Slashdot Mirror
20th Century Warmest In 1200 Years
gcranston writes "Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD. Historical climate data were calculated from weather 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice cores, and seashells from Europe, Asia, and North America, and attempted to address the shortcomings of earlier studies. The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
It's "Global Climate Change",
The findings of this study are hopelessly flawed in that they conflict with the principle that only the scientific positions of the campaign contributors to the ruling party in the United States are in any way valid. Please take your actual science with its actual testing and actual methods of deduction elsewhere, as we've got Italian sports cars, mansions, and private jets to buy.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
and all I can say is "MMMMMMMM, toasty!"
It's the Bush Administration's gift to the world -- lower heating bills and summer vacations all year round!
Not all scientists agree that the 20th century is the warmest period in recent history
Would they still think this in lieu of the following recently uncovered data?
Global Warming vs. Ice Age
Global Warming vs. Global Cooling
Global Warming is true vs. Global Warming is false
If this is the warmest in so many years, then back then it was hotter that what we have now.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
There has been a 19.4% increase in the mean annual concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 1959 to 2004.
During the 1959-2002 period, the total CO2 emissions equaled ~220 gigatons; ~14% of the atmospheric CO2 in 1959.
In 2002, Humanity pumped 7 gigatons (6975 megatons) of CO2 into the atmosphere. That is almost 4 times the emissions from 50 years ago (1952: 1795 megatons), and is more than was released from 1751-1886 (136 years: 6732 megatons).
There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2. The extension of the Vostok [antarctic ice core] CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 thousand years.
Cites:
Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa [ornl.gov]
Global CO2 Emissions [ornl.gov]
Historical carbon dioxide record from the Vostok ice core [ornl.gov]
Earth's atmosphere [wikipedia.org]
We need to warm up before the mid-21st century ice age... http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=2006 0207-041447-2345r
"The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
This is like taking a one gallon sample of the stagnant pond and concluding that the only life on Earth is single celled organisms. The Earth is how old? What is the percentage of time of information available. And, how much of the surface was tested? Less than half.
I have had about all of the junk science I can stand. We need some real sceintist making real conclusions.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Historical climate data were calculated from weather 'proxies' such as tree rings, ice cores, and seashells from Europe, Asia, and North America, and attempted to address the shortcomings of earlier studies.
And we all know how accurate and exact historical measurements are.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
From the article, "The researchers think their work bolsters the case that global warming due to human activity has created a change in climate unlike anything seen in more than a millennium". Notice - they "think their work bolsters the case" for global warming. There is no "proof". It is theory or speculation. Can we please submit accurately?
Let's take a pool on exactly how many posts this story will receive from partisans claiming that because the earth has been this warm in the past (the 800s) through natural causes, the earth either is not unusually warm now, or if it is warm now it must be because of natural causes--
not realizing that (1) the thing that makes manmade global climate change distinguishable from natural global climate fluctuations is not how warm the earth has become, but how quickly and consistently the earth has warmed since the industrial revolution;
and (2) the problem with manmade global climate change is not how warm the earth is now, but how warm it will become if this consistent, quick rise continues...
What's your guess? 10? 40? 100?
Me thinks it must have been around 1200 years ago.
We are finally comiing out of this 1200 year cold spell. I'm looking foward to a milder climate.. California and Lousiana were too big anyhow. I think people in really cold and really dry place deserve some better weather for a change.
"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"-B.Franklin
Cus, you know, in 800 a.d. we were generating a whole lotta greenhouse gasses too.
I'm not gonna say it isn't happening, but it calls to mind a quite from last year's Dr Who:
"You spent soo much time worrying that you never considerd you'd survive."
I'm fully sure a little heat won't kill us off. Make us grumpy? Yeah, change our diet? yup. Dead? nah.
"Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
Help me out here. If it was warmer in 800 AD, what 'human interferance' caused the global warming in the 9th century?
Insert Generic Sig Here:
What were the human industries in 800AD that contributed to global warming then?
"The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
Fact is, we're looking at a ~2000 year snapshot of an incredibly comlex system that's a few billion years old.
I'm not saying that there isn't claimte change -- of course there is. I'm also not saying that man doesn't affect it -- of course we do. But what I'm saying is that we don't know how we are affecting it. Maybe the "Little Ice-Age" ended because of man. Perhaps we saved ourselves from freezing to death by creating a cozy CO2 blanket?
My 2c...
In other news, the Earth celebrated its 4,572,366,124th birthday yesterday. When approached for comment, the Earth joked, "Hey, you think I'm old you should go as the Sun HER age. Just do it from a distance, know what I'm sayin'?"
Our sample is too small.
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
This past centry was warmer than the past 12 centries. If you scale it down, that's like saying "yesterday was the warmest it's been in 12 days!". That's not so bad....
Show me where it's warmer than it's been in, say 12,000 years (or 120 centries), then we may have something...
I wonder what caused the "global warming of 800"?
KeithSupport bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.
First I seriously doubt they can truly measure the "spikes" many centuries ago as accurately as we can now. Just as we could not count the true number of hurricanes and tropical storms a mere 50 years ago. Yeah its warming, but then what explains the "Medieval Warm Period"? I want to know. If they can explain that then perhaps they can see a correlation with today or point out why today is different.
Yet they will only use that older "warm period" as a reference and never explain it. The explanation will be cast aside as "meaningless to the context of the discussion" which is bunk because there is no discussion; its ideaology. For too many the Global Warming issue is taking on aspects of a religion. You either believe or your branded as a heretic, and heaven forbid those doing the branding have someone with money or in the press on their side. Your view will always be out of context if presented as all.
After reading the article I am more curious as to why a warming trend was so pronounced that we can easily identify its range way back when. If we knew the whys of it occuring back then it might give us insight into what is happening today.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Let me welcome you to Trondheim, Norway. In the second half of this January we had abnormally high temperatures, as high as +5C, in a period when -20 is not uncommon. It is actually a few years since the last time I was exposed to -20. It is not uncommon either that brief buffs of heat from the Gulf stream blow some + degrees around here even in January, but I never saw it lasting two weeks in a row-normally it's more like a day or two. This time all the snow in the city melted.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Heartless bastards!
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
Okay, so it's the warmest century in the northern hemisphere since 800A.D.
( I mean, this is an improvement. I mean, people claiming a lack of science and rationality on the opposing viewpoint while looking at only 200 yrs of data seemed a bit moronic IMHO. So now, we've expanded our range of evidence to finally have some shred of evidence which might insinuate that we are warmer than the last 1,000 yrs.
Okay, but what about prior to that? 4,000 yrs, 10,000yrs, 120,000 yrs?
How do we compare?
I mean, any study that looks at lest than 10,000 years seems pretty unscientific and damnably stupid to me. As I recall, many of the ice age cycles are in excess of such a length of time.
Okay, and I am still left wondering about the recent announcement of the polar ice caps melting ON MARS!!!!!! Which would insinuate that the global warming is in fact a solar based occurrence. All that said, i still think we need to clean up our act, reduce pollution, and stop de-forestation. However, crap science should not be the justification for doing so.
Hey, want to know the future?
1) PAST: Scientists predict global ice age
2) PRESENT: Scientists predict global warming
After that fails what will be next? Well here it is...
3) FUTURE: Scientists predict instability of weather, saying temperatures will cycle rapidly from warming to cooling periods over periods of 2-3 to 200-300 yrs. Weather will be unstable alternating between an increase of storms followed by years of tranquility.
Yes you've heard it first. I expect such to become the new motif around 2020-2025. w(o)(o)t you heard it here on Slashdot first!
- The Saj
What's inaccurate in the submission?
From the submission: "The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
As opposed to: "The researchers think their work bolsters the case that global warming due to human activity has created a change in climate unlike anything seen in more than a millennium"."
When I type Define::bolster into google, the first word in the first definition is "Support".
