in full time shade, in full time sun, on metal roofs, in wells, etc...) and inaccurately calibrated thermometers caused by among other things poor manufacturing techniques, and such.
Burning Coal/Oil/vegetable Oil for power are all bad.
I am not sure that they have GLOBAL effects, but the local effects are bad enough that
I don't want them up wind of me.
Solar/Wind are small potatoes.
We need nuclear power. Pebble beds are wasteful.
They should be ultra clean, breeder reacters that minimize the waste.
Minimize the amount of fuel needed,
minimize the spent product to send to AZ.
Be Efficient, not stupid or superstitious.
More Nukes LESS Kooks!
No bias here.
An article in an unabashedly political "news" site (take a look at the articles in the right column) isn't exactly the most reliable authority.
I'd hate to be a conservative these days. Either the world is only 6000 years old and there is definitely enough historical data to confirm that global warming is man-made, or it's millions of years old and there isn't enough evidence for us to be completely certain.
Either way, they lose...
As for me, whether global warming is man-made or not, I'm still going to work to make the earth cleaner and more hospitable, by trying to use less energy or use it more efficiently, find cleaner fuels, not dump junk into the air and water and basically try to be a good steward. Have conservatives just completely lost the desire to be good like that? Is the quest for money so overwhelming that it blocks out all those other desires? What's going on, and when did it become wrong to try to do good for Mother Earth?
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
...among others: Most of Florida will be under water, too. No more Everglades, South Beach, or Redneck Riviera. Even if there was enough money to build a sea wall around the whole state, the beaches will be gone and there won't be any drinking water due to salt-water intrusion.
They'll probably build a dike around Disney World though, so don't panic.
We are the 198 proof..
> The dataset on weather we have is pitifully small in geographic time,
Weather possibly, climate is another matter. Don't conflate the two.
The best way to reduce emmissions from energy usage is to use less energy. So, awesome for that.
Another thing you can do is make sure that "your" electricity is green. Sure, you can't control the electrons flowing to your outlet, but you can spend a trivial amount of money to increase the amount of green energy produced by the amount you consume. Some utilities offer this right with the bill. For most of us, however, we have to buy green credits. I buy mine from Community Energy because they use 100% wind, are on the East Coast of the USA*, and have prices cheaper than many other green-e companies.
Currently, green-e costs more to generate than coal-e or gas-e. They need subsidies to operate. So, subsidize!
* Near where I live, and near where a tremendous amount of coal-fired plants are in operation
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Wow, you were voted as insightful for THAT?
If you had bothered to look at my link before you criticized it you would have read things like:
"Graph showing roughly 1000 years of temperature in the northern hemisphere. It is based on combined data from ice layers, corals, trees, etc. The 20th Century's one degree Fahrenheit warming stands out dramatically."
and
"Graph showing a 450,000 year record of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the earth's atmosphere. This record was compiled from analyzing bubbles of fossilized air trapped in ice cores. The fossilized air shows the levels of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere throughout this 450,000 period. The last 100-150 years of the 20th Century show a significant rise in CO2."
I'm really curious what was tested here. this article basicially states "We're killing ourselves" without much into how they got to that conclusion.
/ 3_Methane.htm.
There's a ton of theorys on what is causing this. The only ones they flat out denied in the article was the solar and volcanic ones. They didn't go into detail on what theory's were tested, such as the Methane Hydrate Theory.
This is the theory that global warming is increasing because Methane Hydrate is being released in the form of Methane gas from the ocean disturbed by warmer currents. As the tempeature increases in the currents, more Methane is released, ETC until the gobal tempeature increases drasticially.
Unfortunatly, I can't find a lot of reliable data on this. It seems that the majority of nutcases have run with this theory. The Most reliable source I can find on this in a short period of time is at http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles
It seems to me that all of these greenhouse scientists love to point the finger at humans alone, but don't look into a combination of natural occurances and human interaction. I'm not saying that we humans aren't doing our part to screw the earth up, but it seems that this could do much more damage then CO2 emmisions could ever do, and in a very short period of time, and there's a lot of historical data stating that it has happened in the past.
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
I don't really care whether humans are causing global warming or not (although I suspect they are). It's simply a good idea for us to do as much as we can to minimize our impact on the environment.
for different reasons. The only real way to lower emissions would be to move to nukes. Quite honestly, I like alternative energy but most are intermmitent (and the ones that are not, can not generate near enough). With out a real way to store the energy, we must have the ability to generate energy at full capacity. By being on this, it would help jump start this industry.
Yeah, yeah, I know, storage is an issue, so the answer is do not store it. Burn it up.
But plain and simple, we are having issues with the climate and we may as well use it to help the economy, not hurt it. What I find interesting, it that GWB and his admin are pushing the idea of the feds paying to sequester CO2 (which will massively cost us the tax payers), but is not really looking at alternative energy or nukes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Well, in reference to global warming... this all sounds a lot like the old "hole in the ozone" farse. Tor years a supposed majority of reputable scientist warned about how our refrigerants were causing this big hole that was going to let the sun come through and zap us all. Anybody remember that? Remember how much legiuslation was written to "protect the ozone?" But it, just like this Global Warming bit, was junk science. For one thing, the hole in the ozone was not over the countries that used refrigerants... it was over Antarctica. And trust me... no one needs refrigerants donwn there! Plus, the molecules in the refrigerants that destroy ozone are large and so heavy that the don't make it up to the atmosphere do to something "mysterious" phenominon called "gravity." :) The article in the Times online gives no evidense, but rather a rant from some of these same "respectable" scientists about how anyone that questions them is stupid because they have majic computer models that are infallable! :) Nice try guys....
This has been a test. Your cut&paste functionality works fine. Please return to your normal FreeRepublic now.
"Every Reputable Scientist on the Planet" believed in Global Cooling in the 70s and early 80s.
... wait a minute, I'm thinking ... hold on ...
There's a word for this argument. It's on the tip of my tongue
Oh yeah! It's called a "lie."
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The prototype that causes me the most fear in this is the old Islamic empire of around 1000AD. They were enlightened. They supported science, and felt that studying God's universe was a good, not anti-religious thing to do. They happily coexisted with Christians and Jews.
Those days are long gone.
I hope we don't go down the same road.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Whenever you hear a conservative complaining about liberals, it's always about "liberal academia" or "liberal elites" or "liberal media" etc. It's as if anybody who is educated or successful is therefore a liberal and stupid. The only other societies I'm aware of that slam academics are fascist countries.
And it seems to be that those who are arguing that it is not happening are not in the field.
Finally, the ones who are arguing that it may not be humans, are at best weak reseachers in this field, and have very little work to disprove it.
So yes, I am receycling somebody else work in the same fashion that I am recycling 1+1 = 2, and E=MC^2.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You said:"Two, all of these models tend to leave something important out: The sun."
The article said:"It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world."
Yes, that was always a big issue for me too. How could we assume that CO2 and methane levels from human activity are the cause of change when we hadn't even ruled out a change in the source? If we are to believe this article, and this study which hasn't quite been published yet, solar variation has now been eliminated as a potential cause.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
There are numerous points that can be argued for and against this article, but one immediately stands out. I quote: "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said. So, if humans creating the 'green house effect' could be the only cause for the rising temperatures, the why did the Earth's temperature start rising about 6000 years ago? Industrialization and mass farming didn't exist back then. Also, if man is the cause of global warming, then why was the hottest point in the Earth's history a pre-human date? Are these people aware that Antarctica was, at one point, covered in a jungle? And if that simple part of study is suspect, what else might be?
Some systems are easy to predict long-term and impossible short-term, others are the opposite.
Nobody can predict the exact fluctuations of the stock market, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out long term trends.
Heliocentrism? Gravity? Darwinian Evolution? All a bunch of loony wingnuts (heretics, even).
Since when is science a democracy / popularity contest? Science is about repeatable observations.
Anyway, everyone knows that Aliens cause global warming
You forgot to mention the other pseudo-scientific wannabe facts that the rest of the world wants us to believe: Humans and monkeys have a common ancestor and evolution actually exists. You get fat from eating too much, not from eating not enough meat. Being an arrogant asshole in terms of foreign politics increases, not decreases terrorism.
Anyone who does not believe is a heretic.
A very easy to Global Warming caused by humans:
Drop a nuke each in North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and China.
Also - say that healthcare is free in California, wait 1 year for all the moronic liberals who believe that global warming isn't a myth, and drop a nuke there too.
Less humans = less global warming according to this moronic article.
PS - wasn't it snowing in Florida two weeks ago? Idiots.
How much peer review have these models been subjected to? What assumptions are built into these models? How exactly do we control solely for sea temperature changes?
There's definitely way too much "we're right so shut up" attitude in this one.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
with that "real world" stuff.
Then there would be nobody to measure this global warming let alone call it such. One mans global warming as another dinasours longterm summer :).
Here's another point to make. Nobody really talks about the consequences of global warming. Over the next 300 years Florida becomes submerged. OK, that's maybe not great, but it's not like there is going to be a sudden tidal wave that suddenly wipes out entire populations.
Would it change your opinion of your doctors diagnoses if you knew that the drug company who makes the medications he prescribes kicks back in the form of paid golf trips or junkets in the Carribean?
Mechanics make gobs of money on labor, and nothing on parts, so they can be inclined to recommend service which may not be necessary or even advisable in order to make an extra few bucks.
While true honest professionals don't do these things, most normal people, when given the opportunity to make more money (or get more political power or publicity) through dishonest acts that carry plausible deniability, will take it. That's why I don't trust authority unless authority earns the trust.
The difference is very simple to understand, based upon fairly commonly understood principles.
For instance, most people understand that trees have 'growth rings' that can be used to count the age of a tree. Some people understand that the difference in thickness between one ring and another ring, on the same tree, has something to do with the condition of the year that growth ring was formed. Even fewer people understand that not only does the thickness of the ring, but the density of the wood material within that ring further demonstrate the conditions that the tree grew in that year.
Using that generally accepted information, it is possible for a scientist to very accurately describe the general weather throughout a particular tree's life. This would include a rough estimate of average yearly temperature and precipitation.
The same can be said for scientists that drill up those arctic ice core samples. The data taken from those samples, coupled with information taken from other sources, such as information from the rings of very long lived trees (think Californian Red Woods) provides these scientists with the ability to very accurately describe the general climate of the globe.
There is also a significant different between the terms climate and weather that you are misrepresenting.
Let's think of this whole thing in computer terms, the Earth is the hardware, the Climate is the Operating System and Weather are child processes of the Climate. Currently, it appears that we humans have radically altered the Climate OS and we are beginning to see that the changes will begin to spawn new weather processes.
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Forcasters' inability to predict the weather past a short time span has nothing -- nothing! -- to do with the climate change that is being observed.
What's funny is that neocons complain about "bad science" and then don't seem to study science at all!
I see, so we can just go right on ahead and burn all of the fossil fuels we can find, since global warming is an unproven theory. You know what other theories are unrpoven? Electricity and evolution. In Science, it's really hard to "prove" anything but ignoring something as potentially serious as global warming could be our downfall. Just look at the state of the environment a mere 200 years after the industrial revolution. If we continue our reckless practices, we're probably all fu%##%.
"But I tell you this, man, I tell you this I don't know what's gonna happen, man, but I wanna have my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames"
"All right! All right!"
---Jim Morrison
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"How much peer review have these models been subjected to?"
n ists/story.html?id=b5aa21e0-098b-4609-b27a-d97c754 ddf2c
I realize your question was rhetorical, but since there is an answer I thought I would post it.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/colum
In short there has been almost no peer review, and Michael Mann is working against peer review by not allowing his methods, data, or algorithims out, a thing unheard of in scientific research.
Isn't it crazy how many percentage facts and opinions stated as fact in the above story and comments.....
I will first start off by saying that I have no opinion either way in this politically motivated argument. But What I cannot stand is bad science reported by the media and opinions being stated as fact.
Let's start with the Kyoto protocol (since its such big news right now). It is the result of what happens when politics enters science. Then groups grab catch phrases and run with it trying to make it law.
