Slashdot Mirror
2005 Will Probably be Warmest on Record
Nilmat writes "A Washington Post Article notes that 2005 will probably have the highest mean global temperature of any year since the advent of systematic temperature records. At the moment, the mean temperature is about 0.75 degrees C above the global mean from 1950 to 1990, approximately .04 degrees higher than 1998, the year of the previous record. Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record."
Seeing as how I live 30 miles North of Yellowstone, I'm not rooting for that option.
Correlation is not causation.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Like this one?
. volcanoes.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/12/alaska
With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity it scares me a little more. As an average citizen, I am trying to help by:
I only wish others would wake up and smell the coffee and be diligent too.
It's all lies, I tell you, all lies! It's a conspiracy by the atheistic climatological establishment to make us all buy small cars and turn off our lights. It's every American's God-given right to puke greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But thank God that George W. Bush, His faithful servant, is making sure that these foul secularist reports are altered, so that we can continue our God-sanctioned practice of driving large vehicles, burning fossil fuels for electricity and all those other things that a proper Christian country ought to do.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't count out a huge volcanic eruption. With all the natural disasters so far this year, a nice big poof out of a volcano would round things out nicely.
I'm sure the Republicans are behind this.
The soot, ash and other debris blocks out some of the energy from the sun.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Because ash tends to block the sun? This has been documented time and again for over a hundred years. Large eruptions cool the earth.
Fine ash particulates in the atmosphere reflect solar radiation (light and heat) back into space.
How long until my House in the Canadian Rockies becomes tropical beachfront?
Let me be the first to say that running out of oil will cause global catastrope long before global warming will. I do believe we will see ice caps melting, seas rising, and coastal flooding in the next 100 years, but by then the world's population will be down to about 50-100 million, and we can all just move to higher ground.
As with all sciences that some don't like, you can always find the odd man out. The question here is the concensus of the climatological community, not some guys on the payroll of oil companies, a few cranks and those who have sold their souls to the White House.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It's nice and cool in my new Hummer v2.
Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.
Come on Mount St. Helens, you can pull us out of this mess!
/ starts staring at the web cam, waiting....
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/
Seriously, I suppose a drastic event now would make winter even harder for some part of the world, possibly killing many people and probably driving heating costs even higher than they are expected to be. Are there any good volcanoes in the southern hemisphere than could help us out and only cool down the southern summer?
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Hey,
If I had to choose I'd rather it be a degree warmer than a degree colder.
And who is to say that 1990 was the norm. 1734 could have been the norm. Or that 2005 is really that far away from the norm....
---- Go ahead, mod me down, I'll just post it again and you lose your mod points.
How many other 2005s do they have records of? If this is the only one, it will be the warmest, coldest, shortest, and longest 2005 on record forever!
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
On a non related note real estate valuations in Siberia and Canada are rising to new highs.
**Life is too short to be serious**
For example, the summer of 1816.
Just not the part right next to the volcano. That part can get pretty hot.
There's a ton of arible land in the world that does not have the absolutely-perfect-ideal climate.
The only people who really have a lot to lose are the huge-scale real-estate gamblers (companies like ADM who control a lot of currently nice farmland) - and that wealth will move to people who are now miserably poor (siberia).
Please explain to me what that's a bad thing.
It's the placebo effect, I tell you! All that ash falling to the ground looks sort of like snow, so it just makes everyone feel a little colder! Take that!
Volcanic eruptions are so 1980. Let's have some kind of impact with a comet or something.
That should provide way more stuff to block out the sun. Should be really cool after that, and it wouldn't take yet another a boring volcanic eruption.
/sig
It has come to our notice that you have been using the registered trademark of our client GOD(TM) for justifying Mr George Bush's actions. This is a cease and desist order as our client has never authorized any of Mr George Bush's actions and frankly considerd such advertising offensive as Mr George Bush happens to be an employee of our rival firm.
Thanking You
The only lawyer in heaven
**Life is too short to be serious**
Wild grapes were groing in Sweden during the neolithic age, about 6000 years ago. We'd be lucky to even grow them in green houses now.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
To summarize this link http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/climate.html its the sulphur dioxide reaching the stratosphere that blocks solar radiation. Man released SO2 doesn't typically make it all the way up to the stratosphere.
Unfortunately intentionally cranking this stuff into the upper atmosphere isn't a solution to global warming since SO2 leads to ozone breakdown.
This sounds great until you realize that more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather. And that it will shift climate zones so that regions which were once temperate become deserts, or deserts become rainforests. A shift in the atmospheric equilibrium will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, and more intense rains and flooding. The sudden melting of vast quantities of land-locked ice will release pressure from the earth and potentially lead to earthquakes (did you know that the island of Great Britain is slowly tilting because of the enormous weight of ice that was lifted during the last Ice Age? And that happened gently over thousands of years.)
You know, maybe humans are responsible for global warming, and maybe they're not. But it's happening, and perhaps it would be prudent to do what we can to not enhance the warming any further. Because you know, why fuck with the one planet we've got?
No, correlation is not causation. But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data.
Science is hard; in many fields it's impossible to prove causation completely. But when you have a theory, and the theory holds up to all the available data, you act as if the theory were true and make decisions based on that. You don't over-react as long as there are competing theories that imply otherwise, but this is one more piece of data to suggest that global warming is very real and quite possibly man-made.
The "quite possibly" means that we shouldn't over-react; as you say, the correlation need not imply causation. But as the burden of evidence falls on the side of man-made global warming, it becomes increasingly dangerous to rely on "Yeah, but are you really, utterly, totally, completely sure?" arguments against action.
My wife always complains that I stand there with the refrigerator door open looking for something to eat. Now I won't take her crap, and I'll look around the fridge longer with the damn door open and I can help global warming at the same time. Maybe people will start looking up to me as some kind of hero...
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
I saw a program, i believe from the BBC on Global Dimming a few months ago. The idea being that at the same that we have been upping the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere, we have also been blocking out the sun with the various soots and particulate matter that goes with it. This drove us into a net cooling period during those years, as the sunlight was reflected back into space. The researcher explained that this may be why global warming hasnt been as evident as it should have been in the past 30 years.
Now that we burn cleaner gas, and try and be more environmentally friendly, this reflective layer of the atmosphere is getting thinner. this then compounds the global warming aeffect already in motion. perhaps that is what we are seeing today.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
After having read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear, I am thinking people who pick sides on this issue just like to argue. Crichton is against claims of global warming. Everybody's got an agenda.
We don't even know how much we don't know about our planet. How about we try our best not to pollute the planet we live in while enjoying life?
PS I am not endorsing the book. It has an awkward plot and idiot characters listening to a lot of "explanations" by "experts".
I don't think so; I cleared my cookies to check and didn't have to register or sign in. /me shrugs.
1 Most of the interior of America is very lightly populated as people want to live near the sea. Once sea velel rises and Phoenix and Chicago are beachfront land in the mid west will be much better utilized.
2 Siberia and Canada are almost unused land right now as they are too cold. With enough Global warming people can start living there
3 Large no of people lead very inefficient and lazy lives on a number of pacific islands. Once these are below the sea these people will become available for low wage work in our factories.
4 The areas of land submerged by sea should silence the critics that we are not doing anything to replace the oil we are pumping out of the earth. All these submerged plants and animals will become oil.
5 Africa has too many wars but the Sahara is relatiely peacefull. Heat up Africa and increase the Sahara in size and you will have an Australia like continent- first world country. Extra people refer to point 3 .
**Life is too short to be serious**
Those irresposible Republicans! They're screwing things up across the entire galaxy.
Article
And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
The author must realize that having record low eruptions in 1998 and 2005 is the cause of the temperature hike.
See what happened in 1816.
We've had a warm 20 degrees celsius here in Holland in Mid October!
Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
you can google historic temp changes and see that they vary by a few degrees every 1500 years or so. Why did temps drop in the medieval ages? why did they go up before? Did the romans have SUV?
This is not exactly a very long time frame, geolocially speaking.
Well if the whole universe was created in six 24 hour days, then at least for me 50 years is a good time frame.
But seriously, this is reminding me of how the number of cancers detected in 2005 is so dramatically more than the number detected in 1940. The real problem is all these statistics - if we wouldn't keep records of these things we wouldn't be able to draw all these conclusions - and no amount of backward extrapolation from various geological records is going to be able to definitively determine the warming/cooling patterns. We know there are ice ages, we know there are not-so-ice ages, but the precise statistics to start drawing causations just isn't there. Geology speaks in time periods of millenia, even thousands of millenia, not years or even centuries.
what about all the think smoke from cars? wouldn't that block the sunlight?
You mean why fuck with the comfortable life you have now. I am sure people in the Sahara would be most willing to let the US become a desert while the Sahara becomes fertile land. All this global warming talk is just another way of using the planet to justify continuation of your comfortable lifestyle.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Your post, and the fact that it was moderated +1,Insightful (at the time of writing) on a slightly-more-clued-up-about-science-than-the-gene ral-population web discussion forum, helps demonstrate the kind of problems people are going to face getting anything done about the problem.
No doubt many people will reply at this point and say that it's not a problem, it's not the fault of humans, and/or nothing needs to be done about it.
Just out of curiosity, if you do feel the need to answer in this way, I'd be curious if you could mention where in the world you're from. Just as a sort of random sample of the geographical distribution of the people who feel strongly that this talk of global warming is a big fuss about nothing.
It wasn't so long ago that the "consensus" of the physics community held Newtonian physics to be immutable, and before Newton the "consensus" included all sorts of things that we know today to be 100% false. Climatology is one of the most politicized of the hard sciences and there are more missing pieces to the puzzle than hard information. It's quite likely that the "odd man out" could be interpretting the little data we have correctly in the same way that Columbus was right and his many detractors were wrong. Heck, like Columbus the guy that's proven "correct" will probably eventually find out that he didn't end up where he thought he was going.
That's the interesting bit about science. In the long run it is not a popularity contest. Just because 100 scientists believe that something is so does not make it true, especially when these scientists have political axes to grind. Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations. As more data is amassed and better models are made most of the theories we have today will be proven to be more incorrect than correct.
So does that mean that fat asses like myself are beneficial to the climate, because we block out plenty of sun, too?
with "global warming" (now more appropriately called "global extreme temperatures" or something like that) in mind, isn't it a bit early to call it the hottest year in october already?
isn't "global warming" supposed to cause extreme temperatures in BOTH directions, and isn't weather prediction limited to a few days?
so how can anyone predict the weather for the next 2 1/2 months based on historical records and in face of supposedly dramatic climate changes...
well, gotta believe the scientists, especially when they are overeager to get their results out first and maybe "prove a point" in passing.
Read this book The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, if you are genuinely interested in doing something about climate chnage.
It is brilliant and timely call to action for everyone to reconsider their energy use as it applies to C02 emmissions.
Vulc(a)no explosion? Is that something which happens when Mr Spock eats Chili?
**Life is too short to be serious**
Only if we launch you into low earth orbit.
While I do beleive in global warming, one year does not prove a trend. It will take a few decades of this to prove the trend, of course by then it might be too late.
Think Deeply.
It's not too late to help lower the global average temperature. Become a swashbuckling disciple of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
http://www.venganza.org/
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
Technically speaking, the tsunami was last year.
Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.
Um, since when did a volcanic eruption make things cooler?
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
No, it's not a long timeframe geologically speaking, but human civilization doesn't operate on geologic timescales. And the warming we're seeing (and what will likely occur in the future, even according to the most conservative models) is on the same order as that seen in glacial/interglacial cycles but is happening on human timescales. That's the whole problem. . . we've never had to deal with climate change this large while at the same time juggling the lives of >6 billion people at the same time.
We should build a huge exhaust fan to use all this extra heat to push our orbit outwards. As we generate more heat, we get further from the sun so we stay cooler. Earth maintains its status quo.
And we'll spend less in rocket fuel to colonize Mars, because we'll be closer!
(Yes, I am joking, but there's gotta be something useful we can do with this extra heat if we could channel it somehow. I leave figuring out what that something is as an exercise for the reader.)
... and global temperatures at the end of the Cretaceous / start at the Tertiary were much warmer than today (~15C)
So we'll be saved if we get hit by a big enough asteroid! Oh, wait... Dang.
I correct myself. It was in the bronze age, about 3000 years ago.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
In about 5 billion years the sun is going to expand and take out everything from where it is now to about Mars' orbit. The entire first 4 planets will be consumed. Women and children will be hardest hit. Bet we'll all feel guilty about the fossil fuels by then.
Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Of all the arguments often made against the importance of climate change, the one that makes the least sense to me is the one you just made.
Actually, strong correlation is generally considered causation. There are many phenomena in science whose causes we can demonstrate, even though we don't necessarily understand the mechanisms by which the cause occurs. Climate change, however, is a well-understood process, the mechanics of which we understand in great detail. Dismissing the entire issue with a glib comment doesn't help anyone.
Next to "abortion", saying "global warming" is the quickest way to fire up a troll fest. What's sad is everyone's so busy arguing they've missed the point. On the left, you've got chicken little screaming the sky is falling. On the right, they've stuck their head in the sand.
Hey lefties: calm down, New York isn't going to be washed away tomorrow and screaming your head off about "catastrophic changes" just makes you come off as wack jobs.
Oh and you righties: tell me how you can have 6 billion people on a single planet without affecting it somehow? You haven't noticed we've cut down a couple trees, paved some highways, and shot some bunnies?
Sadly, instead of managing our impact on the planet, we've let the extremist sink us into a troll fest.
Magnetic Poles May Be About To Flip
Earth's Magnetic Field Weakens 10 Percent
The New York Times On Earth's Magnetic Flip-Flop
points go in this order:
I think the evidence is clear: the end of the present world is near. I'll be ready by 2012, will you?
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
and put a bullet in your head. Come on, it's all bullshit anyways, right? Feeding yourself, cleaning yourself, earning money to sustain yourself, that's all just a fancy way of supporting your comfortable life.
So put your mouth where your money is -- around the end of a gun barrel. Embrace the nihilism you preach and blow your fucking brains out. Or realize that taking actions to keep yourself alive make perfect sense if you're not suicidal.
Either way, quit being a hypocrite. Eat a bullet or wise up, it's your choice.
Anyone else see the irony that a volcanic eruption with hot ash and magma and lava and such would cause a global cooldown? (I know the whole ash blocking the sun technical crap)
This has been true, and still largely is, but it is changing. Some of the larger ice cores, for example the GISP2 from Greenland, can give annual precision well beyond the last ice age (GISP2 goes back to at least 110,000 ybp with annual layers). The Vostok core from Antarctica, although not providing annual precision (I believe it is at least decadal, however) goes back several hundred thousand years at least (I think as much as 800 ka, but I don't remember for sure) - that is several glacial/interglacial cycles (not mini-cycles within one glaciation). So yes, in general geology deals with time scales of hundreds of thousands and millions of years, but there are increasing numbers of studies involving high-resolution paleoclimate records of the "recent" past.
Well, geologists have been watching Mount St. Helens very closely of late.
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
Fact: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.
No, that's not true at all. All terrestrial measurements have shown a steady increase - the satellite measurements were the exceptions, and showed a much slower increase in temperature.
Until last year, fossil fuel advocates pointed to the satellite measurements as refutation of the warming trend. Then, a bunch of clever guys realised that the problem was that the satellite measurements were taking an average of a rapidly heating troposphere (where we live) and a cooler upper section of the atmosphere.