Seems pretty accurate to me, although the use of the word "interference" in the summary is more pejorative than "activity" from the article.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If we have helped offset an Ice Age, human-caused global warming is a GOOD thing. A new ice age would result in the elimination of most of the food-producing climatic regions on this planet. Most of humanity would die off because it couldn't feed itself. In short, we'd be lucky to survive as a species.
I'll gladly take a few more hurricanes and slightly higher sea levels than the virtual extinction of homo sapiens.
"War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -- Ambrose Bierce
And, in a few years, when melting arctic and Greenland ice has disrupted the Atlantic Conveyor, northern europe, including Great Britain and Scandanavia, will be much, much colder.
was it so warm 1200 years ago?
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels.
But what about a global coincidence theory ?
Or, it might be the fault of the sun - we didn't have sun 100 years ago, right ?
Hey, Michael Crichton himself says this global warming thing is not real - I guess you hippie pinko lesbian communist godless gay-marrying terrorists would claim that global warming is real while Jurassic Park isn't ?
And think of all the horrors that would happen if we cut down fuel consumption for nothing: our children would have to breathe this totally clean and transparent air, won't have to go to war for oil, won't have crazy gas prices.
I'm telling you, I'm not going to believe into this "global warming" thing unless you can explain me how it's all Clinton's fault.
Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
What kind of chariots were they driving around in 800AD that warmed things up so much?
Arguing about vi versus Emacs is like arguing whether it's better to make fire by rubbing sticks or banging rocks.
What if our idolatry has finally angered the FSM, and due to our overabundance of salty H2O, He's trying to raise the temperature so that He can make perfect al-dente noodles out of us!!????
We must all try to eat more spaghetty!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Global warming is about as solid as the basis on which greenhouses work. All it relies on is the absorption spectrum of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) and on blackbody radiation. Both are extremely well tested parts of science, up there with gravity and relativity.
The honest debate is about how feedback mechanisms will function and how much sypathetic CO2 emissions will be caused by nature reacting to the warming. Once the CO2 is in the air, there is no doubt that it will heat the planet.
In other news, Christians think (synonym for believe) that there exists a god. They think that the 7 sacrements bolster their case for their being a god. Now that's a much lower threshold of 'proof' than the attacks made at climatologists.
The entire month of January was a joke in Montreal. We usually get about 20+ days at -20 Celsius, not this year. We had torrential rain, about 6 Celsius above average temperatures for this time of the year. Last summer was also the hottest in the century. I could get used to weak winters like this!
Did you take the article to mean that they are trying to measure climate using 9th century tools? Or are you just being obtuse on purpose?
English is easier said than done.
Well, I know that for at least the past 35 years (and perhaps even longer) these temperature cycles you describe occur - and very rapidly.
I've noticed this pattern where a period of global warming occurs over the course of several months, culminating in a period of almost overwhelming heat. This is followed by a rapid and drastic reduction in global temperature to the point where actual ICE falls from the sky!
I assume that this "mini-ice-age" occurs as a direct result of the previous global warming.
After the earth has managed to balance out and recouperate from mankind's abuse, it begins to thaw and warm up - but almost immediately the rapid global warming begins, and the cycle starts all over!
And this happens EVERY SINGLE YEAR!
BRE
"Dude check me out. I'm like a little otter. A SEXY little otter"
People get so excited/concerned when they hear things like 'warmest in 1200 years'. I suppose if your a bible-thumper that seems like a long time, since the earth has only been around for a few thousand years.
For the rest of us, 1200 years is less than a fraction of a percent of the age of our planet. Hence the warmest in 1200 years shouldn't lead anyone to believe it's abnormally warm at all.
Maybe when I hear "The warmest in 500 million years" I'll likely say to myself, "Damn, that's not good."
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Don't be deceived. The advocates of global warming could very well be wrong. See this article which cites a Stanford climatologist who advocated in the mid-70s that the world was cooling:
o oling/
http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-06/rd/global-c
Perhaps the most enlighted part of this short article appears in the last paragraph:
"Science is a self-correcting institution," Schneider says. "The data change, so of course you change your position. Otherwise, you would be dishonest."
Caution: Contents under pressure
"Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD" ... "global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change"
Since it was the same temperature in 800AD doesn't that mean it could be natural? Personally I highly doubt it is a coincidence, but scientifically this statement proves nothing.
One thing is for sure, nothing will change until people are forced to do so, and that involves people dying, having no power for a very long time, etc. This is already going on in isolated places, but I'm talking about on a huge scale in the USA, which is a very long time from now.
No, it's not. Modeling climate change is far more complicated and difficult than a simpleminded approach like that. For one, it's difficult to predict the effects of aerosol and cloud formation, both of which reflect/scatter light and reduce the total incident solar energy. It's also necessary to model the CO2 harvesting charactersitics of oceans, and glacial movement as well.
I'm not saying global warming *doesn't* exist, or that it's anthropogenic, but real climatologists will tell you that saying CO2 + IR absorption = warming doesn't cut it.
All we need to do is counteract the alleged global warming by triggering a few volcanic eruptions. If we can get a few big eruptions to occur, much like the "cataclysmic eruption of Tambora Volcano in Indonesia, the most powerful eruption in recorded history", http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/VolcWeather/des cription_volcanoes_and_weather.html
"Global cooling often has been linked with major volcanic eruptions. The year 1816 often has been referred to as "the year without a summer"."
Since we evidently have the ability to warm the Earth on a global scale, we should certainly be able to use science to trigger a few volcanic eruptions. We could cool the Earth right back down again, and start over
Brilliant! Brilliant!
How, precisely, does this "support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change?" If it was as warm or warmer in 800 A.D, then it would seem that we've previously achieved current conditions without "human interference." Unless, of course, you believe that something man was doing 1200 years ago was somehow "interfering" significantly with the environment.
Bad Movie Physics Review of Day After Tomorrow
And I quote...
Click on the link I posted before the quote... Lots more of interesting tidbits about why this movie would never happen in real life.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
The warming of the globe as a whole will cause some locations to actually cool down, as air and water currents re-route.
This does not change the fact that the globe as a whole is warming.
(And frankly it is irrelevent whether humans are to blame or not. It is warming, which is going to cause climate change. Are we ready for it? If not, we may want to try to stop it (or at least slow it down).
I doubt we are.)
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Cows are far more numerous than they otherwise would be if we didn't domesticate them. As such, we are responsible for their flatulance (at least the domesticated ones, which are like 99.99% of all cows).
We're looking at a ~2000 year snapshot of an incredibly complex system that's a few billion years old and that our immediate livelihood and wellbeing depend on. And we keep pushing it like it has never been pushed before - all the while claiming that because we don't understand the system, it's ok to continue current behavior. How is that smart?
So, they 'proved' that the earth has been this warm before, and now they are claiming that as evidence that its our fault this time? Doesnt seem to add up to me...
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
ROTFLMAO
(and you know what else I've noticed....is that during those cooling cycles all of our pollution clouds the sky or something cause I'd swear that it gets darker much earlier too)
It's just a global coincidence.
Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
Think about it...
All the damn pavement we put down that holds in the heat and radiates it back... all the trees we cut down (not a big deal in and of itself) but we replace them with high rises and cities that hold in heat.
We talk about the temperature rising... well... anyone figure in this "Heat Island" complex? Oh.. by population or by square footage of pavement and concrete?
Unless you start figuring in all the factors... we don't know shit.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
IMHO there is abundant evidence of global warming, and I think that it is important issue that must be addressed. But could we at least stick with rationale arguments?
By itself, the fact the 20th century is the warmest since the 9th century merely means that it places 1st out of a sequence of 11 selective ex post facto.
The chances of a randomly selected century placing first out of eleven is one out of eleven. That is hardly a credible threshold for statistical signifigance.
Ice core samples give a chronological record of atmospheric conditions - in particular CO2 concentrations.