The following facts are supported by skeptics (e.g. Pat Michaels) and advocates (Kevin Trenberth, for example). Google it if you feel the need. The Kyoto goal is to lower the global mean temp by approx.07 C by 2050. They will reach this goal no matter what for the simple fact that the global mean temp. is only accurate to ±0.7 C. So the science will eventually show that we make the goal just so they can justify charging the world loads of money to make this happen. The cost of this goal is $100,000.00 US per billionth of one degree. When you factor in that Kyoto will cost (estimated by the Kyoto authors $150 billion per annum).
The Foundation of Kyoto is based on mainly one paper by Dr. Mann and his two co-authors that has been dubbed the "hockey stick". The "hockey stick" was a paper that had a graph on it that showed a 1000 year timeline for climate on earth. For about the first 900 years the line is nearly perfectly straight, but jumps sharply up in the last 100 years. Hence the hockey stick name. The paper that contains the hockey stick was riddled with the worst kind of science. I have read the paper; I urge the rest of you to read this paper also. I know it's the driest research paper ever but it's really informative on how messed up science can get. There is now a group of non-funded scientists Messrs. McIntyre and McKitrick looking at this paper they have found a number of errors on it and have forced a partial retraction of some of the paper already. Mr. McIntyre thinks there are more errors but says his audit is limited because he still doesn't know the exact computer code Dr. Mann used to generate the graph. Dr. Mann refuses to release it. "Giving them the algorithm would be giving in to the intimidation tactics that these people are engaged in," he says. So what most scientists would consider a basic part of peer-review and good science -- releasing all of the details of their methods for others to replicate -- Mann would consider to be caving into mean climate skeptic bullies.
Anyway I need to cut this rant short (need to actually get back to work).
If Mann is confident in his methods, then he should release them to the scientific community and let the chips fall where they may. Until he does this there is absolutely NO way anyone will ever convince me that anything derived from this paper is anything more than science gone wrong. At this point I think it's better to wipe my arse with Dr. Mann's paper than actually use it to create a global socialist project such as KYOTO!!!!!
If you don't believe that fossils fuels are causing global warming, what type or amount of evidence would convince you that they were? Can you describe what conditions it should satisify?
I have a computer model that predicts an Ice Age in fifty years.
Now what are you going to do?
We can argue about what data means all day long, but really this just comes down to common sense. It's a reasonable assumption that pumping an atmostphere full of greenhouse gasses is going to cause global warming. Whether or not we currently are experiencing the results of this warming may be hard to say, but I would have to question the intelligence/motives of someone who said that doing this is not dangerous.
If you relate this to the concepts of warming another planet like Mars to make it more habitable, there is virtually complete agreement that pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere would allow the planet to become significantly warmer.
Now.. how can anyone argue that doing this on Earth would not produce the same results? It's like telling someone that they don't have any proof that you would die if you jumped out of an airlock in space without a suit. No one has done that before (to my knowledge), but it's a safe assumption that it would make you very dead. In this instance, ignoring common sense would be beyond foolish.
It's even worse when you do it on a global level. Once we wreck our environment, then I guess we'll have some hard data on global warming. Hopefully we survive our stupidity, but it doesn't seem like we even deserve to survive as a species if we are so collectively foolish.
Please read the global cooling myth to understand that this statement is inaccurate, at best. This falls under the rubric of "if something is stated often enough..."
This is not meant to be a criticism of you. I've heard this so often myself that I believed it to be true. It wasn't until I did a little research that I found out otherwise.
Obviously, it is possible that scientists are wrong. They almost always are, although usually in minor details. E.g., we know that QM and GR can't both be right, but both are excellent approximations, at worst. Likewise, there might be some details that the scientists have wrong here, as well. The date that catastrophe X happens, or the amount that phenomenom Y is responsible for it, etc., are all quite debatable. However, it seems that the claim that global warming will continue, resulting in severe flooding of low-lying areas is almost indisputable. How much we can do to prevent it is obviously still one of the questions yet to be resolved. That we can, and should, do something, however, is not.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Yes the planet (biosphere) is getting warmer.
And your ridiculous, petty attempts, to
reflect sunlight by spreading metal particulates
in the air (via jet contrails) are not working.
(Instead they are speeding up the process
by acting as an insulator - but you didn't think
of that now did you).
It is unstoppable now. As things heat up the
water will begin to move outward, and
resestablish the frozen firmament. This,
in turn, will create an increased lifespan for all creatures as it blocks out harmful rays
while simultaneously allowing for the increase
of nobel gases in the atmosphere to pre-firmament
melting levels.
So rejoice! Global warming as you call it
is set to create your long awaited heaven on
earth. At which point we, your new Reptilian
overloads,will arrive to take charge.
; )
How much peer review have these models been subjected to? What assumptions are built into these models?
From TFA:
"... the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,.. "
We'll see if it holds up to review then. Who knows? My personal hope is that it does. If so, though, I don't expect it to sway the entrenched skeptics, who seem to consider ideology as evidence of scientific observation.
I'm going to skip over this guy's self-imagined refutation of science and get right to the point: Predicting climate is not about predicting the weather --even though climate and weather are obviously inter-related.
Let me put it this way: nobody knows how much a house is going to sell for. They can make guesses but those guesses can be way off -- just like weather reports. Nonetheless, we know that when crime goes up in a neighborhood (all other factors remaining constant) that property values will decrease.
How do we know this? We can't perform controlled experiments. I heard about one guy's house price doubling even though crime in his neighborhood had risen 20%. Wouldn't that sort of anecdotal evidence discredit the crime hypothesis of property devaluation? How can we even venture to make guesses about factors in property values when we can't even predict the price of a single house?
Here's the answer: We don't need to be able to predict individual dynamics to predict aggregate behavior. When I heat a pot of water, many molecules will move faster, though some will slow down and I won't be able to predict which ones. In a storm lightning will strike, though I'll never be able to tell you where. And as soon as I saw the global warming discussion, I knew a number of slashdotters would reguritate the misleading weather-analogy even if I couldn't have predicted which ones would commit the crime.
Yes! I am positive about this. Just wait 1 day and George Bush will use his FAKE SCIENCE TEAM AMERICA to prove to us how we will be saved and how US will even benefit from Global Warming, except for those nasty people living in France.
I find it interesting that so many people are able to dismiss a study they haven't read when they have virtually no knowledge (or whatever they read on Google) about climate change at all. What they do seem to have are some very nice right wing talking poinst, or whatever they have invented (everybody knows you have to have millions of years of climate data to know anything about global warming! Otherwise whatever you find is irrelevent!)
Maybe the HIV virus is made up too, right? You don't know anything about it, and you don't like how it sounds, so I'm sure you can come up with some vapid criticism about how it just doesn't add up.
Reading just the headline "Humans are Causing Global Warming" presents an interesting point itself. 6 billion plus people milling about would generate (I would think) a massive amount of heat by kinetic motion. I remember hearing that that big ass mall doesn't even have a heating system, people provide all the heat it needs. On smaller scales, my house gets hot enough when the family is over for Xmas that I have the heat off and windows open.
So, wouldn't it be possible, given the atmosphere above us acting as the enclosure, that all of us down here are rasing the temp?
R(k)
My friend, I do believe you are mistaken the organisms who have most changed the world, are invisible to the naked eye... Bacterium and other tiny organisms, all the way up to insects account for more consumption of energy and production of C02 than people :)
The issue here is that we modify the environment at times purely wastefully, without a direct link to our need to live. This is the needless push we have towards global warming.
Have a good day!
Gravity Sucks
What an aching shame that it was posted by an AC. The post is right on the money.
That is because it is not scientific research. It is more left-wing political propaganda that is completely unsubstantiated and unverifiable.
I didn't make the comment, but have a look at this, from the United States Department of Energy:
"The regrowth of U.S. forests has had important impacts on net U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. Overall, U.S. forests have been a net carbon sink since 1952. According to Birdsey and Heath, between 1952 and 1992, carbon stored on U.S. forest land increased by a net of 11.3 billion metric tons, an average net increase of 281 million metric tons per year, and an amount that offset approximately 25 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon for the period.(118) In addition to reforestation associated with the abandonment of agriculture in the East, more than 4 million acres of marginal cropland have been reforested since 1974 under such Federal programs as the Conservation Reserve Program, Agricultural Conservation Program, and Forestry Incentives Program.(119) Birdsey and Heath estimated that U.S. forests will continue to be net carbon sinks well into the future, sequestering carbon at an average net annual rate of 178 million metric tons between 1992 and 2040 (not including sequestration into wood products and landfills), for a total increase in stored carbon of 8.5 billion metric tons."
As the report mentions, massive reforestation has occurred in America since 1920, as marginal agricultural land has been abandoned. Some parts of the eastern United States, such as southern Ohio, would unrecognizable today to an observer of a hundred years ago, because they are now almost completely covered with trees.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
The disagreement seems to be more of an ideolgoical nature. A majority of americans don't really care about the scientific debate because they don't see a need to change even if global warming is happening. Not surprisingly, they care even less when you add an agreement that financially rapes the US while leaving out countries like china. Also not surprisingly, discussion about the stupidity of americans isn't going to change that
So what do these cowards do? Right, pretend I was trolling. Says a lot more about them than about anything I wrote.
It's a shame. I remember /. before the Microsoft astroturfers began patrolling, and before the right-wing types began moderating.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html
I'll try this again.
Global warming has the potential to significantly reduce or eliminate the population growth and sustainability / resource consumption problems we are facing.
And like any strong medicine it will be nasty to swallow.
Think of all the wonderful artistic works (tragedy makes for great story) to be produced as we experience a huge plenetary dying of many species and humans. It will be a rich inheritance for the few that make it through.
w00t
Then perhaps you would consider that McKittrick and McIntyre's latest paper (PDF warning) was published in the February 2005 Geophysical Research Letters?
You might also consider that Mann refuses to release the complete dataset on which he based his research as well as the algorithm used to generate the graph. This means his work cannot be validated by anyone else because he is not making available the conditions for the experiment.
McIntyre has also pointed out that the general method used by Mann tends to generate hockey-stick results even on random data.
Humans may well be warming the planet with their activities. Mann's work, until properly verified, should not be used as evidence of this.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
goddamn straight. they couldn't win the cold war fair and square and now they're trying to punish us with environmental regulations. Pollution is the last of the great communist mythologies up there with Lenin is a great leader and Stalin. Global warming my ass -- seriously it is "warming" so goddamn much why is the car seat in my egregiously large truck always freezing my big balls in the morning??? YEAH u herd me i SAID I WASTEFULLY DRIVE A LARGE TRUCK WITH A BIGASS AMERICAN FLAG take that u libral fuxs!!!. What u expect me to take a commuter train?? HA let me tell u a little secrete: commuter = communist. Get it? That's u, Go listen 2 ur NPR AND assfuk fatass Michael More and DIE U FUX!!!!!
Let's say that this is all correct and humans are causing global warming. That does not mean it is bad. It could just as easily be a good thing. Perhaps we are preventing a new ice age which would cause mass extinction. Life forms have been shaping the environment of the earth for billions of years. The only difference is that we are the first life forms that know it.
Yes, global warming is the result of human activity. In fact it is all America's fault. It is part of a clever plan to renovate the costal regions of the world. No thanks necessary, we're glad to do it.
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
- Do nothing. Continue to pour all sorts of shit into our atmosphere, and cross our fingers that global warming is just a natural fluctuation in the sun's output, or God's wrath, or whatever.
- Reduce emissions. Cut down on greenhouse gasses that maybe, just maybe, are the source of the this problem, and in the process stem the tide of other environmental damage associated with some of the same processes (or is acid rain another scientific myth?).
I'm sorry, but spouting economic reasons to play dice with the global climate smacks of arbitrary denial.If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
There used to be an ocean in the middle of North America.
What the uninformed masses used to believe is hardly evidence of flaws in current scientific observations and study.
There are records that show thru out geo-history great freezings and greater warmings.
Yep. And analysis of these records yields evidence that humans have impacted the rate of recent warming significantly beyond former warming rates.
Yes, I know we have millions of cows releasing flatulants...but didn't we have millions of buffalo before we killed all of them? So that kinda balances out.
Uh, I'm going to ignore the whole cow-fart angle. It gives me gas.
Have we released green house gases. Yes. Have they had an affect. Probably....but when you read how black the skies were in London 200 yrs ago from all the wood burning and carbon emissions.