There's a great discussion of this in the rather frightening book The Weather Makers by Australian scientist Tim Flannery, which is due for release in the US about now.
Not only technically speacing, but correctly speaking too. Even more important IMHO.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
Living a city where there are two major cities sitting vary close to each other and a major airport between them. (Dallas - Ft. Worth) You start to see patterns that make you think a bit more about really is causing global warming. What you can all ways see temperature wise in the north Texas area is that it is most of the time 5 to 10 degrees F cooler West of the Dallas - Ft. Worth area. Then you moving east in to Ft. Worth the temp starts going up and the more east that you go the higher the temp gets. Done and told Dallas (being east of Ft. Worth and the DFW airport is all ways 2 to 3 degrees hotter then Ft. Worth. So, what is making Dallas hotter then Ft. Worth? The fact that the normal jet stream of air here moves mostly west to east. So when the Sun shines on the concrete or asphalt on the roads all day long and makes the ground that much hotter and then the wind blows the air over this increased temperatures of the roads and airport runways it just keeps building until it gets back over an area where there are less roadways to start cooling the air. Every one keeps looking at pollution as being the main reason for global warming. It is a factor that should not be over looked but no one is looking at the fact that cities are growing all over the world so this means that roadways are being added to and widened all the time. Thus adding to the surface area of a really big heater. Having lived out in a country environment I know that once the sun goes down it starts to cool off, but the city is not the same. It can take a city a hour or two to start to see any real drop in temperatures.
You can keep the trademark, GOD(TM)-dammit.
Just don't claim any patents on the Toyota Prius or porn or anything like that. That'll just make me start roasting meat for that Zeus guy again.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
I think you might have a hard time trying to convince some people this is a good thing.
With a warmer weather hurricanes will be even more powerful, same thing for floodings and tornadoes.
We may or may not be entirely accountable for global warming but trying to maintain our way of life (should I say 'civilization'?) seems to be a valid reason to do our best to diminish our (big or small) effect on global warming.
I think the parent might have been a little tongue-in-cheek, but you do make some good points.
/dev/null, the whole thing is practically evaporating.
Another one that's worth thinking about is the effect on animals and plants that live in a given climate. There is a whole ecosystem being driven northwards to San Francisco, as the climate warms. The warmer weather wilts leaves too early in the season to sustain the community, so it's all moving north into the cooler weather, as has happened before during climate change.
The difference now, however, is that we have this massive city in the way. It's like moving the whole ecosystem to
Similarly, increases in temperature drive cloud and mist levels upward, so mountainous rainforest that rely on mists for water are suddenly dried out, and every single example has eventually just burned down in the dry.
The seals that form the bulk of Polar Bear diets are moving with the change in climate, but the bears themselves aren't keeping up, being land-locked.
I've said this in a previous post, but there's a great discussion of this in the rather frightening book The Weather Makers by Australian scientist Tim Flannery, which is due for release in the US about now.
You mean (s)he'll see Him in court. Revere the Big Boy, foo! ;)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Does anyone else see the irony in the fact that this discussion, which generally appears to ignore the vast majority of science done on the subject, and the story titled"Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science" appear on the /. homepage at the same time?
Can anyone recommend a good community site for those interested in knowledge and science rather than politically motivated propaganda? Where have all the geeks gone?
Delivering militantly anti-commercial music to all two people who care!
The Weather Makers is a superb book. Frightening, but superb.
I'd rather have it be more warm and cold.
Warm like Venus? If you perturb a chaotic system enough, it can spiral out of control. If global warming had some true upper bound, things might be awful and catastrophic (Think Katrina, globally, times 10,000) , but probably not the end of life on earth. I worry about a runaway greenhouse effect, where global temperatures rise above 100C. "Life goes on" doesn't apply if there's no liquid water.
I think some of the points made by previous posters are intriguing. If mars is getting warmer, then we lack enough variables to understand the equation. Personally I think this means we should learn as much about the history of Mars and Venus (and for that matter, the Sun) as we can, to find out *what went wrong*.
You're exactly right - it'll be cold comfort to say "I told you so"
Good timing...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
There's you, saying "no, look at me, look at me!"
:) Seriously, though, go read Tim Flannery's book The Weather Makers.
Okay, that was a bit harsh
OT: As for those irresponsible Republicans - compare Argentina's deficit before their currency crash with USA's current deficit.
The Raven
Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.
That is exactly what was running through my head the last time I flew from Seattle to LA. Right Over St. Helens.
"...no amount of backward extrapolation from various geological records is going to be able to definitively determine the warming/cooling patterns."
ok, no more talk about geological event until you understand what you are saying.
sheesh.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The promised information about him is here:
President, George C. Marshall Institute.
Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Member, CEI Board of Directors. President and Founder, Solutions Consulting. President Emeritus, Global Climate Coalition. President, Solutions Consulting, Inc. Former Senior Vice President, Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc. Chief Administrative Officer, Center for Naval Analyses.
According to federal lobbying records, O'Keef e was a paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil, 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the issues of environment and climate change, with contacts with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. He writes frequently about climate change in his presidentail role at the George C. Marshall Institute.
O'Keefe has a long history of involvement with the fossil fuel industry. O'Keefe also served as Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a position he held until 2000.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1,645,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $515,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Petroleum Institute
Currently "deactivated", the Global Climate Coalition was "A coalition of companies and trade associations seeking to present the views of industry in the global warming debate."
Why are we still arguing over this? Wasn't a study released a few weeks ago that showed a direct corelation between the increase in temperature and the decrease in pirates sailing the seas?
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Oops, you're right, I should have included the entire quote, not just the first paragraph. It isn't at all misleading, however:
The issue of why satellite measurements disagreed with all the terrestrial measurements of temperature change was of great concern to climate researchers, so it was a big deal when the reason was discovered.
The warming trend, along with the satellite measurement differences, weren't just restricted to urbanised areas, however - the same discrepancies were noted everywhere - the arctic and antarctic included.
The point is just that while there once was an argument that there was not such a rapid warming trend, because of the satellite information, this is no longer the case.
I see this a lot in articles about this issue and I think it needs addressed: "A vocal minority of scientists say the warming climate is the result of a natural cycle." Me: no duh! No one's saying it's NOT part of a natural cycle. What is alarming though is that the current trend has occurred faster than other periods in history which means an investigation was needed to determine just why that is. All the evidence has led to the affect of the industrial revolution. That's the one thing differing from all other "natural cycle" trends of the past. What can be done about it? Nothing. Short of an asteroid hitting us and turning our clocks back 200+ years I don't see anything meaningful being done to change anything. As the expression goes "the genie can't be put back in the bottle." On top of this, global population has forced the governments to lock down just where we can live tighter than a popcorn fart so you have a hard time escapeing the toxic asthma bothering gasses and pollution of the city.
So, with a statistical sample of 60 data points, out of potentially billions (scientific types), or at a minimum thousands (intelligent design types), you want to jump to rash conclusions? Factor in that those 60 data points are not even a representative sample, but a small cluster from the very tail end of the period, with it being quite well established that the trend has been 'up' for around 10,000 years (scientific types), or 'all thru time' for the intelligent design types, why is it even a surprise that we may get a localized high within this small sample ? The reality is, looking at the big picture, it would be news if we did NOT have a localized high, that would point to a possible change in the trend of the last 10,000 years.
There are a hell of a lot of ways that 'good science' can be done with regard to researching climate change, but this is NOT one of them. Anyone with half an understanding of statistics, and a rudimentary understanding of the concept of 'been warming up since the depth of the ice age', would understand that a localized high mean temperature is EXPECTED at the front end of the data set. When we have a large enough sample to understand the harmonic changes, and the long term trend, then we can draw conclusions based on a single in/outlier, but, with only 60 localized data points in the sample, and no basis to measure harmonic changes (there's been a few ice ages over the millenia, but our data set doesn't go back to cover the swings), we have no data on which to base conclusions other than reactionary spew designed to get press coverage.