To analyse them, we assume that before man, CO2 concentration changes are mostly an *effect* of natural temperature changes (we can eliminate other natural sources of CO2 by various methods. E.g. we know if volcanos had an effect by sulphur in the sample, etc.) and so would track temperature changes closely. We then use time periods where we both have ice core data and other temperature data to calibrate a scale to convert CO2 concentration readings into temperatures, and viola, a temperature history.
Bit more complicated than that, but that's the essentials.
Day After Tomorrow is a load of crap.
Earth is way overdue for a magnetic field reversal. They have an average interval of 1/4 million years and it has been 3/4 million already since the last one. Some say it is beginning with the loss of a magnetic pole in certain places in the southern hemisphere. It could be the cause of the ozone layer loss because as the field weakens it radius at the poles grows. When the field is strong the field meets at the poles in a tight radius.
Here are some cool sims from Los Alamos National Laboratory.
As we lose protection more radiation gets through and mother earth gets a temperature. I'm not saying that 100 years of intense burning hasn't contributed but this seems to be an ignored fact that may be contributing in a large manner.
I first heard of this from watching a NOVA program. Here is the NOVA site on earths magnetic fields with some animations.
Ok, now where did I put the SPF 10,000?
Gizmos Gagets For Ninjas
It has recently been studied in much detail after being brought to light. The results are sobering, as it says that going forward, clouds and aerosols will increase temperature (aerosols because they'll be fewer of them, and clouds because cirrus clouds keep heat in and contrails seed cirrus clouds).
seriously is this research? Nellyville (a hip-hop singer?) knew about this long back.. didnt you hear the song? "Its getting hot in here.. so take off your clothes.." though the second part wasnt suggested by this research :)
Before taking the word of this article look at the definition of tree rings.
--
Tree rings - Growth rings formed annually in a tree's trunk, which often reflect the conditions in which the tree grew. Thicker rings are indicative of a good growing season with ideal temperatures and sufficient rain. See Dendrochronology.
Dendrochronology - A type of absolute dating. The technique is based on the fact that trees add a ring of growth annually, and counting the rings gives the age of the tree. The rings vary in size depending on the conditions affecting trees in an area, so trees from the same region will have similar patterns of growth and can be matched with one other. When a tree ring pattern is recognized in timber, the age of that timber can be calculated and thus the approximate age of the feature or structure to which it belongs can be determined. This method was first widely used in the American Southwest.
---
So...
Factors beyond warmth like rain fall effect the tree as well to grow better or worse.
Global warming is the issue that makes me wonder just why I want to be President when I'm older.
Imagine yourself to be a policy maker in Washington. You know there is ample evidence to support the idea that a warmer Earth will cause major globe altering changes. A likely scenario is that the Earth will get gradually warmer until either massive stores of methane beneath melting permafrost or massive stores of methane clathrate on the continental shelves will let go. This would result in a large spike of global temperatures, which causes more methane to let go which causes higher temperatures. Evidence from ice cores indicates that these methane-temperature spikes are brief when viewed on the geologic time scale, but from a human point of view a thousand years of bad crop yields and superhurricanes would certainly change things. Such a temperature spike could occur within a year if the tipping point for methane release was reached, and there is some evidence that it is already too late to prevent the required global average temperature rise.
So what do you, the policy maker, do about it? If it is too late to prevent it from happening, all you can do is seek to ease the effects. Easing the effects means altering the world climate so your crops get grown, because a nation that does not feed its people is a nation on its way out. We've already taken our first steps towards (intentionally) affecting such things as atmospheric carbon dioxide, deep ocean currents, and desert formation. One day a "weather influencing machine" will be science, not science fiction.
If we know anything about the global climate, it is that you cannot make one area greener without making another area dryer. Would the US make the US better for crops if it causes famine in Europe? Would Europe make Europe better for crops if it causes famine in South America? Would China make China better for crops if it causes famine in Africa?
Heavy lays the head that wears the crown. In terms of potential abuse to cause loss of life, the technology that results from the quest to lower global temperatures will make nuclear weapons seem like chump change.
Just something to think about for future world decision makers.
I'll point it out then... The word "think". They think their work bolsters the the case for global warming. It does not "show" ie, prove that global warming this century is more. Again, inaccurate submission - the title for the submission is misleading.
Didn't the Russians say just a couple of weeks ago that they're having the coldest winter on record?
recent being the past few thousand years. I love how the article fails to mention the hyperactivity of the sun. Could the active sun be causing any global warming?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Tell George Bush, Michael Crichton and half of americans...
You just got troll'd!
We're coming out of an ice age. Of course it's the warmest its been in centuries. It's returning to normal.
Oops!
I'm going insane here -- everyone is saying "how does this prove anything if it was warmer in 800AD?" THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ARTICLE SAYS! "Warmest in 1200 years" does NOT implicitly mean it was warmer 1200 years ago, people -- read the article, we CAN ONLY TEST BACK 1200 years using ice cores, trees, etc.... it was COLDER 1200 years ago, that's what the article says... and as for the folks who mentioned the Little Ice Age, etc. -- yes, they mention that too (and the Medieval Warm Period from 890 to 1170), but both eras were not CONTINUOUSLY warm or cool, but were PUNCTUATED by hot and cold SPELLS... The concern of global warming is that the CONTINUOUS temperature is changing. I will concede that without data before 800AD, the study is looking at a pretty small sample of time, and that there are so many factors in such a hugely complex weather system to take into consideration, so I have no problem at all with those arguments, just with the fact that the majority of people here seem to be good at quickly sorting through text looking for keywords (such as "since 800AD") without actually COMPREHENDING what they are reading.... /rant.
Scientists are blaming greenhouse gases for "global warming" however, there one's point we're leaving out: More evidence of global warming on Mars from the January 2006 issue of Astronomy: Mesas of dry ice at the martian south pole have been retreated by about 10 feet (3m) per Mars year since Mars Global Surveyor arrived in 1999. These images compare the same region in 1999 and 2005. Mars seems to be in a warm spell. Dry ice turns to gas on the mesas's sides, but no new ice is being deposited. Over time, the polar pits will merge into plains, mesas will shrink into buttes, and buttes will vanish forever. No SUVs on Mars, however, we both get our warmth from the sun... The sun is in a cycle which its increasing its output, hence "global warming." CO2 is a problem but not of the scale the fear mongers whould have you believe.
No it doesn't. Every hear of the thing that is 93,000,000 miles away called the Sun? It's causing global warming of Mars as well.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
For the 10,000 responses that say well if it was hotter at 800AD then we must be okay. umm, the article says "we could measue back about 1200 years ago, they arent claiming it was hotter at 800AD just that they couldn't measure it.
And the rest of you... Most of you said in earlier articles 150 years of data wasnt enough, sooo here is 1200 years, apparently that's not enough. Let's go with the theory that the coooler temperatures of the last 1200 years (even the ice age)have been good for the spread of humanity. Since we dont know if hotter temps will be, it makes sense for us to want them cooler.
A litle bit of logic isn't that painful, is it?
"7th century A.D. found to be warmer than 20th."
Reads a bit differently, doesn't it?
How many cars were belching so-called greenhouse gases across North America in 800 A.D.? Were the theories of man-caused global warming correct, then shouldn't the 20th century be BY FAR the warmest century ever, thanks to car emissions and CFC's?
Perhaps, before they were thinned out, the environment was being catastrophically altered by all the buffalo flatulence.
I would just be happy with cleaner air (it sucks in ATL in the Summer) and less dependence on fosil fuels for economic and security sakes.
That's an important point. Calling the phenomenon Global Warming is perhaps misleading. Some places will get warmer, others colder. Some will be wetter, some dryer. Dumping more energy into a chaotic system like the climate means more extreme climates, not necessarily warmer ones.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I thought yesterday Slashdot told me there was no such thing as time. So 1200 years ago is actually now. I'm so confused.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Often when the subject of man-made global warming inevitably dooming civilization comes up, a good rebuttal are the references in Michael Crichton's State of Fear . It's a much more complicated affair than many believe.