Yes, but don't you think the borders of London may have been quite a bit smaller back then? The population was magnitudes smaller, so the amount of black in the skies was probably not too significant compared to the collective output of greenhouse gases we currently have. I might be wrong, but I'm not.
And so although I believe there could be a global warming I am very skeptical about whether that is due just because of mankind or natural occurrences.
I'm skeptical that your skepticism is based on sound evidence.
Over the past few hundred years weve destroyed vast ammounts of forest land, decreasing our worlds ability to remve carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, while increasing the ammount of carbon dioxide that is pushed out into the atmosphere.
It's just unfortunate that our particulate emmissons helped change the structure of clouds so they reflect more sunlight back into space counter-acting the effects of the increased carbon dioxide levels so we never noticed what were really doing (apart form some things we didn't really ascioate with the polution like the year-on-year failing rains over parts of africa)
Well, I've still got hope, when all the worlds major coastal cities are under 2 meters of water (after some ice-sheets have melted), people might actually listen and we might seriously concider changing our ways, before vast ammounts of the earth become uninhabitable.
The notion of how to check whether something is "scientific" - that is, the research is submitted to a scholarly scientific journal with peer review - is a very old standardized method of deciding what is or isn't scientific. At least it's a first step. At the same time, there is an old and often used practice in the North America and other places - that is, to lie. We have all seen this in the corporate world (Enron et al, Viox), in politics - (lets bomb Iraq because of their weapons of mass destruction), educational/research organizations (HIV=AIDS) and so on. I was attending a conference of college administrators. I witnessed a group of administrators writing up a report designed to hide the fact that that the majority of the colleges attending were in fact breaking the law. Every now and then one or more of the report writers would chime together - "bullshit baffles brains"! Obviously some people use fear to suck tax money out of the system - its easy to run around and claim the "sky is falling". And bullshiting is definitely the standard approach
Didn't science used to work like this?
1. Develop hypothesis.
2. Devise MEASURABLE observations in attempt to support hypothesis.
3. Reject hypothesis when an observation refutes it.
4. When enough observations have supported hypothesis without being refuted, you have a theory.
The reason we see so much debate around global warming is that the scientific process seems to be circumvented. It should be a simple equation: for every X of greenhouse gas, we have Y of warming. Through all this debate, where is such an equation?
However, it seems those who think that burning fossil fuels and other activities of like nature should simply go on as it is are quite quick to latch on the minority view, declare the majority a bunch of scaremongers and go on their way.
That industrial societies generate CO2, that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising as a result, and that CO2 tends to trap heat in the atmosphere are facts not being debated by anyone. The question is what are the present and future effects of the CO2 for climate and how do they balance against the desires of 6.4 billion souls to lead better material lives. We should have the debate. Is wealth and development worth a few degrees of warming? Do we want to allow a few scientists and environmentists to dictate restrictions on development without demonstrable benefit?
There are people on this forum trying to have the debate. But each time we suggest that development may be worth the cost, we are modded to flamebait.
I am a geophysicist by training and a sceptic. I would be reluctant to raise the "science" of climate modelling to that of evolutionary biology. It does a disservice to biologists.
an ill wind that blows no good
I agree.
And I think its clear (100% risk) that the consequences of following the IPCC's recommendations of decreasing green house gas production by 70% to 1900's levels of production is pretty much the end of the world. Energy usage is clearly tied to wealth and standard of living. The average person in America in 1900 made a salary of about $2500 in 1998 dollars. People were really poor. We would probably be able to do a little better than that with our efficiency increases. But its not like we can just stop buying SUVs and turn off the lights when leaving the room and everything will be all better. If the IPCC is correct, we are talking no cars and no refrigerators. Society will have to take a major step backwards
Maybe we will have to do take these drastic measures to avoid the consequences of global warming. But I think we should look at our options very very carefully and be very very certain it will actually solve the problem, before embarking on such a policy.
I think environmentalists ignore these consequences.
Life at the Ogg House:
;P
I had a Vorbis listening party this past Summer at my home. I told everyone to bring their favorite CDs and that I would rip their favorite track from the disc using MP3 and Vorbis. I did so at 64, 128, 256 and 384 k bitrates. We had a wonderful time conducting blind listening comparisons using both the AKG and Sennheiser cans as well as my Tannoy studio monitors, Yamaha stereo speakers and the Bose 901 series loudspeakers. (Each set in a room seasoned with the best in acoustics) Under such discriminating environments, Vorbis beat MP3 hadns down every time. Some people couldn't even tell the diffrerence between the 64k Vorbis and the 256k MP3. ONly going to prove my point that Ogg Vorbis is FAR superior to any other codec.
After we had dinner (a fine French meal with wine if you must know), it was time for more listening tests. Initially the crowd was a little resistant, but by the time we'd listened to the wonderfully executed "Get Ur Freak On" by Missy Elliot for a fifth time, the crowd agreed that Ogg Vorbis was the winner hands down.
It was a wonderful day and a great victory for Ogg Vorbis as I told everyone present that now that they were aware of the quality the Vorbis provides, they should show all of their friends and family. I provided them all with archive DLTs of the test set (music that they all brought with them) so that they could give it to their IT guys at work and have them load it up on the their Linux or Unix servers and share with their colleagues. They all promised that they would talk to their IT guys.
So, this article has no idea what it's going on about because it isn't aware of the change that is taking the nation by storm with regard to Ogg Vorbis. I urge all of you to show your family and friends the right way to archive digital audio media and advise them to abandon MP3 and proprietary codecs. If you don't then it will be on your own hands...
Laugh it's funny!
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
but does it still make sense to shit where you eat?
even shitting down stream and eating up stream is a simpleton view of the world.
Sustainability should be the goal.
I have a challenge to both sides of the global warming debate. I doubt it will be taken up, but it's worth a try...
I would like each side to consider the question "What if you are wrong"
For the "humans are causing global warming" side, if you are wrong all there is a lot of hype, nothing happens and society carries on.
For the "i don't believe in global warming" side, the consequences of being wrong are serious. The global climate shifts and makes things bad for everyone.
Given the possible consequences, what harm is there in trying to cut down on CO2 emissions, escpecially in the country that produces 25% of the CO2. You could drive less, walk more (with the health benefits of exercise), use the air con less and so on. Reducing CO2 emissions doesn't require a massive lifestyle change, though it does require some change.
It really doesn't matter if the US signs the treaty or not, because everybody knows that the US is a rogue state that thinks it is above international law. It's a real shame that our grandchildren will have to suffer terribly because ignorant and greedy neoconservaties are running the US right now.
"Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol..."
First let's wait for the peer review, then let's see if the Kyoto accord doesn't get bogged down in arguments about cash and credit transfers. I can hardly wait to see how atmospheric science gets translated into CO2 accounting.
I eagerly await your informed analysis of this specific work, or a reference to something similar, that led you to this conclusion.
And "I just know it's the lefties again," doesn't count.
But, I don't really understand it. According to Birdsey and Heath, between 1952 and 1992, carbon stored on U.S. forest land increased by a net of 11.3 billion metric tons, an average net increase of 281 million metric tons per year, and an amount that offset approximately 25 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon for the period.
If carbon stored on forest land only accounts for 25 percent of US emissions, then how are the forests overall a sink?
I also find it confusing that the forests are projected to be sequestering carbon at an average net annual rate of 178 million metric tons between 1992 and 2040 but the total US output of carbon is over 1,400 million metric tons. Where does the other 1,200 million metric tons go?
I guess I'm misunderstanding something here.
95-0 against Kyoto.
It is a bad treaty, like higher CAFE standards have actually lead to increased rather than decreased fuel consumption.
-- Len
1. If you will notice your parent to my previoius post, you may see that I was merely pointing out that a scientist can be inaccurate without being fradulent. Notice that something as non-immediate as global warming seldom has the same unconcious effect as the prospect of more funding and media attention, even on an honest person.
2. Look around a little more. Meet more people. I have heard of scientists that gamble at casinos, met doctors that smoke (a kind of scientist, and a different kind of gambling), spoken with english professors that don't read books that aren't directly professionally required, known computer professionals that don't backup, etc.
People don't always behave rationally, no matter their job.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Only a few loudmouthed cranks are keeping the idea that "there really is debate on the issue" alive, in the sense you mean.
Indeed, and here are some of those cranks:
Chris Landsea contradicts public statements by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), denying any evidence that global warming increases hurricane activity, and makes a big show of it by resighing
Other cranks maintain that global climate change existed in the middle ages, before humans increased atmospheric CO2. (link might require free registration)
Fortunately, dissenters such as Landsea are either voluntarily surrendering their positions, or, as in the case of the editors of Climate Research mentinod in the second link, being forced out of their jobs for allowing the crank viewpoint into print.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
The real question is will the Kyoto Protocol have a positive effect. Will these government imposed heavy handed restrictions encourage development of more efficient replacement technologies. Given that this is the direction of technological development already, will the Kyoto protocol do anything positive to further bring about their development and implementation, or will the harsh and not necessarily scientific restrictions actually slow the development and adoption of new technologies by limiting the available technological options.
If things are already moving in the right direction with regard to energy-efficient technologies (plastics instead of metals and glass, thicker layers of insulation, fluorescent lights, hybrid cars) and environmentally friendly technologies (genetic modification vs. pesticides, wind turbine and solar, and natural gas power vs. coal and fuel oil) it might be worse to take drastic measures to try to alter the current direction of technological development.
People say that if fuel cells ever get developed, it won't make any difference because the hydrogen will be produced (at least in the early stages) by hydrocarbon reformation (which still produces CO2). But the truth is fuel cells (right now) are twice as efficient as internal combustion engines, and lend themselves to additional energy saving technologies (like energy reclaiming breaks). That means that even if the hydrogen is produced from oil, we will only need to use half as much of it (for transportation). It also means that electric power production from fuel cells would more efficient than turbine production (again, even if the energy source is oil). Of course, there is still the problem that no one has been able to produce a viable fuel cell (proton exchange membranes are currently too expensive, and wear out too quickly).
Anyway, it's a question that a lot of scientists don't seem to consider, but it seems pretty important to me.
The key argument against taking action on greenhouse gases is that it will have a negative effect on the economy. Of course, any stockbroker can tell you how reliably accurate long-term economic forecasting is...
The state of the art in long-term economic modelling is certainly not more accurate or reliable than the state of the art in climate modeling. Yet huge chunks of the population have swallowed without the question the supposition that reducing greenhouse gases will kill the economy.
All you have to do is get a few well known and respected scientists on board and all the other lemmings will fall in line.
I think the reason that your post was modded so highly is because you posted the conclusion that so many people want to hear, which is, essentially, "Chrichton is sloppy at best, mendacious at worst for daring question the Truth about global warming." But, as with so many things, the devil's in the details.
... As we in this line of research are fond of pointing out to students in our introductory classes, 'Climate is what you expect; Weather is what you get'. Crichton would have been well served if he had read this tutorial on the distinction between the two...."
You labeled RealClimate.org's critique as a "detailed examination." But was it really that detailed? I read it, and it seems to me that they are only able to raise three objections, which I will detail here (easy, since there are only three):
1. Chricton claims, "No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality."
- RealClimate.org responds with, "Crichton should know that this assertion is false. He cites in the 'bibliography' at the end of his book, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But he appears unaware, for example..." and then gives examples of models which, in their opinion, do, in fact, model data from the real world.
* Even if what they write is true, it's not enough to disprove Chrichton's claim. Read what he wrote: "increasingly, models provide the data." In order for them to show falsehood, they would have to show that the phenomenon he bemoans is actually decreasing in frequency or, at best, happening at the same rate. Merely providing examples in the way they did is not sufficient to make Chrichton's claim false. Strike one.
2. Chricton claims, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?"
- RealClimate.org droops to mockery and replies, "Crichton then goes on to make the classic error of confusing 'weather' and 'climate'
* RealClimate.org's analysis is as stupid as it is condescending. Again, read what Chrichton wrote! "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead." If "climate," by RealClimate.org's own admission is "what you expect," then that definition is functionally equivalent to a weather prediction. If there be any confusion here, it appears to be coming from RealClimate.org. Strike two.
3. Chrichton claims, "Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them."
- RealClimate.org looks down their nose again and claims, "Again, if Crichton has read the IPCC report, he should be aware of the fact that largely (though admittedly, not completely) independent communities of scientists are involved with..."