Then again, why does it not surprise me that this kind of thing gets front page news in a population that loves to play the lottery too. The single biggest growth industry in north america seems to be casinos, kind of proves that the population certainly doesn't understand statistical relavence.
Yeah, becaause it was those damn Newtonian special interest groups holding back Einsteinian physics.
So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming? They want to believe we're poisoning our atmosphere because... they hate convenience? Seems to me the only side with something to gain is the anti-warming crowd.
I'm not suggesting that the crap we pour into the atmosphere has no effect on our climate, but rather that, as the article sort of states, temperatures are only approaching record levels since the advent of systematic temperature records. If we look back over several major climatic cycles in the Earth's history however, what we are experiencing is actually nothing special.
That said, I'm off to buy some factor 50 sunblock.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
[blockquote]
This will obviously fuel environmental types and greenies who believe this is more evidence of global warming. And then you'll have the people who will correctly point out its still not necessarily because of humans.
[/blockquote]
Global warming is sort of a misleading focus. It's not the temperature that's directly at issue. It's the effects of that temperature increase. Higher average temperatures make everything more energetic. Temperature increase can make hurricane Katrina seem like a walk in the park. Hurricanes get stronger by feeding off of warm water. This is why they always weaken on land. Now think about making even more energy available. Stronger storms, blizzards (in some places since more moisture in the air is available), etc. The earthquake part I'm not so sure I buy into.
The question to ask is this: How much will it hurt to play it safe and cut back on emissions, if pollution isn't contributing significantly to climate change? How much will it hurt if we do nothing, and we are adding to global warming?
I for one would prefer to take the safer route, just in case. This used to be called taking a conservative approach, as in not sticking ones neck on the block needlessly. But I'd definately want to evenly scale back emissions at a measured rate.
I would not for example do what Bush did with one of the major emissions rule changes made a couple of years ago. Diesel cars were virtually made illegal for sale in the US in a single stroke. The legal limit for the two pollutants that they give off in higher quantity than gasoline engines was reduced by a very large amount. Gas cars give off a great deal more CO2 than diesel. Diesel on the other hand produces more NOX, and particulates. The allowable levels for NOX were dropped drastically, while CO2 were cut a small amount. Industry needs time to make changes. For some reason gasoline based vehicles are given far more leeway in pollutant production for some reason.
Oddly full size trucks and SUVs, were exempt from this. A large diesel truck getting 14 MPG is ok, but not a 50 MPG diesel passenger car... Luckily Volkwagon has figured out a way to get below the levels required. I'd not expect any more major cuts because then it would affect gasoline based cars... But it would have been far better to drop all emission levels by a set percentage. Wait for industry to catch up. Rinse, Repeat. This also will stimulate the economy, since companies will always be slowly making things cleaner. The tortoise not the hare.
Anyways this is all Revelations type stuff, sooner or later it's gonna bite us in the ass.
When we don't know what's in the dark cave we are about to enter, do we rush in headlong, or proceed with caution? Do we attempt to find out if there is an angry bear in there before we rush in?
My view is that before continuing on our potentially devastating course, we need to re-evaluate and determine how much of an effect we are having, and whether the present course of action is still the best way to proceed. And in my view, it is better to suspend actions of questionable results than it is to continue them without knowing.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels, there is headway to be made in fuel efficiency, there are ways to lessen the envirnmental footprint of humankind. Many of these things, if done properly, will not negatively affect quality of life. So why don't we?
That's all I'm saying -- err on the side of caution.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I'm curious as to what the climateprediction.net models have to say. Do they agree? I mean, that's why I'm giving up computing power, right, so we know these things?
have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
Option "c": Both A and B have a common cause. The classic example of this is that there is a high correlation between the number of bars in a city and the number of churches in a city. Why? Because larger cities have more bars and larger cities have more churches.
Option "d": Both A and B just happen to be moving in the same direction. This option can usually be ruled out by significance testing. However, post-facto analysis can be tricky. If there are 100 possible correlations, and you're counting on 99% significance (individual, not group), then you shouldn't be surprised if one correlation randomly meets that criteria. The answer should be to do a group significance analysis, but that's only valid a priori.
The title is only a lame attempt at humor. I don't really think that global warming/CO_2 falls into option c.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming?
- - - - -
How about the billions of dollars in "global warming" research grant?
http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-04.html
Regardless of whether this is caused by human activity or not, it WILL have negative consequences. We need to be doing more to predict what will happen, where, and how to minimize the impacts. I know it's difficult, but that's a long shot from impossible.
Good points. It's much like any good science. Right now we only understand the tip of the iceberg (or the glacier) of climate on a large time scale. I guess the analogy would be the theories on evolution that came out just after Darwin but before modern genetics. And just like evolution, the more we discover, the more theories are refined. I just don't like people who jump on early theories and proclaim fact long before it's due.
What an utter load of lies and deception. These issues are known about, and have been carefully tackled many, many times. To state these goes beyond mere ignorance, to deliberate attempts to mislead the public.
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
That's because the satellites were taking an average of several layers, the weather balloons weren't accounting for improvements in radiation shielding technology and so on. Adjusted, they now fully match the results we have.
Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
Not according to the actual data. The proportional increase in carbon dioxide is huge, by all available data. And yes, ALL of that increase is due to human activity, because for example measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the sea shows that the sea is actively absorbing CO2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
This is a strawman. Hell, the most common greenhouse gas is probably Nitrogen. Anything has a greenhouse effect. The issue is whether the gas is a cause of climate change or not. Water, despite it's significance, isn't. Changes in water concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly evened out - we call it rain. But it never rains carbon dioxide. The action of water is as a positive multiplier for global warming - warming increases the level of equilibrium of water in the atmosphere, which makes CO2 a more significant effect, not less.
Don't listen to these 'friends of science'. They are lying to you.
There are alternatives to fossil fuels, there is headway to be made in fuel efficiency, there are ways to lessen the envirnmental footprint of humankind. Many of these things, if done properly, will not negatively affect quality of life. So why don't we?
Please tell me one energy source that does not cause any issues when implemented on a scale needed to solve humankind's energy needs? The only one that is close may be fusion...but it is not usable yet. I agree, we should investigate other thing...but rushing headlong into alternatives could also cause problems.
And in my view, it is better to suspend actions of questionable results than it is to continue them without knowing.
Are you advocating stopping all energy production? (well...more specifically concentration)
badness 10000
Ok, so I have to preserve the rainforest, but if middle America becomes a rainforest that's bad? the population density migrates to Canada and George Bush III gets to be the tropico dictator that would make daddy so proud. Disneyland sinks. Everyone wins.
We are all just people.
I have to say that I, for one, welcome our new global warming overlords
[alk]
If you can't see the political motivations of the global warming climatologists then you are very naive. Let me give you a hint. Forty years ago did politicians give a flying fig about anything climatologists had to say, and twenty years ago the "prevailing wisdom" among climatologists was that the earth was in danger of another ice age. Climatology matters today, and climatologists are drowning in research money, because they have managed to convince people that, "the end of the world is nigh."
Now, it may be true that the end of the world truly is right at our doorstep, and it also may be true that man is the cause of global warming, but that's hardly conclusive. The fact of the matter is that the temperature of the earth has *always* fluctuated, and climatologists only really understand a small piece of the picture. Because this is such a hot button political issue research money goes to the climatologists that say what their poltical backers want to hear. These sorts of politics have *always* played out in science (see Tesla's history as an example), and they frequently taint the actual search for "truth" a great deal.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
That is indeed a very good point. But if we are causing global warming, by the time necessary to confirm it, it will be too late (AFICS) and we will be in quite a bit of trouble. If, on the other hand, we assume the worst case scenario (ie we are causing global warming) and do something about it now the only real disadvantage is a bit of inconvenience until we can be sure what is happening.
