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~
Did the include the millions of farting cattle in this model? and what about Guinness drinkers? Are they covered?
Despite that the US the has not signed the Kyoto treaty [yet].
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.
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)
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?
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
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'm suspicious when you saw we have 400,000 years worth of data. Perhaps you are referring to ice core samples? If you are, they offer very limited information (like % C02 in atmosphere) and are based on several assumptions. This data IS meaningful, but I would not say that we have 400,000 years of data. And I would not put data collected from ice cores on par with data recorded from weather stations in recent years.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Though the link is appreciated, I'm not inclined to trust a man who wrote a novel where Environmentalists use weather-alteration technology to commit ecoterrorism as a person I can trust for an objective analysis of the situation.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
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.
Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...
You are right on. This is true on both sides of this issue, and many others. Much of the problem, I believe, has to do with the manner in which we discuss these issues. Looking over the previous posts on this page, you will see a number of posts that are knee-jerk reactions from both camps. THESE DO NOT HELP ANYBODY.
When a story like this comes a long, the first thing we should all be thinking is how the computer model works, what data it uses, how accurate/inaccurate the data is, etc... That is where the discussion should start. Then tell people WHY you think what you think WITHOUT INSULTING THEM if possible.
On an encouraging note, there are already quite a few posts that do argue ideas without hurling politically loaded accusations. To the authors of those posts: I salute you.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
When you get used to biking to work, you'll wonder how you ever lived without doing so. It helps mentally separate your work from your *life*, it's good for your body, and it's a lot of fun.
I work in downtown Washington DC, and live in Arlington, the corner cut off of DC in the 19th century, so it's not as if my commute is very long -- only about 2.5 miles ( I walk when the weather's really nice and I'm not in a rush ) -- but I tell you it's a blast. I can avoid traffic completely, and the view in the mornings on Key Bridge overlooking the Potomac is breathtaking.
Perhaps it's too cold right now for you to start biking to work, but start soon!
P.S. If you're in or near a city, wear a helmet. I've been hit by cars three times in four years. None actually hurt me, but... well... I can't count on luck forever.
P.P.S. Also, I agree 100% that if it's hard to cut emissions now, why would it be easier ten years from now? Criminy.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
I don't see people disputing global warming here, they're disputing the validity of the model. That's a completely different thing. Maybe you'd like to tell me (or google) how one goes about detecting seasonal effects, correcting for them, and the final effects on statistical significance? That's the real argument here, not whether or not global warming is happening and who's causing it. I might very well believe humans are the direct cause, and I'm not saying I do or dont because its irrelevant here. What I and others are suggesting is that the model falls into a statistical "grey area" as far as methods go, mostly due to lack of proper data.
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!
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
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.
Maybe it's just me, but I think you're missing the whole point. If you don't know anything about global warming, then you don't know any of those terms in the first place. So just how in the heck are you going to type that stuff into google?
Free will is just an illusion
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
-sigh- the question isn't what we know about climate, the question is what we DON'T know about climate, which exceeds by a wide margin what we do know.
The problem isn't what I know or don't know, it's the fact that climate scientists are arrogant and, frankly, foolish enough to try and claim that they understand climate enough to make predictions 100 years in the future.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
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.
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?
Oil is primarily used for plastic production and cars in the USA. Therefore, the end of oil will have nothing to do with Coal. Especially as hardly any oil is used in electricity generation. If we want to really cut CO2 emmisions in the USA, we should switch to nuclear as opposed to coal and start re-enrichment of the nuclear fuel like france does. (which gets 70+% of their power from nuclear.)
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
agreed. we haven't been here long enough asa species to even know whether or not we've made an impact or not.
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
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
If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics
No, it just shows that you know how to use Google.
First poster did not claim that positively answering those questions makes one an expert... merely that not answering them makes one definitely not an expert. Get yer logic straight.
For most people, it's just a matter of getting used to it. I biked to work today and it was around 5 degrees this morning. I work with a women who bikes home about 15 miles, and she is doing it today. I am in Minnesota, BTW. Yeah, it sucks at first. Start in the summer and then by the time winter rolls around you'll be addicted and wont want to stop. :-) Also, stop by a local bike shop and chat with them about good routes in and out of downtown.
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."
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.
You are quite testy about this. First of all, I did check the link, thanks. Secondly, in your blind rage you have assumed that I'm so convinced that there is no such thing as global warming that I'd rather die that accept it. Right? Sorry to ruin your rash assumptions, but I'm in the "awaiting further evidence" catagory. There seems to be evidence of a change, but not enough for me to comfortably say I'm sure what's happening. One of the things keeping me there is people like you, who get angry at anyone who doesn't agree with them. That is not a good way to argue your point. And I will require more evidence than "you're stupid" to change my mind.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
"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'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.
Wow, I wasn't going to get into this, but this post...