* hold on just a minute! If, by RealClimate.org's admission, the communities of science are not completely independent, then how is RealClimate.org so sure that such a phenomenon is not precisely the complaint that Chrichton has? The counterexamples RealClimate.org provides fall outside of that complaint and are, by nature, irrelevent. Strike three.
Is this the best that the "scientists" at RealClimate.org can come up with? Should I expect their writings on the Truth(TM) of Global Warming to be of the same caliber? Anyone who fails to communicate their thoughts without resorting to snotty invective loses huge amounts of credibility with me.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Thanks for putting it forth in such a good way.
I thought it was all those damn cow farts and rainforests. I guess that eerie feeling I get when I drive by the refinery is worth noting...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
Certainly
c -ncc020905.php which was from those wacky Europeans that everyone here says all are in agreement with the current global warming theories. Current scientific evidence from records of tree ring growth, and and Ice samples actually show that a rise in atmospheric CO2 actually follows Global warming by about 400 years, not preceeds it, so of course anything that goes against historical data needs to be looked at closley
"The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years,..."
Well that statement is certainly true. But that is because it only goes back 40 years to the low point in a global cooling trend. If you go back 65 years you see no net warming, so who cares.
"Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely."
Can we see the data? Becuase, if true, it would cettainly be a revelation, as this has not been true ever before. Which is why this article was released, it is basically just a retort from this article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/sr
Actually there isn't much to retort in this article, as it is nothing but a bunch of claims and name calling, without any suporting data.
Thats how men died in mars... and the methane explains it! Refried beans, the destroyer of worlds!
Cheers,
Adolfo
www.harvardmagazine.com/issues/mj98/rightnow.html
Wish I had them mod points....
Global cooling is an effect of global dimming, which is an effect of aerosols that humans put in the atmosphere. If it weren't for this global dimming we'd actually be warming a lot faster.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
I'm not sure where you get the idea that damming a river or strip mining or clear-cutting forest can't be defined as "negative" to our surroundings, but I'd like to know.
Q: How is strip-mining or clear-cutting negative to the environment?
A: It destroys animals' habitats!
Q: So what?
A: That's bad!
Q: Why?
A: They should live!
Q: Why?
A: So we can study and learn from them!
Q: Then it really is about us humans, and not about the environment after all, right?
A: No, they have a right to life!
Q: Why?
A: Because I don't want to be cruel!
Q: Then it really is about us humans, and not about the environment, after all, right?
A: No, the environment has value in and of itself!
Q: Why?
A: Because it's part of my morality!
Q: Then it really is about us humans, and not about the environment, after all, right?
A: (Dissolves into condescending invective.)
Until some other species can reason and assert its rights alongside humanity, every discussion about the environment is about how the environment pleases and serves humanity. It's all about us. I see your argument agaist strip-mining and the argument for strip-mining as two sides of the same coin: either way, a group of humans gets served by the environment. Whether or not matter gets changed from one form to another does not change the fact everyone's fate is death and nothing has any importance in the long run.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday. Whew! Glad it's settled!
Well, except for the fact that there is wide disagreement on sea temperatures and whether they've risen. Whoops!
The arrogance of scientists and their reliance on computer models knows no bounds.
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
...that airplanes cause global warming. They seed cirrus clouds which develop fully overnight. This holds in a lot of solar heat throughout the night, and they dissipate in time for sunlight again the next day. More planes are in the air in the evening than in the morning, so the effect is not symmetrical.
:)
The only way to test this would be to ground planes -- or at least require that they fly much lower -- and observe the weather. 9/11 is the only real data point we have, and I believe the temperature did drop. Of course, this is totally unscientific. I leave it to the academics to pick up my slashdot droppings and change the world
There's a "jury is still out" or not quality to scientific progress. Sometimes things get decided. When there's political controversy involved (not to mention deliberate obfuscation) it may take the public a while to catch up. In this case the catching up is long overdue.
Tim Barnett is a serious senior oceanographer at Scripps who has made major contributions to statistical approaches to oceanography. Presumably if he is standing up and making such a strong statement he has got some serious evidence to back it up.
It sure would be nice if these articles linked to primary sources, though. I don't think Slashdot should link to fluff. Either they should find something meatier or they should wait.
mt
The 11.3 Billion metric tons is the increase from 1952 and 1942, this increase alone is capable of absorbing 25% of US CO2 output (Using the C to increase the carbon int he tree, and releasing the O2 fo people to breath.). Obviously much of the US was forested before 1952, and that forest also absorbed CO2, since the amount of forest before 1952 was much greater than the forest land we have added, it also had a much greater ability to absorb CO2, more than 75%.
On second point, you will note the use of "net" as I was discusiing in the the other porion of the thread. In other words US forrests will sequester CO2 at a rate of 178 Million metric tons -more- than the US output of 1,270 Million Metric tons* Hence we are a CO2 Sink.
* I believe your 1400 Million Tons are regular tons not Metric tons, but I could be wrong.
I think it's a valid analogy to illustrate different kinds of prediction, but I want to add that there are systems where , if you average over one period , you get A. If you average over another period, you get B. And B is too far from A. And if you scale that up to larger periods, you get the same problem. Some systems have difficult "averaging out" behaviour. They 'switch regimes'. They don't need outside intervention for that.
The rah-rah quotes in the article are from the guy who ran the study - which is "about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal."
Like Pons and Fleischmann (remember them?), this guy seems to have started with the mass media - maybe to badger the journal into publishing his study? Let's see if it survives peer review.
One thing that keeps pisisng me off abou this debate is the fact that the reason to do nothing is cost. 'It will cost too much to reduce emmisions, save the wales, use electric, shower every morning' anything. Here's the thing, everything always costs too much, did people in the 1800's look at industrialization and say 'well golly imagine all the money it will take to build a factory and all that stuff' sure some did, but had we listened we would still be driving horse cariages. There have been quite a few stories that I have come across (sorry no links, I know I'm asking for trouble) that bring up the fact that when businesses/factories/individuals try to do something good for the environment (i.e. reduce greenhouse gasses, thereby using less energy) the efficience that is introduced pays for itself in a few years. i.e. re-using heat from one part of a factory in another part, introducing more efficient machinery etc. Why do we put insulation in our homes, why do we have double and tripple-paned glass, to us it is to save money in the long run by not running the furnace 24/7. Guess what this means, drummroll, less energy wasted, and you guessed it less greenhouse gasses produced. Why when this idea is applied to corporations it suddenly will cost too much?!? Yes, the scale is much larger, but so will be the savings.
This is silly. A significant majority of anthropogenic climate forcing is due to CO2 produced directly by burning fossil fuels.
Indirect contributions to CO2, such as deforestation is very small in comparison. This can be seen by observing that during the 18th and 19th centuries, deforesting large areas of North America caused a measurable, but very small increase in atmospheric CO2. Burning fossil fuels in the 20th century caused a large increase in CO2 levels. There are several ways to tell where the carbon is coming from: isotope analysis shows that most of the additional carbon is old on the scale of the carbon 13 lifetime, so it has not come from organic material formed in the last couple of hundred thousand years. Second, the timing and magnitude of the increase coincides directly with the growth of fossil fuel use and not with any other anthropogenic or natural phenomenon.
Methane gets a lot of press, but it only lives for a decade in the atmosphere before it's oxidized, whereas carbon dioxide has a much longer lifetime (around a century) so it poses a much greater threat.
Even if we consider methane, cow farts are only a small fraction of total anthropogenic methane emissions.
Perhaps before we totally blow it China will save the world by conquering the USA and implementing some sort of draconian one SUV policy.
The way I see it, we have a Pascal's wager here.. if we believe we might be causing global warming.. and we're not.. then what do we lose? Not Much. In fact we will probably have gained by increasing global efficiency. The railing of conservatives saying jobs will be lost is nonsense; jobs always come in to fill any economic space. Like new jobs in installing efficiency systems, etc.
;)
If we DONT believe we have caused global warming.. and we keep on dumping our pollution into the air, and OOOOPS we did cause it.. then we've just doomed ourselves to some VERY ugly changes in civilization. Goodbye coastal cities, goodbye species etc.
Which would the prudent man choose, even if the evidence is not all in yet?
Haha of course I'm not the prudent man according to Pascal's wager, because I'm truly on the path to Hell but I'm wagering it doesnt exist
*** DRINK MORE COFFEE ***
The most important changes in land use affecting the U.S. share of the carbon budget are those that increase or reduce forest land. Each year, a very large amount of carbon dioxide, on the order of 100 billion metric tons, is removed from the atmosphere and sequestered into biomass and soil worldwide.
So biomass and soil accounts for 100 billion metric tons of carbon per year worldwide.
At the same time, carbon is released to the atmosphere from vegetative respiration, combustion of wood in natural or purposely set forest fires or as fuel, degradation of manufactured wood products, and the natural decay of rotting vegetative detritus.
But the same biomass is also responsible for the release of carbon.
The net numerical difference, or flux, between carbon sequestration and carbon release due to natural factors can be viewed as a measure of the relative contribution of biomass to the carbon cycle.
So by 'flux' they mean the net difference between sequestration and release, due to biomass.
Annual world carbon flux is difficult to measure but is thought to be close to zero; in other words, sequestration and respiration are roughly in balance worldwide.
So, across the whole planet, carbon flux from biomass is approximately zero (as one would expect for a steady state). Note that nowhere yet has emissions from any other source been considered!
In the United States, however, the live components of forests and the wood products produced from them (including paper and wood-based construction materials) sequestered a net of approximately 111 million metric tons of carbon (407 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) in 1992, including 12 million metric tons of carbon sequestered in wood products and 15 million metric tons of carbon sequestered in landfilled wood product waste.(112) A further 127 million metric tons of carbon were believed to be sequestered in forest soils and the forest floor in 1992. For purposes of comparison, this estimated amount of sequestered carbon offset approximately 17 percent of the 1,381 million metric tons of carbon (or 5,068 million metric tons of carbon dioxide) emitted in the United States in 1992 from the burning of fossil fuels (see Chapter 2).
This contains the real information. The US forests have a positive flux of carbon. ie, the amount of carbon stored in the forest per year is larger than the amount of carbon released by the forest per year.
BUT, this is only 17% of the carbon emitted by burning fossil fuels! So the USA is most definitely NOT a net sink of carbon!
Yes, you are wrong. Weather models attempt to simulate physical chunks of air. Climate models also attempt to simulate physical chunks of air.
...uh maybe i'll read it ..later.
huh. well in that case, how do they expect to predict the weather in 50 years when they can't predict it 3 weeks from now?
i suppose your link tells me about it.
It is your choice to fill your dinner plate at the smorgasbord of philosophical idea, and choose the ones that suit your palate.
Philosophically speaking, there are a number of reasons that evolution is inconsistent with Christianity. If you are interested, I can and will elaborate. If you prefer to do that via email, my address is public.
Let's address the non-philosophical issues, if you will. First, the age of the earth is estimated, based on a number of assumptions which may or may not be valid.
Frankly, our understanding of cosmology is pretty limited because our exposure to planetary systems is pretty limited. Our understanding about planetary formation has been changed because of recent observations of planets in formation. (Look for information about the recent discovery of a solar system with multiple Jupiter-sized planets.)
Our estimation of the time required to form the Grand Canyon is based on many assumptions. After Mt. St. Helens erupted, a mini-version of the grand canyon was formed in a matter of days. Those layers could be layed down (or eroded) over a VERY short period of time.
I'll freely admit that adaptation is undeniable. I would be a fool with my head stuck in the sand to believe that this is untrue. Differentiation in types of moths, types of hares and rabbits, dogs, etc is observable, and repeatable.
For what it's worth, adaptation is consistent with a Christian world view.
Scientifically speaking what is in dispute is really two things:
1. Whether species adapted from one type of creature to another type (Cat to dog, or something equally different.)
2. How the whole thing got started.
WRT #1, there's the issue of the significant dispute within the scientific community about whether it was gradual change or immediate change. Gould's punctuated equilibrium theory was based on his research and his assertion that 'phyletic gradualism' 'was never seen in the rocks' because of the gaps in the fossil record. At best, I'd have to say that major, significant change in creatures happening gradually over time is speculative. However, if you approach your study of the universe and pre-suppose that there is no design, no creator, then you must search for any explanation, no matter how far-fetched it is to fit in with your pre-conceived notions. This kind of bias is exactly what the 'scientist' types accuse 'religious' types of. We are all biased - on every side of this issue.