We have a lot to lose and a lot to gain by our actions now. I think it would be only be intelligent to do the best we can by the planet we live on while the issue is in doubt.
Personally I think this means we should learn as much about the history of Mars and Venus (and for that matter, the Sun) as we can, to find out *what went wrong*.
This assumes that Venus and Mars were earthlike to begin with.
With Mars, most problems are said to be due to not enough gravity to hold onto an atmosphere forever. With Venus, well, never lost enough atmosphere or got too much of one. It's also much closer to the sun so it recieves a much larger amount of sunlight than Earth.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Little correction - Newton was not 100% wrong. In fact, it is amazing exactly how right he was when applied to the stuff he dealt with - apples, carts, stuff you can see and touch. What Einstein did was to offer an extension to Newton's theories that would expand them to the atomic level. What this means is that you want to listen to what the scientists, and then see if it makes sense. You might not be able to come up with the theory of everything, but you might at least find out who the crackpots are. Science is a tool - use it. Saying that everything will change anyway, and that you can ignore everything that a scientists says means you're throwing science away as a tool.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Well, at this rate in another ten years Republicans will acknowledge global warming. Of course, they'll just write it off as another sign that the rapture is imminent, and push us all to accept intelligent design before it's too late.
Sorry for the second post, but just noticed one other thing you said.
6 &cid=13578513
If mars is getting warmer, then we lack enough variables to understand the equation.
The Suns energy output has been increasing over at least the past 30 years.
By 0.05% per decade. Referencing an earlier slashdot post
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16246
The output from the sun that hits the earth is 170,000 TW. Given that that has increased by 85TW/decade, that should be the explanation for at least part of the earths warming, and why mars is getting warmer as well. More heat into the system will result in the system getting warmer.
One final thing, global warming is supposed to lead to weaker/fewer hurricanes. Katrina was hardly a strong storm. It was only a category 4 when it hit. Also, if it gets too strong it will tear itself apart. I think there is an actuall uper limit to the strength of a hurricane.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Columbus? What was he "correct" about? The earth being round? Everyone knew that then. The myth that there was any common perception in 1492 that the earth was flat was created by Washington Irving in his biography of Columbus, written centuries later. (source: James Leowen, "Everything You've Been Taught is Wrong" -- great book, BTW)
-----
Kvetch is Yiddish for "throw an exception" --Dr. Ron Cytron
Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations.
I understand the economic motivations of scientists working for oil companies and related industries. What are the economic motivations of scientists who think global warming is at least a partial result of human activity? (Other than, of course, the economic benefits of human survival.)
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
How about reducing our energy needs? How about minimizing our impact as best we can?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
"more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather"
As a Texan, I shrug apathetically. The weather does what it does, and people deal with it. Or they don't deal with it, if you happen to live in Louisiana.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
For all we know, we may be in the middle of a 14,000-year weather cycle last experienced by "Hobbit Man" or at the beginning of something truly unusual, brought on by SUVs and greenhouse gases.
I don't pretend to know a lot about this stuff, but I wouldn't base my opinion of someone's life on what they did for the last 2 days of it.
Interestingly enough, this may be the reason that temperatures from about 1940-1980 were stable or in decline. There was so much pollution in the air that it reduced sunlight hitting the surface.
With the rise of environmentalism, pollution has been much reduced, and so the increase in temperatures picks up where it left off.
There are compelling arguments on both sides, but they tend to get lost in the drivel of mud slinging. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly the membership here blames everything and anything on Micro$oft and George Bush. Just because you don't agree with a particular line of thinking does not make it right-wing lunacy, and calling it such makes it difficult to listen to anything else you may have to say.
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate
Columbus was correct in that you can get to India by sailing west from Europe. He was wrong, however, that this was a shorter route than going around Africa. The intelligentsia in Columbus' day might have known that the earth was round, but that didn't lead them to look for a Western route to India. The reason that the Columbus example is a good one because unlike Columbus' contemporaries Columbus had a theory and was willing to actually try the experiment instead of simply saying that it was impossible. In the end Columbus was wrong, but as in many cases it isn't the guy with the correct theory that gets remembered, but the guy whose incorrect assumption lead to interesting new knowledge.
James Leowen's book is an excellent example of how often scholars and scientists get things 100% wrong. Washington Irving was a very bright guy, and yet he got this important fact wrong. His take on the history of Columbus is still being taught years and years after his death and despite the fact that he was wrong. That's why it is ridiculous to simply take the assumptions of a group of scientists (in a ridiculously politically charged field) as gospel when the honest among those researchers would acknowledge that they aren't even close to having a complete picture. Chances are good that these researchers are wrong, and if they are right it's probably just coincidence. There simply isn't enough data, and there are far too many variables.
Global warming obviously needs more study, and likewise it's almost certainly a good idea to try and lower pollution levels and greenhouse gas emissions (just to be safe). I am simply saying that I wouldn't be surprised if *all* of our current theories on Global Warming are completely off the mark in the same way that Columbus was off the mark sailing west to India.
Maybe the warmer weather will help offset the hugely increased cost of heating that is being predicted for this winter.
(And no, I'm not 100% serious. But neither am I 0% serious.)
Or maybe we're experiencing record high temperatures because we're emerging from an ice age that started in the 14th century.
Of course, that continent also made his basic idea wrong too. You can't get to India by sailing west from Europe, not without going a considerable distance out of your way to the south.
Lots of people with incorrect ideas have the courage of their convictions, but this doesn't magically convert their ideas into correct ones.
And the brethren went away edified.
I'd say it had something to do with the environmental lobby being fucking enormous and requiring a multitude of human-caused environmental problems to justify its existence. There's a bloody great lot of money in finding ways to blame various people for screwing up the environment, and money is a damned good ulterior motive.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
I'm guessing my sarcasm was a wee bit too subtle for you. ;) You see, the Clear Skies Initiative doesn't really help the skies become clear as it rolls back the previous Clean Air measures.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No but seriously, nice hot summers floating on a raft with a nice brew in hand out in my pool are really starting to suck! Not to mention I only get to scrape ice off my car's windows until my hands are blue for 5-6 months out of the year now.
Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.
Given the track record for natural disasters this year, I wouldn't say that too loud.
An excellent point, and I am definitely of the opinion that we should work at lowering pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Heck, we should do this whether or not we have any effect on global warming just because pollution is bad. I have a problem, however, with scientists that do sloppy science and resort to scare tactics for political purposes.
For example, in 2000 a group of UN scientists on an icebreaker at the North Pole observed standing water. These scientists then reported to the New York Times that "the last time scientists could be certain that the Pole was awash in water was more than 50 million years ago." Well, it turns out that in reality you can find open water at the North Pole at the end of most summers, but these "researchers" didn't even bother to ask anyone about this known fact. The New York Times printed the original story on the front page of the paper with the title "The North Pole is Melting." It later retracted the story, but not on the front page. Did this debacle ruin the academic careers of these fools, of course not.
In my opinion there is little difference between these sorts of "scientists" and the bible thumper that tells his congregation that New Orleans was destroyed because it was "wicked," and that in the last days calamaties would fill the earth. Heck, the book of Revelations is probably more likely to be correct than some of these idiot "scientists." Many of the so-called scientists on both sides of the fence in this issue are nothing more than media whores looking to put their names on the front page of the newspaper.
I don't do science.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
Are we ready to embrace nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gases? No.