Defining a century as the period from year XX00 - XX99 is incorrect. A century is merely 100 years.
I'd like to see a study that compared every century with measurable data, from 864-963 to 1817-1916. All of those are centuries, too, and probably would provide a more meaningful look at the effects of global warming over the past 800 years.
Click on the link I posted before the quote... Lots more of interesting tidbits about why this movie would never happen in real life.
Man you guys get a 'Poor' in the Recognizing [Bad] humor arena..
Must people at least attempting to be funny insert the [Attempt at humor] tag in their posts? Damn.
And they said zombies weren't real!
The issue is that we are dumping enough CO2 into the air to significantly affect our atmosphere. As I understand it, whether this will result in, say, a net increase or decrease in temperature is still not completely clear (which is of course a ridiculous oversimplification of all the bad things that could happen)m nor is whether the change in our atmosphere is a significant cause of the current rises in temperature. It is this uncertainty that, eg, the Bush administration loves to latch on to. There is, however, consensus that we are significantly affecting our atmosphere. We just need to come up with a buzz word for that as cool (hot?) as "Global Warming."
so that is like what 8.33(4)% chance?
before the most recent 1200? Isn't that a small drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things?
Why do ya think Adam ands Eve was neked 6000 years ago when God created the Earth.
It was hot then too!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Why are people modding up idiotic statements like this?
Why this supports GW:
We have a record of 1200 years of roughly the same conditions as currently, except for the action of humans. Other than the actions of humans, we see no significant change in the last 100 years. However, the weather is behaving anomalously in a way that from *all* of our data, is totally unexpected. Unless we factor in human action, in which case it is totally expected.
The Earth may be old, but it doesn't act by magic. To reject anthropogenic GW after this data would be to declare that there is this huge coincidence whereby this last century gets picked out of 12 others, and *just happens* to be the century where we've been massively industrialising. It's to suggest that there exists this mysterious 'other cause' which has the deeply unusual properties of a reasonably long period time, and an extraordinarily fast onset, and which apparently leaves zero evidence in either historical records or even as it is actually happening. You might as well blame it on fairies.
Here is some commentary on this article from the Junk Science people:
http://www.junkscience.com/feb06/NotCO2.htm
I find their opposing views are sometimes interesting.
What the fuck is right... I stand corrected, I don't like it, it's BS.
There's a study that you missed your chance to get in on.
Oh well, global warming's all about truthiness anyway, right?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
They couldn't track it back any further, so they make no claim as to whether it was warmer or colder before 1200 years. Poor reading comprehension and ideological motivations are an algorithm for calamity.
After all, I am strangely colored.
When we can get a reliable weekly weather forcast I'll start putting more faith in their predictions and understanding of a few billion years of changes.
" There is no way they could know what the weather was like 1200 years ago."
No? Do you think a forcast such as this wouldn't be accurate 1200 years ago?
A winter storm is evolving over the South, sparking heavy rain and thunderstorms with snow increasing across parts of many mountain ranges. The storm will target the East this weekend.
The weekend is not shaping up for the Viking chieftain, Rurik, to led raids on Northern Russia as the storm continues its Eastern advance. And Alfred the Great major victory over the Danes is in for a soggy battle. Don't forget to bring your umbrella and hand warmers.
We kill the trees! Dr. Osborn said that in such places, the amount of growth is limited by how warm the summer is. If it is warmer, the tree growth is greater and the tree ring is wider. Colder years have the opposite effect. Each year provides only one tree ring. "So counting back the rings can give the precise date to when each ring actually grew," he said.
Does anyone else detect a whiff of irony, given the purpose of the study?
Viking farts?
-gary
This is clearly God's warmth and sunshine raining down on us. He likes us, he like what we're doing with the world, and he wants to give us something back. It's a litle glimpse of heaven. Soon everywhere will be 72 and sunny, like San Diego.
Is it possible that the climate is just snapping back from a thousand-year cold spell? Hasn't it been suggested that the dark ages were in part caused by a drastic drop in temperature, possibly due to abnormal volcanic activity?
I doubt anyone is denying the reality of global warming/global climate change these days, but stuff like this certainly gives me reason to wonder if it's mere vanity that makes us so certain that we are responsible for the events we are observing.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
The last ice age started melting roughly 10,000 years ago. The climate has been on a warming trend since that time. The average temperature for the earth over the historical period since complex life developed is much warmer than it is now. Logically, our current mean temperatures are abnormally cold compared to the mean temperatures over the last 35 million years.
The high probability is that "global warming" is simply the globe resetting from the "global cooling" of the last 100,000 years. That may not be good for us, since we evolved to live in a cooler climate, but its normal for the planet.
At the end of the day, the argument is not how to prevent global warming since that cannot be done. The argument is how to adapt to the new conditions.
That's EXACTLY whay happened here in Canada. Normally -20, -30 and -40C is the norm for February here (-44 last year at which C and F are the same).
This year it rained for the firrt week of February nearly every day. And December was unually warm.
Normally there is a foot of snow everywhere. Last week on a trip around the area I noticed an abundance of green lawns with small patches of old snow.
It's cold again now, but this was very very unusual.
Need Mercedes parts ?
If the data they considered stops 1200 years ago then it can be correct that this was the warmest century in those 1200 years *and* it was colder before that. Similarly, if this was the hottest January on record that doesn't mean the hottest January ever.
Sigh. No, they just don't have ebough data of that type (dated tree rings) from before 800 AD to extend their results back that far. That doesn't mean that the eighth century was warm.
Most likely the world was about as warm as today about 6000 years ago, and not since then. Most likely the year 2100 will be *much* warmer than that. This is just another piece of evidence among many to that effect.
mt
You are assuming, of course, that the scientists haven't cook, fudged or trimmed the data. Or, that these studies were only funded because the anticipated outcome was promised. NIH and NSF have created in the last 30 years a track of funding only those research projects which seek to prove the accepted theories.
NOVA broadcast a show a few years ago called "Do Scientists Cheat?" and their research showed at least 48% of all published scientific research was 'adjusted' to arrive at the conclusions that were published. Some of that research involved the use of drugs to treat heart disease. In one case the scientst totally fabricated results which gave a test heart drug high marks for effectiveness. That 48% is despite the supposed existance of methods of verification, like peer review and replication. Unitl the arrival of the internet peer review wasn't possible unless a journal editor accepted your work. Replication isn't always possible because of the expense and man power requirements. Try to fund a replication of CERN's atom smashing experiements.
In fact, regarding global warming, there is a debate over the article that was published just before the Kyoto Accords meeting in Japan which purportedly showed a "hocky stick" graph effect. Later, researchers were able to get their hands on the data and discovered the cooking, trimming and extrapolation which was applied. When those manipualtions were removed the "hocky stick" disappeared. Lying by graphs is a common technique for deception. You can imagine how much grief that researcher accumulated for slaying the sacred cow of the global warming advocates.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
> And again, unless we can figure out how to throw as much pollution into the air EVERY DAY as Krakatoa did, then we
,and (2) how sensitive is the environment the extra pollutant that is not absorbed. So as a matter of logic, your argument is false, and you also present no scientific data to back it up.
> don't have much of a chance of creating global warming.
The earth also naturally absorbs the chemicals that you are talking about. Assuming that the earth's balance of these things remains roughly the same, at least on time scales that we care about, then the question is rather (1) how much of this extra pollution can the earth absorb
Not necessarily:
Assume we are looking at n time intervals numbered 1, 2, ..., n. If the maximum observed temperature was in interval n, we can assert that this interval was the warmest of the last n intervals.