WRT #2 - If the universe has existed eternally, why didn't the potential, kinetic, and heat energy in the universe equilibrate an eternity ago? We should not exist, and if any matter exists, it should be stopped, and VERY cold.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
But this doesn't consider emissions from fossil fuels at all. The net flux of carbon from the forests only accounts for 17% of the output from fossil fuels. The all-inclusive forest + fossil fuels flux is indeed around 1,200 million metric tons of emission.
CO2 lives in the atmosphere for a very long time. This is well-known. The more CO2, the longer the lifetime. Currently the lifetime of atmospheric CO2 is about 100 years.
Oceans warm up very slowly (on a timescale of 1000 years, which is determined by deepwater recycling times that can be measured very well.
Putting these two terms together implies that if global warming leads to unacceptable consequences, then by the time we have a clear and unambiguous observation of those consequences (remember that we're rejecting computer models that extrapolate from present trends) we will have set the earth on a course where those consequences will persist for another few centuries.
We don't have unambiguous proof today that human emissions of greenhouse gases will cause unacceptable damage to the environment. We can't predict future climates well enough to know with any certainty whether global warming is benign, catastrophic, or somewhere in between. We will not know this until we observe what the climate actually does.
Once we observe how the climate does change, it will be too late to alter its trajectory for a century or so, so deciding to wait until there is unambiguous proof is actually another way of deciding to do nothing. We should recognize that choosing to do nothing, choosing to take extreme action, or choosing some intermediate course of action will be done in a state of ignorance and uncertainty.
It may be that choosing to do nothing is the best course of action, but we should be honest that what we're doing is choosing to accept whatever climate change occurs in the next two centuries and not to sell it as though we would have the option of doing something about catastrophic climate change should we observe it 50 years from now.
As to nuclear power, I completely support you on this. Nuclear power is the only technology that has a hope of reducing CO2 emissions significantly in the next 30 years, so we should expand nuclear power as quickly as we can reasonably do.
But I don't see how Kyoto holds back the US at the expense of everyone else. Europe and Japan are committed under Kyoto to cut CO2 emissions more quickly than the US would be if we ratified the treaty.
Telling China that it would have to keep CO2 levels near its 1990 levels sounds good on paper, but even today, China emits only one sixth the amount of CO2 per person as the US does. Do you really think it would be a fair allocation of resources to freeze per-capita CO2 emissions with the US at about 6.5 tons per person per year, Europe at around 2.9 tons per person per year, and China at 1.2 tons per person per year?
Does it really matter whether we are causing it or not? If we have any suspicion that we are at least helping to cause it, should we not do everything we can now to try and prevent our making it worse?
I for one think that if there is something we can do to help take us out of the equation, then damnit, we should do it. We should not wait for 50 years and then say, shit, I guess we were wrong..
The folks at http://www.climate2003.com and http://www.climateaudit.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.realclimate.org/.
,00.html. Where's the data? Where's the software? Where's the actual report/paper?
;--). Mann et al kept their data secret (as you can read at the links above that debunk him). That's not science. That's closed science of the elite or the schiesters.
The folks at http://www.realclimate.org/ debunk the crackpots at http://www.climate2003.com/ and http://www.climateaudit.org/.
This is as it should be in science.
The graph used in the New Scientist article about the Bush Whitehouse accepting humans as the cause of global warming, here http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6334, has been debunked as bad science here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/. Mann's own bad science puts any reports that use it in doubt. This is how science works.
How did they debunk it? They used the scientific method of attempting to duplicate Mann's study using Mann's data. They couldn't. They found flaws. They found buggy software - the math was simply wrong! It always produces a hockey stick even with random data with a flat trend! They reported those flaws. Unfortunately for Mann his science was junk.
Scientific understanding progresses as a result. Now we know more.
As for the Time Online report at the top of this thread (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955
Open source the science otherwise it's all disconnected conclusions and might as well be mind poo (a technical term
Open source science is science that can be audited by anyone. Otherwise how can you really judge it's value? If a scientist with the stature of Mann can be debunked and have his result crushed like a bug how can anyone trust the reputation of any scientist? The answer is that you can't ofcourse otherwise you're bringing a belief into your resoning: a belief that you trust a particular scientist. That's not science, that's potentially religion, or at least faith based science (due to the trust factor).
Open science is the only way to go to be able to have supportable conclusions. The Times Online article is just a fluff peice with no hard data to back it up. It's just a summary of items to peak interest. Where's the beef? Where's the data? I want the software. Let's audit the software for bugs. That's what was partly wrong with Mann's analysis, a software bug.
Earth is too important to us to have the wrong conclusions, no matter which way they are headed. It's better to know reality accurately than believe in a fantasy as far as Global Warming is concerned.
Which would you rather be: faith based or science based? If your are science based then you must be prepared to have your views shaken now and then as a result of more accurate and up to date science. If you are faith based then go to church and leave us rational humans be.
Oh, as a final point, it's the responsibility of a scientist to be skeptical. To hold the neurtal gound even when faced with conclusive data. To keep asking the questions time and time again. To ask questions that underly the conclusions. To question the conclusions. Remember that consensus isn't science, it's mob rule, science works by multiple scientists auditing the data, methods and process of the analysis and conclusions.
Unfortunately for Mann his famous hockey stick hasn't passed this close scutinty process. Now he has to fight for his reputation and career. It seems harsh, but that's what happens with junk science.
I remain an open minded skeptic.
Pet
To expand on the concept of replying for other posters, I'll take the AC side:
c -ncc020905.php which was from those wacky Europeans that everyone here says all are in agreement with the current global warming theories.
Actually there isn't much to retort in this article, as it is nothing but a bunch of claims and name calling, without any suporting data.
The AC asked the parent poster for a detailed analysis of the study, not the Times article. And there is reference to a reasonable amount of data in the study. Prior to its peer review and journal publication, neither of us can assess the methodology, so it's nonsensical to dismiss it (or OTOH to canonize it.) The press on the study was interesting to me, and in general terms it sounds like a solid effort.
Well that statement is certainly true. But that is because it only goes back 40 years to the low point in a global cooling trend. If you go back 65 years you see no net warming, so who cares.
The observed temperatures may indeed be within normal cyclic ranges, but that's doesn't mean the observed rate of change is "normal" too. And it isn't.
Can we see the data?
I'm sure eventually it'll be published somewhere, as that's academia's bread & butter.
Becuase, if true, it would cettainly be a revelation, as this has not been true ever before.
All you can say, based on evidence, is that these observations have never been made, or that this type of analysis was never done. You can NOT scientifically argue that the conclusions were not true prior to this study.
Which is why this article was released, it is basically just a retort from this article http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/sr
This is a dismissable ad hominem argument. The motives of the scientists involved in the study have no bearing whatsoever on the validity of their conclusions. If the study followed solid scientific methods, they could be the leftiest lefty leftist tree-huggin' enviro-whacko business-hatin' agenda-pushin' hippies ever, but their conclusions would be right. If their science is flawed, they could be the same leftiest lefty leftist tree-huggin' enviro-whacko business-hatin' agenda-pushin' hippies ever, but their conclusions would very likely be wrong.
Appeal to motive is a logical fallacy that holds no weight with me.
Another source of knowledge is revelation: http://scriptures.lds.org/2_ne/27/1-2 As we obey God's commandments, he will bless us with the insipiration to know how to take care of the earth, and he will temper the elements for our good. If we don't keep his commandments, we can look forward to natural disasters and wars.
Joel 2: 30 (Acts 2: 19) I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth.
Joel 3: 15 sun and the moon shall be darkened.
Joel 3: 16 heavens and the earth shall shake.
Hag. 2: 6 (Hag. 2: 22) I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea.
Mal. 4: 1 day cometh that shall burn as an oven.
Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.
mt
It is similar to the argument made endlessly by industry that (seat belts, CAFE mileage standards, anti-pollution regs, workplace safety standards, minimum wage, social security, 5 day work week, etc., etc.) will destroy all profits, kill trillions of jobs and reduce us to living like depression era Okies.
Where is the evidence to back this up? It seems to me that the evidence shows the very opposite--that socially-responsible regulations like these have benefits not only for society at large, but in many cases for industries as well.
Today, the U.S. economy sends about $250 billion a year to overseas oil suppliers (15 million barrels per day @ about $45 per barrel). We spend another several hundred billion on oil industry subsidies and military expenditures to keep the cheap oil flowing (to us).
What if we invested that kind of money into retrofitting our homes, cities, transportation systems and manufacturing facilities for energy efficiency and as much self generation (solar, wind, biomass) as possible?
We could create millions of jobs, increase our portfolio of technological expertise and the scientists and engineers to support it, greatly increase our national security (saving additional trillions over time), and start to clean up not only the very real potential risks from global warming, but also from pollution, and the health effects that come with it. We could do the right thing for the environment and have a good economic outcome--probably one better than what we can expect from our current path of letting other countries take over our manufacturing so we can buy their goods with borrowed money (can you think of a better way to put our country into decline?).
OK, If this is such a great idea, why doesn't this happen now? Because all of our government policies are structured to encourage the status quo. Under those conditions, no one can compete with the subsidized Oil Economy, just like free farmers in the south couldn't compete with slaveowners. Once it became illegal to own slaves, those free farmers then could compete and probably even had an advantage.
Of course some industries would be harmed by this changeover. Capital and profits would shift to different sectors of the economy. But that is exactly what the conservative market-worshippers are always touting as the great thing about markets--they can adapt efficiently to changing conditions.
It is a legitimate function of government to send signals to markets by enacting policies that redirect commercial activity in directions a majority of members of that society want it to go (remember, humans invented markets to serve them, not the other way around). When you do this at a micro-level, that is a planned economy and most of us agree that does not work too well. However when you do it at a macro level, setting high level policies and then letting the markets handle the details of reallocating resources, that can work pretty well.
The path to disaster, is to let those who currently dominate a market system use their monopoly powers, media ownership and political influence to lock things down and keep society from evolving to new and more appropriate solutions as conditions change.
Kyoto or not, it makes sense to shift away from our low efficiency, artifically-cheap oil economy. Those of you railing against Kyoto might want to take a step back and check to make sure that the positions you are defending are in fact what you want for your world. There is so much well-financed activity by the dominant industries to inject their message into mainstream thinking, that it is easy to find oneself arguing their position for them.
Are you a human being or a corporation? If the former, think hard about where your interests lie. Despite what they would have you believe, there is a good chance that your interests and those of the corporations are actually quite different.
So, pray tell, why are there Norse Greenlander farmsteads still being uncovered as the glaciers retreat as Earth continues to come out of the Little Ice Age?
The ecofascists and the grant-hunting scientists are not telling you about the data, nor the formulae they use to imagine anthropogenic global warming.
"species are suffering"
How did they ever survive the Medieval Warm??
It was rather warmer on Earth when the Norse settled Greenland. Farmsteads continue to be revealed as the Ice retreats. In northern Canada you can see the dead forests that grew then, and died during the Little Ice Age, which we are now leaving.
In some insane idea of "balance", people in the US seem to believe that there are "two sides" to every debate, in perpetuity. Wake up, guys: there are no "two sides" to this story anymore. The question has been settled scientifically. It's been settled for years actually, but this makes it even more clear: Human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
Furthermore, even if there were debate on that point still possible, just the fact that human activity may contribute to global warming is enough to make significant policy changes: when you are facing the possibility of widespread death, you can't afford to act only when you are completely certain about the causes, you eliminate all reasonably likely causes and factors that you can control.
Americans are like a chain smoking, obese man who has been diagnosed with heart disease and told to exercise and go on a diet, and who keeps saying "but there is still a possibility my heart disease is all caused some obscure disease and completely unrelated to smoking and diet".
Just how many miles thick are you claiming for the Greenland ice sheet?
And how are you telling individual snow storms apart from seasons?
How is it, on the same island, it is still colder than it was 1,000 years ago?
And it is more active than it has ever been, since recording began.
This heats the upper atmosphere.