Do we want wind power? Not if it destroys our view from Martha's Vinyard.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Fah, you are missing my point completely. Columbus may have been wrong, but at least he did the experiment. He could have just as easily been 100% right. The Global Warming crew (on both sides) spend way more time arguing about their interpretations of the small body of data we have today than they do looking up more data. With the small amount of information that we currently have on global climatology over the millenia it is very likely that there is a "continent" just over the horizon, and yet the current climatology crowd wants to spend all of its time arguing over models that they know are horribly incomplete.
Magellan *did* sail to India using technology very similar to what Columbus had simply because he was able to use a bit of information that Columbus discovered, and that was that there was a continent to the west that could be used to resupply your ships.
The graph in the times shows 145 years of data, and the average it uses is a 30 year average from 1961 - 1990. Never mind that they can't count. Why doesn't the graph use a 145 year average? The warmest years on the graph are 1990 to present. It is interesting that according to the graph, 1960 - 1980 recorded more cool years than warm!
again, reading the graph, from 1880 - 1910, there was a warming period that was even more significant than the one currently observed. Why?
From 1910 - 1940, there was a very significant decrease in temperateure. Why?
So, from 1880 - 1910 I'm sure everyone was afraid of the next heat wave
and from 1910 - 1940, there was an ice age headed our way.
Interesting that this graph shows a classic bell shaped curve that we all learned to love in our college statistics classes. It is safe to predict regular variations that follow the same pattern. Therefore, I predict in 20 - 50 years (a very short time span in the grand scheme of things), that a cool down will occur.
...but not today. Which climatologist do you think has more of an opportunity for fame and fortune: the one who adds yet another voice to the chorus of tens of thousands that have all pretty much agreed that we're doing very stupid things to the place we live, or the one who demonstrates convincingly that actually everything is okay, our activities really aren't adding an abominable amount of heat energy to the complex system that is our planet's climate, we don't need to worry about anything, and we can go on burning oil and clear-cutting rainforests and commuting alone in our Yukon Denalis? Hmmm? Which one do you think is going to become famous in the scientific community for showing that we had it all wrong? More to the point, which one is going to receive an essentially infinite amount of funding from the oil, automotive, power-generation, etc. etc. etc. industries?
And the global mean from 1950 to 1990? Why those years? Did they happen to give the result the author wanted?
They are playing a numbers racket with you, people. As geeks you should see right through this stufff. For shame.
Here's a post on /. that pretty much mirrors what I think --
the reason I read through all the tripe is that there are some real folks there too. On this issue, the "conservative" talk show guys are just totally off base -- and it discredits them to the point I have trouble listening to some of the rest of stuff they say. They don't respond, of course, to emails with links documenting the good science that has been done by just about every country in the world, just repeat the formulaic junk "there is no proof that mankind is causing this" -- which last year or two was "there is no proof it is happening". I think it might be instructive to follow the money on that. Sort of like those "independent studies" paid for by Microsoft.
You may quote me.
Here's the post: /*
Next to "abortion", saying "global warming" is the quickest way to fire up a troll fest. What's sad is everyone's so busy arguing they've missed the point. On the left, you've got chicken little screaming the sky is falling. On the right, they've stuck their head in the sand.
Hey lefties: calm down, New York isn't going to be washed away tomorrow and screaming your head off about "catastrophic changes" just makes you come off as wack jobs.
Oh and you righties: tell me how you can have 6 billion people on a single planet without affecting it somehow? You haven't noticed we've cut down a couple trees, paved some highways, and shot some bunnies?
Sadly, instead of managing our impact on the planet, we've let the extremists sink us into a troll fest.
*/
To which I (Doug) would add:
You lefties:
You went off about this long before there was any good science. You got lucky. That's all. Doesn't make you right about everything else -- even you disowned the fringe that first brought it up. And it's climate *change* that matters in a world where transportation is getting expensive, everything that isn't a farm is a city (there's almost no wilderness anymore), and whatcha gonna do about it when it's your house/backyard getting torn down now because it's the only place left to farm with decently doable adaptations of the varieties you can get/plant? NIMBY as usual? (puns intended) If this is not what you want, you'd better get enough of the rest of your act together to have an effect. It's obvious the righties are deliberately ignoring something everyone can observe for themselves.
To you righties:
Have you not noticed that the weather for the cities is ALWAYS 5-10 deg warmer then the outlying areas in the forecasts (and the actualities)?
Do you suppose that cities automatically make the outlying areas cooler by some magic? Does it matter what causes it when it's going to kill you, or should it matter more what can be done about it? It's everyone's ox that's gonna get gored on this at some point. Not just your precious energy co. holdings (And look at what they DO, rather than what they say. My solar system is built almost entirely out of parts from companies owned by the bigs in petroleum -- they know the music's gonna stop, and are investing in extra chairs, and I thank them for that). Those of us paying attention are not trying to "destroy capitalism", but to save it. I kind of like it when it works.
To all:
What shortsightedness/vanity made everyone assume it would all be the same forever -- regardless of man's effects? And what about outside influences? Or even continuously improve due to our efforts (or despite them)? We've built an entire world on that assumption-set, which the most beginner scientist or historian knows is totally bogus -- man makes this mistake over and over, and civilizations pay horrible consequences over and over, too. We should be on the edge of an ice age. Does it look like that to anyone? (according to the most recent periodicity of ice ages ~26,000 yrs for the last 4-5 cycles, we should be at the top of slowing warming now, and going down soon -- the temps should not be rising fast now, but leveling off, at the top of a sine curve). Well, it's going to save me some heatin
... because I have a feeling that 2006 is going to whomp your ass!
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
Climate change becomes a serious problem for the survival of the human race? Are we minimalizing our environmental impact for the sake of the Earth and it's non-human critters? What happens when the Earth's climate becomes unfavorable to the point where humans decide to change the environment to suit our own survival? At what point do we say "screw environmentalism, it's time to induce global cooling measures?"
I comprehend the reasons for minimalizing our global impact, but the fact of the matter is that we do impact the environment, and we will continue to do so for all fo the forseeable future. Maybe we should consider keeping the earth's climate similar to the climate in which mankind evolved, even if it involves more meddling. Personally, I don't know why people would embrace another ice age. Canada would be entirely covered.
"No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
True, experimentation often produces serendipitous results. But to say it must produce serendipitous results contrary to expectations is wishful thinking. If we're observing a warming trend now, lacking other data we are simply not free to say, "Oh well, this is probably an anomaly/within historical trends/not our fault/not our problem/etc." and pretend it's not there. The correct reaction is to go where the data leads us. That does not, of course, preclude us from looking for more data. But if we're trying to determine a course of action in the meantime, it's again wishful thinking to just assume that any new data we might find will ultimately bear out the conclusion we want it to.
And the brethren went away edified.
The link looks suspicious. I found a story there stating that colder climates cause an increase in hurricane strength which is unscientifically based if you aks any meterologist. I researched it and found out that the president of www.friendsofscience.org is Doug Leahey.
Is it the same Doug Leahey who is an oil/energy consultant listed here at this company also based in Alberta Canada?
The link is probably another lobbying group hiding under a psuedo-name like the wetlands coalition that wants to destroy it for gas/oil developlment, or senior citizens for lower priced druges (I think thats the name) which is owned by the pharmacutical industry. Well swift boat vets for truth hurt Kerry even though no swift boat vets are on the board which is made up of oil company executives. Who knows.
Try a better source
http://saveie6.com/
Time to buy shares in an airconditiong company...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/i xnewstop.html
i ghteningSuni.html
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/11.06/Br
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
While that is true...it is probably the hardest thing to do. It simply requires too much cooperation from everybody. It is one of those cases where the person who does nothing ends up profiting.
Not that I am saying that it should not be done; I am just not optimistic.
And worse...the energy needs will continue to grow as humanity advances.
badness 10000
It comes in a much smaller cup and doesn't warm the atmosphere nearly as much. Espresso the energy saving choice!