1. Scientists never come to "unanimous concensus" on anything, that's not how science works. That's how Dogma works. Science is the search of truth through experimentation and observation, you can't find truth if you're judgements are clouded by preconception. There is always someone somewhere trying to disprove even the most basic theores. That said, it's almost impossible to find a respected member of the community who denys Global Warming anymore, although there are no shortage of crackpots (guys who do no actual science, just make up their own stuff and spout it off in front of national commitees. People who have maybe one peer reviewed article published ever and suddenly become experts in everything, etc...).
2. We've actually got a LOT of data. Ice cores from the artic for instance provide a good indication of the percentage of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. There was a great article in Scientific American charting the progress of greenhouse gasses over the past 8,000 years via this method.
3. The Sun's Cycles are actually fairly well understood at this point.
4. Who is running trends against a 10 year forecast? Local variation is hard to filter out as is pure chaos at that level. That's why it most everybody has gone to longer term data sources to analyize the trends. There has been some talk about rapid climate change, but as far as I know those claims are still treated with scepticism among the community at large. They'll need stronger evidence to convince the majority of scientists.
5. Global climate change isn't like predicting the amount of rain you are going to get next Tuesday. Whereas local effects are chaotic and difficult to pin down, long term trends tend to be very predictable although hard to observe (especially if they are subtle). However, this is not a new field, and the general proponderance of evidence has shifted most scientists into the "yep, global warming is real" camp. One gets the feeling that the ones who are left in the "not enough evidence" camp at this point have some other agenda and will never have enough evidence, even if it's 80C in Toranto.
6. Remember what I said about subtle effects? They require subtle solutions.
By "recycling someone else's data" do you really mean "doing your homework?" Are you not allowed to talk about this unless you've personally dug ice cores out of the artic or examined ancient peat moss? I know the "global warming is a myth" guys hate to drag actual scientific discoveries and observations into the disussion (they always attack the evidence, looking for the smallest hint of uncertanty, which all observed data has because nobody is omniscient).
Here's a hint, if your argument boils down to: "You can't say anything because there is a chance, no matter how slight, that you are wrong." Then you have missed the point. There is ALWAYS the chance that you are wrong. Any theory can be disproven. The best you can do is say "This is the most likely conclusion based on all of the known data." Even though there is a massive body of evidence supporting your claim and nothing opposing it, there is always a chance that someone somewhere will disprove your claim. Yes, Global Warming COULD be a myth perpetuated by mountains of bad testing procedures or flawed premesis, but the chances of that happening are extremely slim at this point. In much the same way, the Sun might be made out of Cream Cheese and all of our data might be in error.
I read the internet for the articles.
"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.
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.
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.
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
Without having everyone convinced that there's a real, tangible problem here, it's going to be impossible to get everyone to agree that something has to be done. Why? Because the steps we'd need to take involve some serious expense which will be incurred on the part of people really, really opposed to spending money, especially ( just on principle ) being told they have to do so.
I'm talking about having to put scrubbers on smokestakes. I'm talking about seriously looking into replacing reliance on fossil fuel. I'm talking about having to re-tool a vast amount of our current industrial machinery. I'm talking about finding ways to eliminate unneccessary burning of plant matter, from forests in Brazil to agricultural burns in the US. The things we have to do to slow global warming are huge, and it'll be hard enough to do them if we all agree there's a real, serious problem. As long folks like you are sitting around going "well, I don't know if it's real until it's a whole lot warmer. Oh, wait, it's warmer? Well, I don't know if it's carbon emissions that are doing it...", as long as that's going on, it's easy for our 'leaders' to sit around and do nothing, which is exactly what will cause your grandchildren some serious, life-threatening problems.
And no, I'm not talking about major changes in your personal lifestyle. I'm talking about changes in corporate practices, along with major investment in research and infrastructure which will allow you and I to basically go about our lives with little change, since we're not driving SUVs hundreds of miles every week. People who _do_drive SUVs hundreds of miles a week ( lots of 'em here in the California bay area ), they might have to adjust a bit, though...
Most of the data I have seen is not conclusive in my mind.
I have to say it's interesting that you say "most" of the data isn't conclusive. What about the data that is conclusive ? I'm sorry, it really does sound like you're saying you can't be convinced. Isn't the kind of 'solid' evidence you're waiting for only possible _after_ devastating climate change has already come to pass ?
How are the vast majority of scientists politically motivated to make findings against the interest of big business ? I'm afraid I don't understand that line of reasoning.
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.
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.
" 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."
It's hard enough to get a group of five scientists to agree to be in the same damn room at the same time much less this "lemmings" nonsense.
Wow, I was with you until I came to this:
I've been hit by cars three times in four years.
I was seriously considering giving it a try, as I live only about 5 miles from my work. But suddenly I don't like the odds...
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?
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.
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".
> 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".