Meanwhile weather stations that were in cow pastures 100 years ago are in the midst of urban heat islands.
Oh, no! The sky is falling! We must starve 6 billion people in order to survive.
Take 'er easy, Chicken Little.
These analyses are based on detailed models of the atmosphere, and those most certainly take into account the different contributions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases. So, scientists can very much distinguish which gases are primarily responsible for causing global warming.
If cow farts were responsible for global warming, Kyoto would be a treaty on cow farts. Furthermore, methane has a short half life in the atmosphere, that would be really swell. Likewise, if deforestation were responsible for global warming, all the more reason to stop deforestation.
Unfortunatly for everybody concerned, it's easy to tell that cow farts are not the primary cause of global warming, CO2 is. CO2 has a long atmospheric half life, which means that we will have to live with the consequences of our stupidity for centuries.
In fact, what climate models really show is that other human activity (e.g., particulate emissions) has so far probably masked the full extent of global warming, so that things may actually already be further advanced than they appear based on our actual climate measurements. (And, in case you are wondering, we can't continue activities contributing to this masking effect because it has been killing huge numbers of people already.)
Don't they know how many moles of greenhouse gases are emitted in the manufacture and powering of computers and the Net?
If they believed what they post here, really believed it, they wouldn't be online in the first place.
Just goes to show that ecofascism is just a cloak for State Absolutism.
OK, that's not so surprising. What is surprising is that most of these disingenuous arguments are all coming from one side of the argument.
The disinformation campaign I'm seeing can be summed up as follows:
There is global warming, but its a normal cycle
There is global warming, its not normal, but its not from human activity
Humans couldn't possibly change the planet
The planet always 'bounces back'
Our technology will magically solve the problem for us
We don't have accurate data
We do have the data, but our models are wrong
The scientists are conspiring to scare us - due to all the money in it!
The scientists are so subject to peer group pressure that their findings should be ignored.
Scientists are fear mongerers
Scientists believe we have been bad and must be punished
Scientists make mistakes, therefore any data supporting the global warming theory is a mistake
Some scientists dispute the global warming theory, therefor it must be controversial (ignoring the near consensus on the important issues)
Its a well known dirty political technique to create fear and confusion around an argument that you can't win, to at least prevent you're opponent from scoring points. I'm not sure why it is so important to these posters and moderators that we continue to ignore the danger of global warming. This issue is of vital importance to everyone.
Misinforming and manipulating public opinion on such an important subject is hurting us all. Please stop.
Which nations do you trust to use nuclear weapons responsibly?
... this from a guy who left medicine to write / direct TV/movies. And then at one stage wanted to lecture the scientific community about spoon bending and auras (see his book Travels). A very entertaining guy who likes to rub scientists up the wrong way (this is so clear from his movies and he states it openly in Travels). But when he decides to criticise something way out of his area of expertise then he better know what he is talking about.
So what does this article actually tell us. Well he bemoans stuff about how the Nuclear Winter argument was 'sold' and we complains about scare campaigns. Sorry, did I blink, where was the argument against global warming? Oh shit there is none. He argues that because other alarms didn't pan out then therefore we should not listen to any other alarms. This is stupid. Clever writing, entertaining. But a shit argument. Who believes this crap?
Bitter and proud of it.
The US spent $200 billion in Iraq. But only a fraction of that is required to build the first working (producing energy) fusion test reactor. Europe/Japan/China are now investing in research, but it is not enough. At current rate we will have the fusion reactor by 2020 and working power plants by 2040s. That is way too late for Keyoto and global warming.
Fusion power would also put a stop to nuclear proliferation. Countries like Iran and NK and others would have no excluse to have Uranium power plants.
Energy efficiency is ok, but this will not solve anything without using a much more abundant energy source than fosil fuels. After all, the other 5 billion people might want to use more energy than they currently do (computers, air conditioning, transportation, etc. etc.).
(1) All other things being equal atmospheric CO2 does cause planetary warming (incoming and outgoing IR wavelengths yadda yadda - pretty much everyone here understand it)
(2) C02 is going up steadily
(3) global temperatures are going up steadily.
(4) 2 & 3 correlate very strongly.
(5) If the effect is real then likely outcomes range from severely inconvenient to catastrophic.
Yes there are reasons to be sceptical because there are a lot feedback mechanisms some positive, some negative and they interact in complex ways. In fact the complexity is quite likely so great that we won't know for sure until the experiment runs to completion - to be certain we would need say a couple of thousand Earths to experiment on.
Somewhere in the region of 99% of published climate scientists (or so I hear tell) go with anthropogenic warming. And yes it is also (just) possible that they are all in the grip of one form of group delusion or another. But there again who else are you going to trust? I mean we can't all drop the day jobs and re-run the research ourselves.
So what does a rational person do? Try and pretend it's not happening? Or fully support whatever measures are (very probably) necessary to avert a (very probably) looming crisis whose outcomes will (very probably) be unprecedented in human history ... whilst continuing to do the best science we can and reserving the right to remain sceptical?
Or did I miss something?
Evolution is a fact which results from the study of vast amounts of data
That species adapt *is* clearly fact.
Whether species develop from a great deal of adaptation is *not* demonstrable fact based on the fossil record. There is debate about such things.
Attacking my mental health is poor form. Leaning on ad hominem attacks indicates to me that you may lack of belief in the substance of your argument.
Are your preconceived notions about the universe aso fixed that they are not open to new ideas?
I am left with the following question for you: "What if Christianity is true?"
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
If we're right though, and we wait... and it happens... Nothing we can do will change it.
Oh, besides go off into space into shuttles (which the rich will be able to do... abandon earth!) or live in large domed cities. so they don't really care. it's just the poor, as usual, who will suffer if the climate prediction models are correct.
I am almost getting the feeling that a large proportion of people responding here missed out on grade nine science. The assumption is that if some in a "white lab coat" says something - then it must be "real". One of the biggest "urban myths" coming from the "white coats" was that having a glass (or more) of wine a day was "good for you" - that is, you were healthier in one way or another. Finally a study was done to evaluate the validity of all the "studies" (500 studies I think) of "wine is good for you". The conclusion? People who can afford daily wine use are wealthier than the average - can also affortd the best medical care. That these people are"healthier" because of their wealth enabled better health care - not because of the wine! How could the wine myth last for 30 years or more?
e.g. in full time shade, in full time sun,
The only way to place a thermometer in full time sun is with a counter-geosynchronous orbit, which means it could not possibly be in your area (for very long)
I am almost getting the feeling that a large proportion of people responding here missed out on grade nine science. The assumption is that if some in a "white lab coat" says something - then it must be "real". One of the biggest "urban myths" coming from the "white coats" was that - having a glass (or more) of wine a day was "good for you" - that is, you were healthier in one way or another. Finally a study was done to evaluate the validity of all the "studies" (500 studies I think) of "wine is good for you". The conclusion? People who can afford daily wine use are wealthier than the average - can also affortd the best medical care. That these people are"healthier" because of their wealth enabled better health care - not because of the wine! How could the wine myth last for 30 years or more? There are thouands of similar "scientific urban myths" - or just examples of really bad science that wouldn't get a passing grade in a grade nine science class.
First item: "Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal..."
Okay, so the the results HAVE NOT YET BEEN PEER REVIEWED and HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL. Sorry, but newspapers are not the preferred route for credible scientific publication.
Returning to the quote: "Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal, should put further pressure on the Bush Administration to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force on Wednesday."
Nope. No political agenda here.
Next item: "In a separate study, also presented to the conference, a team led by Ruth Curry of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Connecticut..."
Err, umm, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is in Massachusetts, not in Connecticut. Do you think it's possible that if the reporter can't get the geography right, he might have some problems getting the geophysics right?
Just asking, okay?
Go to http://www.preventsenseofhumorloss.com/ for information about how you TOO can prevent sense of humor loss. ;P
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
> I don't know why thats not all over the news.
Perhaps because nobody has any reason to believe it unless a link to information about it is provided?
> Hard data, analyzed by trusted, and calm minds is
> the only thing that the public will take seriously.
Please explain the influence and success of Fox News, then. You can't possibly be saying that O'Reilly has a "calm mind".
"Every Reputable Scientist on the Planet" believed in Global Cooling in the 70s and early 80s.
... wait a minute, I'm thinking ... hold on ..."
"There's a word for this argument. It's on the tip of my tongue
"Oh yeah! It's called a "lie." "
Sorry bunkie, I was there at the time (graduated from high school in 1976). In Earth Science class, (9th grade) we were taught that the glaciers were coming back any time now. The winters of '72 through '75 were vicious. Popular Science had a cover with a picture of the Sears Tower half buried in a glacier. Just as many "prestigous scientists" were floating plans for carbon back or black plastic disks to be dropped on the glaciers to hold them back as you see touting carbon sequestration today.
What was missing were the computer models. New toys are great, but they only are as good as the data going in, and the algorithm. My Ph.D. dissertation ended up being on the fallability of computer models, (neural nets specifically.)
The one data point in global warming I do trust is my recently retired uncle, who hase been farming for all of his 70+ years. He says the growing season (in central Wisconsin) is about two week longer than it was. The change from a 95 day growing season to 110 days made a big difference in what he could plant.
I also think it likely we are pushing a natural cycle faster than it would normally be going. The rate of change may cause more trouble than the actual destination.
See Scientific American, March 2005 issue for an interesting article. In fact, See the Nov 2004 issue for a discussion of rapid climate change in the past. We survived it then, we'll survive it this time too.
Perfect article for this discussion. consensus
climatology as a science. For years, the medieval warm period and the little ice age had been used to explain population growth all over the world from 800 to 1200 AD. It was used to explain the diasasters that struck civilizations world-wide in the 14th century. It impacted a wide range of scientific and scholarly field of study. Then, as soon as the truth became a liability to the political motives of the global warming lobbby, they reworked the data and produced a new chart that showed there had been no medieval warm period or little ice age. So, do we believe what climatologist said the 1st time, what they said the 2nd time, or what they are saying now????
worms come in second.
But the US is emitting about 6.5 tons per person per year while Germany is only emitting about 2.9 tons per person per year. Why should Kyoto pin emissions on 1990 levels rather than set a per-capita standard for all nations on earth?
Anything that removes great quantities of humans has to be good.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
"Global Warming" terror is a media oriented program whose aim is to convince people (and economic entities) to accept measures against pollution.
The world might be getting more hot, more cold, as result of our presence and activities or not. We simply do not have the means to know.
However, the point is that it's a lie aimed at gaining something good.
Our cities are polluted and health and quality of life are seriously being hurt by the industrial society. Maybe serious studies about the impact of pollution on our health might have been a more correct course of action, but maybe that would have been insufficient.
http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
"Until you understand.."
Do you understand that science itself is the art of model making. One salient example is mathematics which is after all just a model of reality. The fossil record is very usefull for indirectly observing the prehistoric climate. Examples are tree rings, life forms that require a specific environment, gas trapped in glaciers,..., the list is long and fruitfull. Denying this part of the research is akin to the creationist attacks on evolution. It doesn't fit your preconcived ideas and you are unwilling to change your dogma.
"we don't have climate data for more than a very short period of the earth's history"
True for direct observation. However those observations show that the rate of change is faster than any change we have found in the past with the exception of large space rocks occasionaly hitting the earth. The study has taken the standard scientific approach - "in the absents of all other possible causes" - and has gone to great pains to refute the rubbish about volcanoes, the sun, etc (incidently one of the main proponets of denial and alternative studies is the same "scientist" who conducted major "research" for the tabbaco industry). You may not like the conclusion but ranting about models and guesswork will not change it.
"...a sudden upturn in temperatures.... it didn't happen"
In case you hadn't noticed the hottest years in history have been turning up regularly since the late '80's. Your post states 40yrs of data is a "very short period", so how do you argue that 25yrs is not sudden?
"Proof beyond all doubt..."
Is for morons who think in monochrome - Juries put the word "reasonable" into that phrase - Scientists have a quaint idea they call "confidence levels". For the "human activity causes global warming" question, the confidence level now stands at 95%, (ie: a 5% chance the conclusion is wrong). What you seem to be saying is we should take the sucker bet and gamble the near term future of civlization on a 5% chance that the best minds on the planet are wrong. I don't understand your reasoning, if by some miracle you won the bet what is the pay-off?