Now consider interval 0. If this interval is warmer than n, the strongest assertion we can make is that the recent interval is the warmest of the last n. If the recent interval is warmer than 0, we could make a stronger assertion. However, the validity of 'warmest of the last n remains.
In effect, you are assuming that the researchers made the strongest possible assertion. Another alternative is that they were only able to measure a certain number of intervals.
Just a question for those who say " there isn't enough proof we are causing this!"
there are pretty good indications we MIGHT be causing this.
is it really such a bad thing to err on the side of caution with something like...the climate of the planet we're living on?
if I'm wrong....we reduce our emissions and have cleaner air.
if you're wrong the world (as far as humans are concerned) ends.
personally I'd rather be wrong and have the consequences be we cleaned up when we didn't have to.
Who cares about the ice caps anyways?
They're all just a bunch of Penguin Orgies!!!
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
If humanity is responsible for this "unprecedented" climate change, how does one explain the (warm) climate in 800 AD? The very problem statement refutes the conclusion of the article.
Syncerus
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
Forget greenhouse gasses and the burning of fossil fuels...
There is a statistical correlation between global warming and the increased heat produced by hotter processors. You think it is a coincidence that the first big El Nino driven storms started happening after the release of the Pentium? Think again...
-Chris
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change.
That's not necessarily true.
Apparently, the world was just as warm 1200 years ago as it is today, without all the civilization-induced greenhouse gases being in the atmosphere. This is evidence that something *else* is a contributing factor to climate change. What caused it to be so warm then? What caused the subsequent drop off from that relative high? How is our current environment similar and different from 800AD?
Software Wars
The left thinks global warming is caused by humans.
The right thinks global warming is not caused by humans.
Who's right? It actually doesn't matter a whole lot. What we know is that over the last 100 years the temperature has risen about 1 degree celcius. If, in the next 100 years, the temperature rises another degree, we're probably going to be just fine. In 100 years we will have so many other options that don't cause global warming and besides we will run out of Oil well before 2100 if we keep using it at the current pace. Within 100 years, the ITER project will enable us to use Nuclear Fussion which will allow us to use sea water to power the entire world for millions of years. Within 100 years, we will likely have some breakthroughs in Nanotechnology that either allow us to use electric cars (and drive for hundreds of miles without refueling) or use fuel cells. Within the next 100 years, we will probably have break throughs in Solar that allow super cheap self supplied solar power to power houses and power our cars that are now electric. Maybe I'm an optomist, but I just see a cheap clean green future for energy by the time _our_ effects on the environment will matter. If it turns out that global warming is not caused by us, we still need to fix it. How do we do that? Well, there are proposals to pump SO2 into the atmosphere to reverse the global warming effect. When we have mature nanotechnology, this capability will be easily acheived.
No Sigs!
We have no influence over the planet? Are you kidding?
.... And so on...
Stuff we've done:
1. Created hole in ozone layer.
2. Drained the netherlands.
3. Generated the great dust cloud covering china.
4. Increased global radiation levels by a bit due to one accident.
5. Created urban micro-weather phenomena.
6. Caused the extinction of thousands of species.
7. Facilitated the introduction of several species to new habitats, dramatically destablising the native biosphere.
8. Shrunk the world's rainforests by over 50% since 1950.
9. Increased gobal carbon dioxide levels by at least 27%.
10. Cultivated 11% of Earth's total land surface.
And you are telling me that these don't matter?
Research done by this scientist proves that all is well.
http://www.oddbooks.com/oddbooks/westfield.html
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It takes a Global Village to Raise a Global Warmings.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Damn those cirrus clouds. Damn them to pieces. They'll be mans undoing...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
ConsultingFair.com
Nah. While, it is an interesting hypothesis, it predicts that global temperature anamolies will be closely correlated with magnetic anomalies. But looking at the data, we don't have that. Ergo, this isn't the cause we are looking for.
Clouds can also have a blanketing effect as well as a reflective effect. Also, H2O is a greenhouse gas, adding still more complexity to the problem. Add in the natural variability of solar influx, changes in the reflectivity of the surface due to deforestation, changing ice cover, urbanization, etc and it becomes even more complex. Frankly, I'd rather model supernova explosions, they're a lot simpler.
I read MT in the German report as Metric tons, not mega-ton. what's a few orders of magnatude difference among friends. Makes perspective change dramaticaly doesn't it. 307K% difference between US output & the lake.
--- going to look up the oxygen candles they use on the space station now.....
So here we are again, another long rant from two sides of an argument where those arguing are not in possesion of most of the facts.
It always amazes me that these two sides will get into bitter feuds over this subject and no one seems to want to put it in any context. For me what it comes down to is this: we can spend a lot of money, time, and research trying to find out if we are a contributing factor to global warming, only to discover it may be too late, or we can spend even more money, time, and research trying to change the way we interact with the atmosphere. And in the end if those who claim that global warming is impacted by humans are right and we listened to them then we are on our way to fixing it and have a cleaner environment for the future. If they are wrong and we listened to them we still have a cleaner environment and we might just find that all those chemicals we were pumping into the atmosphere had other effects which would then be limited. If, on the other hand we don't listen to them and they are right then we have to learn to live in a new world climate and deal with the vast ammounts of crap we have been pumping into the atmosphere for centuries.
What it comes down to, for me, is this: do we want to risk the global climate on this? Is it worth the piece of mind to know that what happens is out of our control instead of our fault?
The strength of the magnetic field doesn't change the amount of radiation that Earth receives. Magnetic fields can only deflect particles, not radiation.
A lack of a magnetic field would allow more particles in, that will probably result in higher condensation points for the formation of clouds and such. How much of an increase would be, if 1% or 2000%, I don't know.
I'd like to point out that magnetic field reversals and ozone depletion have little or no effect on global warming. That's a completely different problem that people often confuse.
To all who are taking issue with the term "global warming"... do you live in the northern hemisphere? If yes, who buys your groceries because clearly you havent been outside in several years!!0 I live in Virginia, it is February, and yesterday I was sweating outside in a tshirt. I dont see how anyone can deny Global warming... its fucking hot outside! Have we already forgotten what winter used to feel like?
"And there most of your data is based on stupid antartica which will be the last thing which will notice global warming"
Everyone knows that Antarctica is at the bottom of the world and that since Hot air rises it is obvious that Global Warming would affect the rest of the world first.
No matter where you go, there you are.
If you RTFA, you'll see that they never say the earth was this warm 1200 years ago, it's just that that's the farthest back they were able to check. They never found a time warmer than it is now.
Yes, but that record shows that the temperature increases often preceded the rise in CO2. Correlation is not causation.
> The findings support the argument for global warming as a
> result of human interference rather than natural climate change.
If they had any intellectual honesty at all they would
have seen the findings support the fact that the Earth
was as warm 1200 years ago as it is today, which there-
fore indicates the planet can reach such temperatures
without any human help at all. In other and simpler
words: they've proven the Earth has its own cycles that
are apart from human activity.
I mean, with all the various flames caused by standard Slashdot topics---OS Fanboydom, Browser/Editor Wars, Duplicate Postings---and the slashdot effect melting servers, I think we all need to look at ourselves and feel just a bit ashamed for our contribution to global warming.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
Quick fact that average volcano spews more polution in an eruption than LA does in a year.
I'd love to know where you got the statistics for the amount of CO2 that LA (a single city) produces in a year. It sounds like a conjured statistic. Even if you're right, that's tiny compared to the total output of the US or the World.
Volcanoes do have an effect on global temperatures. However, volcanoes cause global cooling instead due to aerosols that may have been responsible for the difference in surface and atmosphere temperatures for the past 20 years. Actually, it turns out that the effect could've lasted even longer from the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 which caused "the year with no summer." Furthermore, the amount of CO2 released each year by volcanoes is miniscule according to this article by the USGS:
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Nuclear winter will cancel the global warming out.