Computers emit heat, and there are LOTS of them around the world.
Let's see what ratio of on/off answers we get here on Slashdot. Same question for monitor.
I'll start:
Computer: off
Monitor : off
(I also turn off my cable modem and wi-fi router)
Simpy
As reported by the Finnish Meteorological Institute, this October so far has been warmest EVER in Finland. We've been basking in temperatures 6-7'C warmer than usual these past two weeks. Some people are still picking strawberries from the fields!
Unfortunately this joy is about to end, this weekend we'll finally get a major drop in temperature, sub-zero nights and rain.
We're talking about a BIG problem, and all I can see is +5 funny posts.
Thank you America.
Alexis 'jeriqo' BRET
Not to mention the fact that in the several billion year history of this planet, one hundred years of biased data is a statistically meaningless sample. When I say biased data, I mean things like weather reports from cities that have increased in size creating heat islands that raise the reported temperature in that city but have nothing to do with excess carbon dioxide. Parent post here is on to something; global warming is like a new religion that is suceeding because of all of the romanticist propaganda about how humans are bad for the planet.
"Lack of technical competence coupled with the arrogance of power, as usual, leads to no good end."
I have a theory that Global Warming is causing people to use more fossil fuels, rather than the other way around.
Perhaps I can get a grant from the Bush administration to study this, by going to warmer climes (e.g., Maui, Fiji, Ft. Lauderdale, etc.) and seeing how much people there use fossil fuels.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Well, consider. This isn't a really bad Hollywood movie like "The Day After Tomorrow", it is reality, and there is natural law to mediate between nature and your nightmares. The fact is, if the flooding you speak of occurs, it won't happen such that a bunch of lowland dwellers go to sleep Tuesday night, dry, and wake up Wednesday morning floating on their mattresses. We will see it coming, people and businesses can migrate (and they will... believe me, they will.)
Again, if the climate is changing along these lines, you can be certain that just as Florida's coral outcrop goes under and provides zillions of new acres of game fish habitat, other parts of the country will change also. Areas that are too cold for raising oranges, for instance, will warm up and become useful in that way. Areas like mine, that see -40 degree temperatures some winters will see (perhaps) -35 degrees instead, and we won't have to plug in our cars as many evenings, saving some energy. Death Valley will probably still suck every day of the year.
And so on. The one thing you can be certain of is that things will change, and as they change, humans will adapt.
I see no reason for anyone to panic, or even seriously worry, at this point. We should pay attention, and we are. There is no indication we are facing any big changes in the near future, nor any sudden ones in any future as far as global warming goes. Nature will supply us with the facts no matter what they are. In the meantime, the sky isn't falling, and that's a fact. The sky might move a little, though we cannot be certain of this, and if it does, it'll do so slowly and gently and we will have plenty of time to rearrange ourselves as required, both as a civilization and as individuals.
And you know what else? If and as change comes, we'll no doubt turn it to our advantage. More heat, more energy, more liquid water, more opportunity. It's what we do. The ones of us who aren't running in circles, screaming hysterically about global warming, that is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The Earth has endured far more than Mankind could ever dish out in it's entire existence: fires, floods, volcano eruptions, meteor strikes, and so on.
Compared to the Earths life, our existence during the period of time we have been "monitoring" weather patterns is like a drop of water in the ocean.
Can we really be sure about all of this?
Really, this planet has been through ice ages and periods of higher temperatures many times in its history. Much more significant events than it getting a little warm have happened. We have evidence suggesting that a huge meteor wiped out the dominant life forms on the planet at least once before. Guess what, the Earth's still here and it seems to be doing fairly well for itself. Maybe we are putting large amounts of C02 into the atmosphere; naturally occurring volcanoes have far more of an impact on the climate than we do. Who are we to assume that simply because the Earth's getting warmer than we can remember from our nanosecond of existence on this place we call Earth, it's our fault. It sounds a little presumptuous to me. Things are getting warmer, I won't deny it. And it will continue to do so, but it will get warmer regardless of how long of a commute one person makes. These things happen. I think we should be more concerned on how we plan to deal with the rising temperatures so that we can survive it rather than trying to change something we really don't have any control over. I'm a meteorologist; I wish we had the means to tweak the temperature. I think a nice 65 and partly cloudy skies would be perfect. Sure, additional particles in the air help fog form and warmer temperatures around cities due to higher conductivity of the materials we use and live in. The gasses we produce most likely even increase average temperatures locally in major cities. But in the grand scheme of things, we don't make that big of a difference.
Someone save me from this sanity.
Old news. Try the new flavors:
Climate doesn't swing to the rhythm of the sun
'Earthshine' fall heats global warming debate
Sunspots more active than for 8000 years
"How about the billions of dollars in "global warming" research grant?"
Yes; if we have learned ANYTHING these last few years it's that the current administration is POURING money into scientific research. ESPECIALLY climate-related research. ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY into research facilities and researchers who claim the climate is changing. In fact, being a scientist working with climate change research in the US today is basically equal to being a rock star or a movie star or a Halliburton executive.
Or to quote Homer Simpson:
- "d'oh"
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Yes, and my weatherman predicted rain all week too. Fortunately for me weather predications are so reliable I'm out in my lawn chair reading Slashdot....
It's interesting how no one would bother to predict the temperture to the tenth
of a degree on a day to day basis (78.6 degrees today and 78.9 degrees tomorrow)
but they do it for time spans of years all the time.... And please, don't even
go into the math. If the people making these predictions had half the imagination
they needed to think of the hundreds (thousands) of things that account for
temperature at any given time, they'd have heads 5 feet wide (and be very easy to
spot in a crowd...).
THESE ARE NOT PREDICTIONS, THEY'RE GUESSES BASED ON FUNDING....
If a volcanoe can have such dramatic effect on global tempratures then I suspect the hundreds of millions of cars driven daily will have an effect as well.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
Well, that's where government needs to step in... when something is necessary but the market doesn't support it in the short-term.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I don't think you grasp the concept at all. The results of OUR actions are causing problems. We don't know how bad those problems are, nor to what extent we are contributing. We are responsible for our own actions, so we need to make sure we're not screwing up.
"But we don't just say, 'I don't know but to be safe, lets send the economy back to the stone age.'"
Well, poor use of quotes, since I didn't say that. There are plenty of actions to take to minimize our impact, a lot of which would, get this, stimulate economies.
I am not saying that we should have zero impact, or that the change to more responsible actions can't be gradual.
Remeber though, that there is a cost of causing all this damage, that is not being factored in by proponents of the "don't pull the train off the tracks" crowd.
As a matter of fact, depending on how you want to assign costs, it can be said that the cost of making these adjustments derives from using irresponsible technology in the first place.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
One thing that surprised me was the claim that the contrails left in the wake of the jets may actually be helping to reduce global warming.
Definitely not definitive, but interesting.
Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
And if average temperatures don't rise, that's also not a confirmation of global warming.
And models are just models, and theories are just theories, and data doesn't prove anything.
got it.
A rational person listens to science. I made no mention of changing laws. Changing my life is something I'm perfectly willing to do. It doesn't take anything drastic.
You have no clue what is going on with the temperature of the earth - AND I CAN GUARANTEE THAT MUCH.
I do have a clue: it's rising. Anyone disputing this is simply an idiot. How can you look at the data and say "I'm simply NOT going to believe this?"
No one knows - it is a complex nonlinear system. You ever take upper level math courses? I bet not. The systems that climatologists are so sensitive to round off error that the usual computer arithmetic will be USELESS to compute the answers. This is chaos theory.
Which is precisely the reason we shouldn't be forcing the system any more than we have to. If you actually knew anything about chaos, which I doubt, you'd have heard of something called the Lyapunov exponent, which dictates how quickly the trajectory of a chaotic system diverges given infinitesimal perturbations. A chaotic system is not going to respond to forcing by doing nothing.