Speaking of history, go back and look at the leagal hassles and FUD created by the gas companies when Edison first attempted to install electric street lights in NY and you may gain some understanding of where the FUD you post is coming from.
Insightful indeed. - You will see nothing with your head so deeply burried in the sand but you may feel your arse getting warmer over the next few decades.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ok, so lets just pretend for a moment that the 'conservatives' are right: the earth has changes, weather is too unpredictable, chaos theory, etc. etc. Lets assume that NO one really knows or could EVER know how such a complex and seemingly chaotic system works. Isn't that all the MORE reason not to f#ck with it? Or I suppose thats the first thing everyone does when confronted with an enormously complex and possibly fragile system on which their very life depends. "Oh, check out all the buttons on that pilots control deck! lets play with them even though I know nothing about flying an airplane!". This is the best the 'conservatives' can do to argue against global warming? attack the credibility and offer no real alternate explanation? Sounds similar to the technique used by these troglodytes when bashing the evolutionary theory: come out and attack the science without offering any real alternate scientific explanation, like the guy who sits in the bleachers telling the players how they should play. This is not how science works. to replace Newton Einsteins theory had to explain everything Newtons did, and do it more precisely. But, of course this little detail we all seem to forget in the heat of the argument. Once again, you /.'s out there seem to forget that these people you are dealing with have NO respect for science, or any rules for that matter,at least not when it conflicts with their core political beleifs. To them, their political agenda comes before everything else. Please learn this, and learn it fast. People like that are not only disgusting, they are dangerous-especially when coming from the right (usually those who are from the left and exercise the same philosophy tend to be more of a thing or annoyance or light comedy).
The one fact that NO one (and I mean NO ONE!) can dispute is that the level of C02 in the atmosphere has increased drastically since the industrial revolution.
Okay, let me get this straight. You're touting what you were taught in your 9th grade Earth Science class and a Popular Science cover story as evidence of broad-based consensus among actual working scientists?
Jeeezus.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
...you are absolutely correct. Just because you belive one fairy tale does not mean you have to belive all the fairy tales even if they do use the same techniques to proffer evidence. It is easy to be consistent, simply pick the bits you like and glue them together in your own head. Everything else you can dismiss as flamebait or a troll.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Are you a scientist? Or just someone who presumes to know how science is carried out?
/. posters who seems to "know" how science should be carried out, or pontificates about the philosophy of scientific endeavours as they cradle their 1st year undergraduate chemistry results, learn to yield to people who are actually qualified in their fields - or at least keep quiet about your lack of understanding.
I'm a biochemist, and there is nothing at all wrong with what he is saying.
Please, if you're one of those
As a fellow scientist in a much different field, I am completely confident in his opinion, and in the majority opinion of all qualified climatologists and related scientists. The debate is over, except in the minds of the wilfully ignorant and the duplicitous commentators.
..... how do you change human behaviour in a global scale without politics?
The Kyoto agreement may not be perfect, heck, I am prepared to concede that is not good at all and that it will not solve the problem.
But it is the only damn thing we have got, and even such an imperfect thing took 8 years to be implemented (imperfectly as you know if you are USian, since your Dear Leader, is ignoring it).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... just when they were becoming a global naval power the emperor called back all the ships.
China became an isolated feudalist society for the best part of 500 years in place of becoming the dominant force shaping human culture.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
F**k Russian winters...
American or European "billion"?
Honestly, at what moment it becomes folly to argue in favour of a flat Earth or a Sun centered Universe?
This study (with millions of readings and two independent teams reaching the same results) probes unquestionably the point.
In this context you are a flat Earth proponent and from now on worhthy of the same contemept your correligionaries are.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If you keep arguing with fool people endessly waiting for their ascent you will never move forward.
There is a point where the fools should be ignored and move forward with all our might to tackle the problem.
The US attitude on this respect is a big obstacle, but responsible, intelligent people have to try against all ods to do somthing about the situation.
It is a pity that in this situation the fool happens to be the biggest bully.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Nobody is asking everybody to abandon the car and bike.
But people in your situation can look for a lot of improvements in how they consume energy:
-Use of efficent vehicles (SUVs, specially US sized SUVs are a complete and absolutely disgrace in most cases).
-Fuel efficency (most building are poorly insulated, thus needing more heating or cooling).
-No use at all of alternative energies (why is that governments are not mandating solar panels or small wind generators in all new constructions?).
And so on and so forth. It is up to us to fix the probelm, there are many things we can do to fix things without seriously compromising or standards of living. Unfortunately the political will is not there, unsurprisingly in a country like the US where the President and Vicepresident and Secretary od State (yeah, your Condy) had deep interests in the oil industry in the past (and who knows which under the table interests they may still have).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The other guy obviously is mentioning that in the context of a place that is cold. Many people in that situation want to bring a tropical climate into their houses when in reality they could just wear a warmer sweater.
In your case the use of air conditioning should be rationalized, air conditioning pumping cold air 24x7 is in much cases unnecessary and can be improved by control systems or simply by cooling houses only when the inhabitants are there.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am glad to see that your "insightfulness" is being rightly punished.
A few points for whoever is following this thread:
-Two independent teams reached the same conslussions.
-If they wanted to prove a point a priori then some of their masters are not tellings us something: some of these people are financed by the US goverment.
-The study concentrates in energy in the sea water in all the oceans. The article explains far better thatn I can ever do why this is a definitive new insight. GO and check it.
- This is not the only evidence we have, ther are literally tons of it all around the place. But this pretty much is the clincher.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you think Bush, Cheiney and Rice, all entangled awith the oil industry, will do anything about global warming and carbon emissions?
On their own?
Harming US jobs? (well, as long as they can't be outsourced elsewhere).
Honestly, you naivity is touching, unfortunately the millions that will pay the consequences am sure do not appreciate your rosy tainted view of US politics.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A treaty is called that for a reason: it is a compromise.
You do some things that you want to do but give up others.
Rich countries already poluted their way into full development, it would be unrealistic to expect developing nations to stop them on their tracks while they are trying to achieve to become wealthier.
The idea behind Kyoto is that development countrie can reach a degree of development in which then they don't have to commit the same mistakes that today's rich countries commited during their industrialization, but they need a break to get there.
In the mean time, the biggest poluters, which are still the rich countries, take responsibility of the mess they are causing because they have the means to do so now.
All this is accounted for, each country would have specific targets according to its level of development and amount of polution. This is not fancy numbering, this is a treaty that at least offers a plan to work towards solving this problem.
The problem is global, some countries need to be left off the hook for a while, while others have to take actions now, to keep hapring at stupid national interests in the face of a change that does not recognize any borders is moronic on extreme.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why are you SO angry? If what I believe is irrational, unintelligent, and foolishness, then my worldview should be irrelevant. Why can't you merely dismiss what I believe in the same way you (and I) dismiss meduims and psychics?
The facts are that evolution remains unproven, but is the best materialistic explanation that naturalists propose. This is the case with all of science. Hypothesis gives way to testing, and if the phenomenon are observable and repeatable, it gives credence to the hypothesis.
This is rational and reasonable. Unless I'm mistaken, I believe based on your last post that we are in violent agreement on this issue.
An ordered universe presents itself in a way that ordered examination prevails in exposing and describing natural phenomena. It makes sense to me that everything that exists had a creator, and that a designer is a good explanation for the order and precision in the universe.
Also, naturalism as a world view fails when it comes to describing anything nonmaterial. What is the purpose of life? What gives life meaning? If materialism is true, then why shouldn't you kill anyone who opposes you? If genetic mutation is the pathway to improvements in the progression of living things, why not bombard all living things with radiation in an effort to speed evolution along?
What about those things that are not naturally explainable or describable? For example, love, duty, honor, passion, fear, and self-sacrifice are experiences common to all people, and yet completely nonmaterial. How does one with a naturalistic worldview fit those components together?
Again I ask, what if Christianity is true?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
"Okay, let me get this straight. You're touting what you were taught in your 9th grade Earth Science class and a Popular Science cover story as evidence of broad-based consensus among actual working scientists?"
Yes! Exactly! That WAS the "broad-based consensus among actual working scientists" at that time! And then read this March's Scientific American. William Ruddiman has an interesting article basically saying the next ice age should be forming up in NE Canada as we speak. And it isn't happening.
So what is going on? Did humans start to alter the climate by taking up rice farming several thousand years ago? Is it just the fossil fuels from the last two hundred years? Is it the last gasp of warmth before the glaciers start south again (Look for a temperature chart for the previous interglacial 100 to 120 thousand years ago. There was a notable spike up, and then it crashed big time.) Does anyone KNOW what is going on? No. It's all guess work and extrapolation on all sides. That's what makes it so much fun. (And I mean that literally. To me there is nothing as much fun as having a big "We don't know" type problem dropped in my lap. R&D time! Woo-hoo! This is probably why I ended up with the doctorate, which was certainly not my plan when I started college at the ripe old age of 27.)
What I do know is: 1) Computer models which are not based on first principles are unreliable as predictors of future behavior regardless of how well they can be trained to fit past data. (The unintended result of my dissertation.)
2) The growing season in central Wisconsin is two weeks longer than it was in the 1950's.
3) Greenland is still colder now than it was when the Norseman tried to settle it a thousand years ago. If current trends continue, this will no longer be true in 50 years.
4) Contrary to previous belief, the climate can swing very fast. (Look up "Younger Dryas", and the "8200 year event". The only mechanism that seems fast enough to explain that fast a temperature swing is a shift in ocean currents, so they aren't stable either.
There are a few more bits and pieces, but you get the drift. As an aside, I grew up on a moraine in Wisconsin. I've had a long interest in climate dating from then. I used to live in Winnemucca, NV just above the former shoreline of Lake Lahonatan. I went to college at the U of Idaho in Moscow, on the Palouse, which is an area of silt dunes (loess) deposited in the last ice age. And now I live in Soap Lake, WA, on the outwash plain from the Lake Missoula floods. The Dry Falls visitor center (about the glacial history of the area) is a half hour north of here up the Grand Coulee.
Another factor in my low level of concern is I have never been under the delusion the weather or climate is stable. (Long Island to Chicago, all under a mile of ice only 25,000 years ago. Cool, man!) And the last 2 million years on this planet have been exceptionally cold by long term (geological type) standards. Just a few months ago they pulled fossils of subtropical animals out of the ground at an English construction site. The Eocene period was vastly warmer then the doomsters predictions for 2100.
As I said, I'm enjoying this immensely. (Do I buy a retirement home in Winnemucca, Greenland, or stay put?)
I metamoderate on a regular basis and have moderated a couple times. It's not an easy thing to do, ever. Sometimes the things modded as interesting are actually funny or something else. Sometimes those little one line obvious ideas get modded to 5 for reasons unfanthonable to me. Often the moderations show that an agenda is in operation.
On this topic that is very obvious. Both sides of the debate obviously have been getting thier fair share of moderators.
Those that start by saying they are flamebait I have noticed here are not that at all. They are the followers of what I consider to be bad science. Maybe the term junk science would be better.
Maybe they read one of Rush Limbaughs books written ten years ago or listen to his agenda. But he's not a scientist, or even a geek. He's just another addicted pundit preaching junk science.
I propose that Slashdot add a new term for moderators that could possibly clear up these problems listed above.
Junk Science
"Where did this apple come from?"
--Alan Turing
We all misread? You mean you misread
"But the same biomass is also responsible for the release of carbon."
But not 100%, in fact it is a relatively small percent, as each year the Forests don't burn down hot enough to leave sterile land. Trees are made up of predominantly Carbon, which they get in the form of respiration, and release some of it, as we breath in oxygen and releases some of it, but we keep some as well, in the end they keep more Carbon in than thy release, as we do with oxygen, which is why we need plants to do the opposite.
"So, across the whole planet, carbon flux from biomass is approximately zero (as one would expect for a steady state). Note that nowhere yet has emissions from any other source been considered!"
No worldwide the carbon flux is zero, yes CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing in 150 years it ha increased by approx 175 parts per million, or about 1.2 parts per million a year, this is not a massive amount, so it can be said that the net carbon Flux is 0 +/-1.2 parts per million atmospheric per year.