On a more serious note, there are people that think global warming is good. Receding ice caps leave minerals in the ocean that encourage sea life and will help feed the world's population. Receding glaciers will open up valuable, fertile ground that hasn't been farmed for nearly a thousand years. And the increase in temperature will raise the humidity world wide, perhaps turning the Sahara desert into the rain forest it used to be, and expanding the world's rainforests to new latitudes.
I could also see a future when there is no freezing winter, it's jus a year-round summer like on the tropical islands. Maybe then we won't be losing so many homeless to the random snowstorms of today.
I often wonder what the world would be like if every year the north and south poles melted. Would the entire world turn into a humid tropical paradise?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
You really have to be careful with studies like this because the biggest change in the 20th century was not an increase in greenhouse gases, it was an increase in urban / suburban land use. If they don't adjust properly for land use, the study will be way off.
That is, it's hotter in new york because buildings and roads and subways radiate heat. The WEATHER itself is not necessarily hotter.
I have yet to hear a coherent argument that explains why "global warming" is bad. In almost every indicator a warmer climate will improve things. I hear arguments like "coral reefs are dying due to warmer waters." But this just means that new ones will form in cooler waters closer to the poles. Coral reefs off of Maryland anyone? Coral reefs are not static, they are created from living creatures and as some die off, new ones are created.
The question is, was NOVA's research among the 48%?
;)
Let's take a worst case scenario. Gradually, over hundreds of years, the entire earth warms a few degrees centigrade. Or let's suppose all of Europe goes under ice while the rest of the world (Canada perhaps?) warms up.
Why, over that time span, we could move entire civilizations for less than the cost in reducing CO2 emissions. We could transplace the entie English people into some man-made island that's an exact replica of England for less than the cost of reducing CO2 for hundreds of years in accordance with the Kyoto protocol.
People forget how expensive it is to "save the environment" when you look at the big picture. It's better to take a cut of the profits of that and rebuild whatever we destroy.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Everyone stop fighting over whether humans have caused the current climate change. Those saying "NO" aren't going to change their minds, even as incremental new evidence adds to the substantial body already accepted by climatologists - or maybe they're right. It's not worth arguing about, because it's an abstract blame game.
What is worth arguing about is how to slow, stop or reverse the change obviously now underway. The same science used to fight the blame game is much better used to learn how reducing emissions and sinking carbon can mitigate the serious risk of climate change destroying our civilization. Past civilizations, like the Anasazi in the American Southwest and whatever you want to call the civilization that desertified the Sahara across to the Gobi in China, might not have had our advantage of science and engineering. So their change happened slower, but was more inevitable. Let's harness our climate science to create new climate engineering to cope with this climate change, whether it's manmade or as natural as the arrival of Winter.
--
make install -not war
http://spikedhumor.com/articles/13180/Bush_Global_ Warming.html
Vericon is coming!
Awgh! Quick, let's tell those scientists that they forgot about heat islands. Like, they surely didn't take them into account! And, while we are at it, also explain them that there's a big yellow ball in the sky that heats the climate a lot, but it's up only 12 hours a day so not everything is lost yet.
That's not true at all. Let's look at some example data, shall we?
YEAR | AVERAGE TEMPERATURE IN BRITAIN (deg. C)
0706 | 14
0806 | 14
0906 | 15
1006 | 14
1106 | 14
1206 | 15
1306 | 13
1406 | 15
1506 | 14
1606 | 13
1706 | 14
1806 | 17
1906 | 19
2006 | 21
Notice that even though 2006 is the hottest year of the past 1200, it in no way implies that any of the previous years were hotter, even going back over 1200 years. As shown in the data above, the earlier years could be far colder.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
You would think we were comming out of an ice age or something.
--fatboy
So is global warming a bad thing or a good thing? People are always complaining about cold weather and heating bills.
So long as we are tapering off and eventually switch to cycling CO2 from the air instead of digging up - an inevitability since we're running out of cheap preformed hydrocarbons to burn - what's the problem?
We lose some coastlines to the water level increase making the atmosphere more wet because of the surface area increase. We are forced to get better at farming since the food supplies get less diverse. But we don't live in forests any more and if we don't blow eachother up, we're probably going to survive the regional climate changes.
After all, we aren't rooted to the ground.
You are checking your backups, aren't you?
So could you please refute his argument with, oh, I don't know, data?
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
Soooo... if it was hotter in 800 CE, then the real question is how was mankind screwing up the global climate then?
(And when you're done hemming, hawing, or speculting, you might want to just admit that the Sun has more to do with global warming than a thousandth of 1% increase in atmospheric CO2.)
I'm not too concerned about the earth. You are right; we'd have to try damned hard to eliminate life on earth.
I *am* kinda concerned about the human species, especially the sample of the species known as "me." To think that other people are causing global warming for their own profit while greatly affecting my future is disturbing.
So, all o' you people dumping emissions and whatnot into the air, and driving your damned vehicles back and forth, and all that, stop ! I want my clean air and decently-regulated temperatures back.
Maybe that'll clear up this traffic problem, too. Then I can get to work in a decent amount of time.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
There must be something we can do about the shitty moderation taking place around here. Over the last few weeks I've seen more instances of downright BAD moderation than in the past several years.
This post is actually quite good. The writer could have gone into more depth but he certainly is correct in his assesment that we are currently in an inter-glacial phase. However if we are going to go back into a glacial period then a better guesstimate might be that it is more than 5,000 years away.
The simple fact is that we have gone through at least 20 ice cycles in the last 2 million years and that the earth has been cold for about the last 20-30 million years. Prior to this recent cooling - earth was warm continuously throughout the Triassic, Jurasic and Cretaceous which is a period of over 200 million years. By warmer I mean an average global temperature of about 20 degrees warmer.
It should be noted that the poles were not ice covered until the present cooling which seemed to get going during the miocene.
At some point the planet in all likelihood will warm up. The reason is that for over 85% of the history of the planet since the end of the Precambrian - the planet was warm (say about 570 million years). There have only been a couple of times in the geological past when it has been as cool as now - so it does make sense that at some time the planet will probably revert back to normal.
Furthermore, if one compares the Ordovician ice age to the present, one finds that CO2 levels were about 13x to 17x higher than now and still the planet cooled into an ice age - then warmed back up. So it would appear that CO2 levels back then were not the deciding factor. If CO2 was not the deciding factor back then - then one would be wise to question if it has any significance today. In fact the Ordovician cooling is correlated with the Taconic orogeny just as the present cooling is correlated with the mountain building which has occured since the end of the Cretaceous. This includes the Rockies, Pyrannenes, Andies, Himalain, two hellenic mountain ranges, the tibetian and colorado plateaus... Ie - a large amount of land pushed to high elevation. It is perfectly obvious that mountain tops reflect energy back into space just as it is perfectly obvious that moist air at sea level tends to hold solar energy.
This is ESPECIALLY so when one checks the absolute humidity (H2O) which we KNOW is responsible for the earth being about 30 degrees warmer than it would be were the water vapour not in the atmosphere. Compared the the 50,000 to 80,000 PPM of H2O in the atmosphere at sea level in the tropics, the change of 70 PPM in CO2 over the last few hundred years is totally negligable. One cannot even add the CO2 measurements to the water vapour measurements because the uncertanty of the water vapour measurments masks the total CO2 by several times.
What is truely amasing is that H2O is not even counted as a green house gas by many of the folks who are most conserned about global warming. Yet we literally would be freezing our butts off were it not for H2O in the atmosphere.
The oceans have a moderating effect on a thousand year time scale. Since it was warmer during the medieval warm period by this guestimate it makes sense that earth would warm up now.
People who really want to know what is going on mind you should study paleoclimatology. The geological record of climate does shed light on how the earth functions.