You have a simple-minded view of science and I'm personally very worried that opinions such as yours are being accepted by otherwise intelligent people. You're literally going to sit back and do NOTHING. Not so much as drive one mile less each day. That's astonishing.
"Well, that's where government needs to step in... when something is necessary but the market doesn't support it in the short-term."
Well, now that's going to be a problem once you realize the overall solution. The problem is that oil, natural gas and coal are virtually free energy. It gives us 30 times the energy we put in to getting it. Everything that replaces it (short of fusion) gives much less. Alcohol, for example, give 1.53J per J used to obtain. Hydrogen takes energy to get, so its, at best, a storage system, and not a good one. Grain actually gives out like 2J/J, so its better than alcohol. The problem is that to provide every one on earth today with thier energy needs through non-fossil fuels would take more land than the entire Earth has. Much more. At today's consumption levels, without fossil fuels, we can only sustain about 750 Million people. If we cut down to more reasonable levels of consumption, we'd be able to get 1.5 Billion, 2 would be a stretch. Now why's this a problem? We have already used half of our oil and we'll be to levels too low to sustain our economies by no later than 2015, probably earlier. Natural gas and coal aren't far behind, but the process of converting to those fuels would push them past the point before the infrastructure was complete, rendering them worthless. Even if we found a large oil deposit (even one as large as all of the oil we have found to date), we would do little but delay the inevitable.
So what's the overall solution? War (over oil), famine, then death. Of 5 billion people (minimum).
Sorry.
You are assuming that our energy needs are relatively static. I think we can do far better than to halve energy use per capita.
:)). However, if we're smart enough, and we slow down consumption radically, then we can forestall the inevitable for a while... allowing us to continue to make improvements in energy efficiency, and to further reduce consumption.
It's going to be tough going, and of course there will be war and famine (and toss in some death and pestilence, while we're at it
One thing the US can do: Add $5/gallon to the gas tax, phased in over 10 years. Gives people plenty of time to switch to fuel-efficient vehicles, and to rethink their living and work situations. This will have the added benefit of revitalizing our cities.
Another thing we can do: Increase standards for energy efficiency in the home. Tax household consumption over some established threshhold; use the taxes collected to provide tax credits for people who spend money to make their home more efficient. Do the same for businesses.
Damaging to the economy? Sure. But less so than the alternative, IMO. A little short-term pain for long-term gain.
Worldwide, there are many things to be done as well. In developed nations, the same as the US. In the third world, fund energy-efficiency projects. Fund mass transit.
Your post gives a lot of information, but it's kinda nihilistic. The reasons you mention are exactly why government needs to be more proactive.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Well, yes, I suppose there will be only one 2005 on the record. So it will be the warmest!
And before there were all those people, there were zillions of animals, all heaving and sweating and farting (especially herbivores, great sources of gasses.) Now they're gone, we're here. That's just the normal course of the dominant life form shifting from animals to us. Nothing to be afraid of, or have a panic attack about, unless it is from the standpoint of sympathy for the animals, but that is definitely another issue.
Certainly, we need new technologies. And we're getting them. Oil will become more and more expensive (as we are seeing today), and consequently a balance will be inevitably be reached between the cost of other technologies and oil, and at that time, we'll transition.
We're doing fine. We're adapting. We'll adapt some more. That's what we do. You can stop panicking and fretting about the rain forest now. The rain forest isn't the only source of oxygen on the planet, either currently, or in some imaginary future if a blight hits it. We know how to plant things, and we know how to make them grow. We even know how to absorb and deactivate atmospheric carbon dioxide in huge volume. If we need to, we will.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
How is it any different from you swallowing the Bush propaganda about it not being bad?
Humans are bad for the planet, simply because we don't do (hardly) anything that is good for it. This leaves the bad, which we most certainly do every day.
I can't see how it is any more complicated than that.
Fuck global warming, I think hell just got a little colder.
/. is a sign of the apocalypse or somesuch?!?
So you think stupid moderation on
You really must be new here.
Or, hell froze over years ago
O degrees Celsius is 273.15 degrees Kelvin. One degree difference is defined to be the same in both scales. The triple point temperature of water is 273.16 Kelvin. The triple point is a temperature and pressure where liquid water, water ice, and water vapor coexist in equilibrium. It's a more useful point to pin down your temperature scales, since the freezing point of water changes some with pressure, but at the triple point, a single temperature and a single pressure are both determined.
> > So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming?
> How about the billions of dollars in "global warming" research grant?
Yeah, and without those grants they'd be as poor as the oil companies.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> twenty years ago the "prevailing wisdom" among climatologists was that the earth was in danger of another ice age.
Prevailing wisdom? I ask about this every time that claim is made, and the only response I've ever got was a link to a single newsweek article.
Can you cite something that would suggest the claim is actually true? I was alive 20 years ago, and don't remember any such prevailing wisdom.
BTW, there are some scientists now who think we should be heading into an ice age right now - if not for the fact that global warming is overcompensating for it. (I don't know whether that's prevailing opinion, but at least the idea is out there.)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
> I'd say it had something to do with the environmental lobby being fucking enormous and requiring a multitude of human-caused environmental problems to justify its existence.
Yep. For example when GWB was setting his energy policy he invited in a clique of environmental lobbyists to help him, and worked with them behind closed doors to make sure the energy companies didn't butt in and enforce good sense on the proceedings.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I do make it sound quite bleak, don't I? I agree with you that a little bit of proactivity toward the environment and lowering energy use would go long way. Hell, I like the gas tax idea, though I think $10 or $20 would be a better target. I think in the end we would still run into the same problem, just later: we are going to run out of oil. Without oil, we can really only support like 1.5B because we only have so much land space. We need that land for food now, but if we are also using it for fuel, we going to be in trouble. Even with those reductions in energy consumption, we are still talking a whole lot of energy per person. That means a whole lot of land.
Another thing about food: What most people don't realize is that most of our food comes from oil (seriously). Modern farming employs oil-based fertilizers that provide enough energy and nutrients to the plants to allow for a calorie density of the resulting food about ten times what it would be using natural farming techniques. This is the so-called "green revolution." This is also why organic food is so ridiculously expensive. The only reason that its even close to affordable is because profit margins are much lower than those of standard commercial products. This is why we're so screwed when we run out of petroleum. Without it, we would have a hard time FEEDING our current population with the land we have. Now try fueling them.
At some point in an earlier discussion (a few weeks ago) someone brought up the effects of Methane as a greenhouse gas.
I haven't heard much about this (as CO2 gets most of the bad press), but a few articles I googled suggested that a given amount of methane has a vastly greater effect on the environment than the same amount of CO2.
I realize there is probably a lot more C02 out there, but if methane is such a big problem, why aren't we focusing more on capturing it (and maybe even using it for energy)?
Human activity produces a lot of methane (Wikipedia says 60% of global production.. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane).
Why are we only focusing on CO2?
It's not the construction equipment that was targeted for the most stringent levels. It was the consumer level, highly fuel efficient vehicles, like the Volkwagon Jetta TDI. Volkswagon has managed to overcome these issues, but none of the other car companies have found a way to meet these requirements.
You'll notice that the full size trucks featuring diesel engines don't appear to have been impacted at all... Ford and Chevy are selling more diesels than ever, just not in greatly fuel efficient gearings....
You should also notice that they're still making construction equipment with only minor changes.
What you won't see is new 4-passenger cars that get 48Mpg and can do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds. The regulations appear to have been created specifically to remove this segment of vehicles from the market, and it's been largely successful at doing this.
Note: When I first heard of the regulations, it was from diesel people saying that it would mean that the only diesel vehicles that would be legal to sell would in fact be the very vehicles that the laws proponents claimed they were trying to clean up.