"The US forests have a positive flux of carbon. i.e., the amount of carbon stored in the forest per year is larger than the amount of carbon released by the forest per year."
Wrong but understandable, as that paragraph is very difficult to read. Re read it with a calculator.
"the live components of forests and the wood products produced from them (including paper and wood-based construction materials)"
"sequestered a net of approximately 111 million metric tons of carbon"
"A further 127 million metric tons of carbon were believed to be sequestered in forest soils and the forest floor"
From forests ALONE 111 Mmt in the wood products utilized in such a way as to not re-release CO2, and an additional 127 Mmt in soils and the forest floor (leaves for example). 111+127=238 Mmt
Now if we look at the amount released in 1992 from the burning of fossil fuels. That was 1381 Mmt X 17% = 234.7 Mmt
So Forests ALONE sequestered 17% of CO2 released from fossil fuels. But forests are not our only plant mass, in fact yards do a decent job of sequestering CO2, dependent on how you get rid of the clippings from mowing, but there are also prairie land, Crops (Which sequester far more C02 than forests), algae and so forth. The scope of that article is only the land usage of CO2, and in fact Forests are a small percentage due to how slowly they grow, you'll note that forest soil sequestered quite a bit more than the trees themselves.
But what is more telling about your post is how you are so bloody excited that we are not a carbon sink. It's almost a religious zeal, like when Christians think they have found a minor problem in Darwin's theory "Look Darwin couldn't balance his checkbook, so obviously evolution theory is wrong" You actually want us to be a net CO2 polluter, given partial evidence showing how one portion of the US CO2 economy negates part of the other you are excited that, that one portion does not negate all of US C02 Production. Well we've found one part that sequesters a significant portion, now why don't you look at the rest of them.
It also shows how a piece of evidence that shows something contrary to what the reader believes can be twisted to reinforce their belief.
Just wanted to chime in with a "No shite, Sherlocks!"
There are no other f+cking models that fit the facts. None. If you global warming doubters think there are other credible models (that can stand up to peer review) to explain the massive quantities of data, then set them up and collect your million$ from a grateful energy industry.
Otherwise, shut up and stop making the problem worse by emitting more useless hot air.
Fundamentalism is a crime against humanity
I speculated about what $100 billion/year could do in an essay last November, but I was looking at oil consumption rather than carbon emissions (didn't have the figures) and avoided the issue of nuclear power because it's such a political hot potato.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
Agree, you need a HUGE amount of respect for cars. Drivers often won't see you if you're tight against the kerb as they'll be looking for 1 ton cars nearer the centre of the road.
We're going to have global warming because the scientists so! Oh, wait! Just 30 years ago we were supposed to be entering a new ice age because the scientists said so!
And my computer works because them scientists said so! Oh, wait...
understand that we don't need to care what they think? We keep hearing how we are arrogant for not accepting what people outside the US think, yet they are not arrogant for not accepting what we think. People outside the US are just as susceptible to their media and government. They are nto better, nor worse. It is the height of arrogant irony to attack a people for being arrogant while doing the very thing you justify your claim of their arrogance upon. (not you, the poster personally, the general "you").
I mean, it isn't even a topic of debate outside the US, people accept it as fact.
Lots of things are accepted as fact outside the US. That doesn't make them fact.
In a matter of science, why should I care what the general populous outside (or inside) the US thinks or accepts? I shouldn't.
The general population accepts as fact that babies should be forced into the regimen of their parents, that babies should be forced to "cry it out" when they are sad, that babies should be fed on mom's schedule and if they are hungry and not on shcedule, tough tit. In my house, we don't go by those rules. Yet our children's behaviour and temperament are the envy of those who parent the other way. And they refuse to acknowledge our methods have anything to do with it. They even wish bad children on us. The point? Just because people accept things as fact does not make it so. Look at religion if you need further evidence.
It was an accepted fact outside the US last year that John Kerry would soundly defeat George bush. We see how that "accepted fact" turned out.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
The Kyoto protocol (Which I'm sure you've all read too much about over the last couple days) in my opinion is only a start. It'll reduce human-caused temperature forcing by something like 5% if fully implemented
;)
So if we have assume a two degree rise over 100 years, and we assume that 100% of it is human induced, we'll only see a rise of 1.9 degrees. yes, that is a very minor and statistically insignifcant variance. If you can not prove a statistically significant difference, you can not prove you had an effect. Thus you would be asking people to make trillions of dollars in economic changes on something you can not prove will work. IIRC, the guy who started the global warming concern has indicated he believes it would not have any appreciable effect.
Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years
Do you think technology is at a standstill? Do you think we need the KPA to advance technology? Do you think we have invented all we will need? I don't.
History has shown us that many things do in fact get easier. Especially in pollution prevention, reduction, and mitigation. Go back to the US industrial revolution and using the technology available back then try to put in place far more stringent pollution controls. You will find it to be easier several years later. So much so that you'll find it easier to clean up the mess later than to prevent it in the first place.
Yes, things will get easier to handle later. History and a rational expectation of science demonstrates this to be so.
Also we have a ton of oil here.
Which you wouldn't be able to use do to increasing restrictions on use of it. Not that a ton of oil is that impressive.
Biking to work is great for individuals, but not for a society. It can also lead to more pollution than other lifestyle changes. For example, my neigbor bikes to work. But he still needs his car for other things. His work trip is short, almost as short as mine. His non-work travel is far more pollution causing than his work trip.
On the other hand, my "big nasty" SUV runs on E85 - 85% ethanol 15% gasoline. My SUV contributes less pollution per mile travelled than a Toyota Prius (go ahead, do the math and research). The net result is that I don't bike to work and despite driving more than he does I pollute less. Not only that, I am aiding in building the demand for an alternative fuel. My neighbor biking to work fails to aid in establishing a demand for alternative fuels. Many people want there to be alternative fuels, but don't want to help make it happen.
I'm not saying don't bike to work. If you can, great do so. My neighbor started it for health reasons and those are very valid. But don't believe your biking to work is somehow better for the environment than someone driving an E85 powered SUV; it is demonstrably not. Indeed, my neighbor is considering a new SUV for the ability to run E85, as are several of my friends. For those who neither want nor are able to purchase a new vehicle (E85 ability is not extra btw), you can run E10 (10% ethanol) and lower your gasoline consumption while improving your vehicle's condition. If not available where you are, lobby for it. It will have far greater impact than biking to work.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Of course humans contribute to global warming! Each human puts out around 380 BTU of heat per day if they are sedentary. At 5 billion people that is what about 1.9 TRILLION BTUs per day! Figure in the active people and we are talking at least 2.5 trillion BTUs per day in a state of nature!!
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Two teams, independently, reached the same conslussions using the same data and simulations.
Keep dragging your feet, we will all pay dearly for it....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How can you be in any way confident in this opinion? Do you know anything about the methodology used? What simulations were run? How were they run? What was the time frame for his temperature comparisons? What was this time frame chosen?
The fact that it hasn't even been peer-reviewed yet means that it is way too early to be saying "case closed".
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
no coward!
What about some more stories about nanotech, chemistry, weapons (directed energy, lasers, microwave), IPOs, robots, network security, network performance, etc...
Why not indeed? But Global warming has a greater potential impact on the way we all live our lifes, and on the future development of technology, than all those important topics put together.
Comparing Creationism and Anti-Global Warming (as caused by humans) doesn't work. They can't be compared properly as they are NOT Scientific Theories! You can't even compare Creationism with Global Warming as caused by humans theory, since Creationism isn't a theory.
;--)
Creationism is a religion or a religious faith based theory not a scientific theory. Creationism isn't falsafiable. Global Warming as caused by humans is falsfiable. Creationism presents a theory that's trivial to prove false, in part because it makes so many absurd statements about the history and age of the universe being 10,000 years old. That means that the light photons from stars that are greater than 10,000 light years away were created by God in flight. Ya right, and what super computer did she use to compute that?
Oh, maybe the best super computer is an actual universe running on it's own? Furthermore as Wolfram has proven certain systems can't be "simulated" without running through all the interveining steps; as it happens the universe is such a system, the only way to know the future is to let it happen one step at a time. It would be much easier for a lazy God to simply create a tiny big bang and let it "evolve" and "playout" till now than to do all the calculations in her head. In fact doing all the computions for accurately simulating the universe would require a brain or computer that is the actual universe - as Wolfram has shown. So the universe is simply Gods mind computing the universe. Not really creationism, but much more plausable.
Creationism is based on a poorly translated and possibly fictional, although certinaly mythological, story book from a thousand or two years ago. Can you spell "Broken Telephone" anyone? Can you spell "power trip on and control of gullible" people through their beliefs in "something more(tm)"? Give it a rest.
Anti-Global Warming (as caused by humans) is NOT a Theory! It is the valid questioning of often poor Pro-Global Warming (as caused by humans) Science. This is valid since the science in support of GWacbH has been poor.
In addition the claims that the pro-GWacbH folks are making are "extraordinary" and as we all know all extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and this goes for scientific theories as well! Just show us valid proof and then it's more likely that the theory will be accepted by the critics and skeptics.
Remember it's a scientists job to be professionally skeptical and critical, even when faced, maybe especially when faced with positive proof.
It is the responsibility of those promoting a theory to have their facts and subsequent conclusions supportable and repeatable. The important Mann (and now doubtfull) conclusions have not been repeatable. Much like Cold Fusion, Global Warming as caused by Humans is having problems. Now that Mann's data bas been proven incorrect it's back to the drawing board for the pro-global warming as caused by humans crowd. Sometimes when it's broken don't bother fixing it anymore as life is too short.
Besides after living in Edmonton for eight of the coldest years on record (-35 to -45c for months) a little global warming might be actually welcome in a few places. I for one am glad to be living in the post little ice age period. Tropics anyone?
You can also get them from Nature.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
OK, but presuming that is all of the data, where's the code that was used to analyze it?
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The Nature page mentions a fortran program is included in one of the folders (don't recall which one).
Its a ~1KB text file, so fairly weeny but I've never worked with fortran so I have no idea if that's significant.
From reading various commentaries which discuss the methodological underpinnings of the study (PCE and similar statistical black magic) I would imagine the algorithm slings PCEs around in some fashion - but as I have never worked with fortran or PCEs and glazed over big-time when we broached multivariate analysis in my degree course lo these many years gone by I am utterly incompetant to assess whether the data thus provided are enough to permit suitably skilled yet disinterested observers to reproduce the analysis and make an informed critique of the methodology.
I presume they are, because the hasty google I ran in the wee hours of the morning didn't turn up any 'Mann releases inadequate data in order to hoodwink reviewers' sort of links and I believe that the editors at Nature wouldn't lend themselves to such shenanigans. I could be wrong of course, but I think that's a reasonable position to take in the circumstances.
Regards
Luke
#include witty_one_liner.h
The WSJ article on Valentine's Day mentioned that the code has yet to be released, and I didn't see the full code anywhere on Mann's site. I did find a file called pca-noamer.f that seems to be focused on working with the North American data (which is presumably a subset of the overall data). That and a similar file were all that I could see with .f extensions, suggesting that he has not made the full code available.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
In case you look back in here.
d f
http://www.climatechangedebate.org/pdf/FanPaper.p
Published in Science 282: pgs 442-446
But what is the significance? Even the authors' of that paper have no explanation as to why terrestrial uptake in the USA is so high compared with the rest of the world. It does seem strange that less than 25% of the world's forests might account for virtually all of the carbon uptake. Still, its promising in that if the exact mechanism can be determined, perhaps it can be applied elsewhere.
So do you think this absolves the USA of any responsibility to reduce carbon emissions? If so, what about the case of Australia? Second highest per-capita emissions, but with so much ocean around it to absorb the carbon (and not much carbon, in absolute figures) surely they have no responsibilities either?
As mentioned before, More than forests absorb CO2, therefore it's obvious that more is at work than that alone.
Teh mechanisims are known, and this is a direct measurement. The signifigance is that the US is not contributing to atmospheric CO2, therefore the complaints about us being the #1 CO2 Producer are at best a distortion, and while decreasing energy consumption is always a good thing, the hysteria is uncalled for.
Same holds true for AUS, if they are not contributing to atmospheric CO2, then they are not a signifigant issue. But more to the point, you asked for reference, reference supplied.