Another thing that is truely amasing is how little perspective most climate change people have of the scale of geological time. If we were to map say the Encyclopeadia Britannic to the time since the beginning of the Cambrian - then each book in the set would represent something like 30 million years and each page would represent about 3,000 years. On this scale the climate warming people are looking at day usually contained on the last page and normally within the last couple paragraphs of the lsat page of the last book. Meanwhile they ignore
Another neocon half-wit ignores scientific facts in favour of seeing only what he wants to.
"The researchers think their work bolsters the case that global warming due to human activity has created a change in climate unlike anything seen in more than a millennium." A snide comment about the sun really doesn't refute this.
They're saying that it was every bit as warm in 800 A.D. then? That kinda discounts their theory that modern man is causing global warming then doesn't it?.
No they didn't and no it doesn't.
1) Nothing was said about the temperature in 800 AD.
2) Nothing was said about the rate of change in temperature in 800 AD.
We didn't have the modern industrial society that is thought to be the primary cause of global warming today. They're just using the tree ring study by Esper, Cook, and Schweingruber as the end point for as far back as we can go. Check out this graph and its explanation on the Wikipedia for more data points.
Basically, the Medieval Warm Period was still an average of 0.4 C cooler than modern times. It took about 800 years for temperatures to drop 0.4 C to the minimum before the Industrial Revolution and only 200 years since then to rise 0.8 C, an 8X difference in rate of change. Global climate does change on its own naturally, but the change since the dawn of the Industrial Age is still the fastest we've ever seen, and we have solid science that shows how it happens in the form of the greenhouse effect. What more will it take for you people to quit filtering the world for the few tenuous scraps of information that back up your preconceived notions?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Hey, you're free to disagree with 95% of climate scientists if you like; nobody here is going to stop you. You're clearly a lot more educated and more familiar with the scientific literature on the subject than they are.
"/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit is a gimp plugin and must be run by the gimp in order to be used."
Try again, neocon hack.
Even if the human race and all trace of our existence were to be wiped off the face of the planet, Do you really think things will return to normal now? And if you can answer that question, maybe you can explain just exactly what normal is anyway.
/. Anyway cause it's Friday and we're obviously all bored and ready to go home and fire up the "Green" computer and play WoW....
I think most people get so caught up in the argument that they don't realize how stupid they sound. You do realize that even if everyone in the world got a soft heart and green conscious, we'd still be burning fuels, we'd still be pumping out WV and Co2, We'd still need fires or some type of heat to keep us warm, still need livestock or something to eat, and still need some way to get around.
Even tree-hugging green freaks won't give up their modes of transportation or winter heat, or processed / clean foods. If they did, they'd be living the hermit life in the back woods competing with the wildlife for food. Which would be a fantastic TV show, but I digress.
What really makes me laugh are the people who are fully clothed with picket signs walking around telling industry to stop killing the world. As if the clothes on their back were completely made industry free. As if their food were industry free. Tofu is processed... Common folks... Hybrid cars contain plastics, yes they are derived from petroleum products. Most "Necessary" chemicals and vaccinations are either based on petroleum, or produced in "Industry" that uses petroleum.
Paper signs are produced in factories, guess what, they use petro to power the factory.
The world cannot be saved by us. You can preach, picket, and protest all you want, but some moron somewhere is going to burn something, releasing heat, Co2 and WV into the atmosphere and 'WHAM' we're back to square one. But we might as well argue the what if on
Right?
-Duff
From the article, the samples they took were from remote areas, forests and icefields distant from cities.
The direct measurements are taken much closer to people so people can take the measurements.
Cities do produce a lot of heat, all the fuels being burned release a huge amount of heat, this is local warming though, not global.
So the study has shown that cities in the 20th century were warmer than remote wilderness has been for the past 800 years....that shows nothing.
"satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years."
e _measurements
/ 2002439279_warm13.html
Not really - that slight cooling you refer to has been shown to be due to satellite drift.
Due to that drift, satellites cahnged their measurement point from a location where it was around 12 o'clock in the solar day to a point where it was 12 o'clock - thus on average a cooler time in the day.
"Records have been created by merging data from nine different MSUs, each with peculiarities (e.g., time drift of the spacecraft relative to the local solar time) that must be calculated and removed because they can have substantial impacts on the resulting trend [11] [12]." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperatur
"Measuring long-term temperature trends from satellite data is tricky because satellites over time drift a bit in their orbit. This means that the time of day when a particular satellite is measuring temperature in a specific location can change by several hours over the course of a few years." from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld
This hits the closest to the question we really should be asking ourselves. Most scientists and politicians are stuck trying to prove or disprove whether global warming/climate change is actually happening and/or whether and to what degree human activity is responsible for it. From a public policy standpoint, these questions have no bearing. The public policy question we should be grappling with is this:
Should we expend our resources on attempting to mitigate/prevent climate change or should we expend our resources on adapting to climate change, whether that change is man-made or not?
The well-known example of the former approach is the Kyoto protocol. I'll take my own country of Canada as an example of where I stand on this. Canada, led by a legacy-seeking bumbler of a Prime Minister, signed on to the Kyoto protocol a few years ago, committing itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by -- what is it, 2010? Anyway, Canadian emissions have increased by 24% since 1990. As of the 2003 figures (Link), we would have to reduce our emissions by about 180 megatonnes. That's equivalent to the total emissions produced by every plane, train, and automobile in the entire country. Park them all for good, and our target is met.
It should be bloody obvious that such an approach is hardly a wise use of resources. The economic damage from doing this could be nothing short of catastrophic, and may not stop the climate change anyway. Better in my view to continue to grow our economies, generate more wealth, and direct resources into adapting to changing climates as needed. Humans are a remarkably adaptable species, after all; it's the reason we're on top of the food chain.
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that global climate change is occurring. However, do we really need to do anything about it? The earth is somewhat self-regulating, and a rise in temperature (and CO2 and whatever else) will eventually be counteracted without human intervention. In all likelihood, anything we did choose to do would disrupt the natural atmospheric regulation mechanisms because we do not completely understand global climate processes and their inter-relations.
...just as I'm looking out of my window and watching massive amounts of snow fall, in the southern part of the northern hemisphere (below mason-dixon line.) Warmest we've had in years my butt. Last year was FAR warmer around Christmas time.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
From TFA Reliable records from trees and other sources go back only about 1,200 years. So no, they're NOT saying that it was as warm in 800 AD. They are saying that this is the warmest year since 800 AD and that they don't have have any reliable records before that! This is a big difference.
Mr. Moderators, slumberer (859696) makes a valid point.
Just a quick little estimate:
Earth's estimated population - 6,591,818,552.
1) Let's say 1/3 of the population is old enough to drive - 2,197,272,850.
2) Then, lets say 1/3 of those people own cars - 732,424,283. (NADA estimates are around 200 million vehicles in the US alone as of 1999)
3) Lets say that every one of those people use their car to drive 10 km per day (total baseless assumption).
4) The honda civic (arbitrary conservative choice) puts out 212g/km of co2. To do that, it uses intake air. co2 is formed from oxygen in the intake air during cumbustion and exhausted out the pipe. The o in co2 is that oxygen, so the engine is converting oxygen to co2.
That's 732,424,283 cars x (10km x 212g/km) = 1,552,739,479,960 grams of co2 produced everyday by our very conservative estimate
Shouldn't take us too long to produce a nice planet for some beings who breathe co2 and love it very hot. Might even look like Mars eventually.
oh - since I wrote this the population estimate is now 6,603,323,454.
Wasn't there another study fairly recently that determined that the Earth is warmer than it has been in the last 200,000 years? It used Antarctic core samples to measure CO2 or something like that. If I'm remembering correctly, that means this study counts more as a bit of additional evidence rather than a significant conclusion.
Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
Hey, making inflamatory statements without having any idea what we're talking about is all some of us have!!
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
...It's cold in Minnesota.
From what I've seen on the TV weather it seems the the jet-streams are move more North-South than usual. That means that winter temps can be either much higher than normal or much colder for a particular region. Perviously the jet-streams track more North-West to SouthEast sifted by the corealis effect. The shift in jet-stream paterns has caused me to believe that the equator region is warmer than normal and the difference amplifies the flow of cold air from the poles to the equator and warm air to the poles. Of course I'm not a meterologist or a climatologist so my interperation could easily be whacko.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
95% of climate scientists could be right and at the same time be missing an important fact that makes their understanding only a small part of the story.
There was an interesting article in Scientific American in March 2005 that definitely attributed the heat rise over the last 8,000 years to human activity -- but the article was pretty clear that 10,000 years ago global climate was supposed to have begun plunging towards an ice age, but the plunge got shortcircuited by us. According to the article, temperatures right now would have been much colder, in fact with perennial icecaps beginning to form in parts of Canada normally free of year-round ice and similar elevations throughout the world, except for this human activity.
But if the article I mentioned is correct, and the piddling human activity 8,000 years ago was already messing with the climate, then there is no way whatsoever, even if we were to strictly implement Kyoto across the board, that we're going to stop the warming process. All Kyoto could do is blow the world's economy to hell and still not avoid global warming. No thanks.
"The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance."
20th century hottest of last 12... Who considers 12 a significant sample set?!? To quote a tired phrase "Move along, nothing to see here."
Ad 2: Volcanos put no CFCs into the atmosphere. The only significant source of CFCs are humans.
Ad 3: Volcanos do indeed inject some chlorine into the atmosphere. However, these chlorine compunds are unstable, and the chlorine quickly reacts with water vapor to form HCl, which leaves the atmosphere via precipation. Thus, the chlorine injected into the atmosphere is again insignificant. CFCs are problematic because they are so stable.
Moreover, the connection between ozone depletion and global warming is tenous. Both are processes where human emissions change the large scale composition of the atmosphere, but they only weakly influence each other.
Stephan
Then there's the feedback mechanism of decay in the soil. Rot releases more CO2. Rot happens faster at higher temperatures, which is the reason we use refrigerators. There's positive feedback, which you need to quantify to get a correct model.
Then there's the growing season effect. If trees grow more during the year, they absorb CO2. Subtract the trees that are cut down for firewood, which re-releases the CO2, don't count the ones cut for lumber, which keeps the carbon encapsulated (except
for sawmill waste, which is a biggy). There's negative feedback. It's hard to quantify but you have to.
Then there's albedo. This is a big one. Melt some highly reflective glaciers and the ground underneath absorbs more solar energy. More positive feedback.
It's well established that the planet would be frozen over without CO2 in the atmosphere, It takes a huge amount of data, thought, and number crunching to answer the question "what's the effect of the CO2 increase we humans caused?" It's only in the last few years that the answers have been converging.
If the past 100 years is the warmest century for at least 12 centuries, and 2005 was the warmest year in over a century (with the next 4 runners up all occuring in the last 10 years), I don't like where our climate is headed (regardless of whose fault it is or isn't that it's heading there). :-(
I'm not the guy who slammed you, but I thought his meaning was pretty obvious, so:
You stated that "present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 thousand years... from this we can conclude that the present day temperature is the highest in 420 thousand years."
That argument is not supported by the article, or by any other resource available to me. You've set it up as a straw man so you can knock it down.
Your post starts with a falsehood, and then goes on to counsel inaction based on lack of precise understanding of details. This might be analogous to saying "we'd best not jump off this train bridge, because the train may derail in the remaining ten feet it has to go before it hits us". But then I'm known for my bad analogies (I'm not even in the league with this guy, though).
The first two links never once use the word temperature. The third link mentions Antarctic temperatures with up to a "1000 year phase lag" related to CO2 levels. Hardly conclusive enough to use the words "close correlation," especially when trying to make judgements on 120 years of direct data, which takes us to the topic of data.
The abstracts you linked to discuss determining long-term CO2 levels based on ice core samples, which is probably a good means of getting CO2 levels, but their method of detemining temperature is based on estimated glacial coverage. How do you verify the legitimacy of that method? Furthermore, how confidently can you link the two? Estimates were that the global average temperatures were around 4 degrees lower than present day during the last major ice age. Best models by global warming proponents also place global average temperatures about 1/2 a degree warmer now than in 1880, when accurate records started. Did CO2 levels naturally flucuate up to 8 times as much for the last ice age as they have since 1880 (despite non-linearity, I find it unlikely considering the less than 1/2 a degree temperature change combined with the cited 19.4% increase since 1959, attributed to human activity), or is it perhaps possible that other factors were involved?
I'm also inclined to take the first article in question for the same reasons. It criticizes a 2003 study that had a nearly opposite conclusion based on uncertainties in their measurement method, but this newer study also relies on indirect measurements: in this case the size of tree rings. Temperature is far from the only thing that affects tree growth, especially considering we're talking about a couple of degrees here. The one thing the article does have going for it is that their method appears to support the "mini ice age" in the middle ages that the 2003 study also indicated occured. Even if the study is correct in concluding that the 20th century is the warmest in 1200 years, that does not conclusively link it to human activity, anymore than it does to the decline of pirates.
I have nothing against the theory of global warming. It's perfectly legitimate and there is a respectable amount of evidence supporting the theory (otherwise it would be easy to toss out), but I get tired of the daily claims that it has been conclusively proven. I respect your post because it does not make such claims, although the quote from the third article is kind of questionable.
PS - I didn't read the wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a great starting point for research, but it is not an authority, as we have discussed here on slashdot repeatedly.
Since, like so many people who spew outrageous claims, you've provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim, it's not to hard to one-up you:
l
h otoID=1326&pn=
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html
As for flash-frozen flowers:
http://www.duleepa.com/index.php?page=ViewPhoto&p
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Hey, just mention Urban Heat Islands and denigrate the IPCC and I can call BINGO!!
I for one look forward to the day my land locked house becomes beach front property.
The methods whereby CO2 heats up a planet are fairly well understood, and no one with a sane state of mind can deny that humanity has made things worse.
Change "made things worse" to "increased the effect" and I'd agree.
But there is a question open as to whether increasing the CO2 is making things "worse".
Some scientists have done work indicating that the Earth WAS headed back into an ice age, and would have been well on its way - at an accellerating rate - but for the effect of human CO2 emissions - starting at the beginnings of agriculture, at what WOULD have been the peak of the interglacial.
Their models indicate that human influence held the temperature nearly constant until the start of the industrial age, then began raising it.
But they ALSO indicate that (depending on the rate of carbon emission), the peak could be expected to be only a couple degrees C above the preindustrial plateau - about the amount we SHOULD be colder than it right now - and that (again depending on the rate of carbon emission) after 400 years or so, as the economically-recoverable fossil fuels are exhausted, the global temperature will crash back onto the ice-age-bound curve over a few decades - a curve that would have the "should be" temperature about twice as far below that of today, and falling much more rapidly. (Changing the assumed rate of carbon emission would change the height and width of the "hump" - possibly leveling it out and delaying the crash out to something like 600 years in the future. But it wouldn't eliminate it.)
By this model we should be in an ice age NOW, with permanent snow cover over much more of the continental masses, evolving into glacers and expanded ice caps.
If this is accurate, or even close, wouldn't you agree that the phrase for humanity's effect so far is "made things better"?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What a lame criticism. I use CE/BCE because that's how I was taught throughout high school and university. You should try to deal with the fact that terminology changes. Or do you still refer to the sky as "the heavens", refer to the number 20 as "a score", and your car as an "automobile"? Do you use Roman Numerals? For that matter, AD itself is a relatively new term; people used to refer to "the 2006th year of our lord". Why not just revert to that, while you marvel at the miracle of fire and ponder the concept of using round wooden structures to accelerate travel. Seriously, grow up and try to live in the real world.
If the really interesting question is how much human activity is contributing to global temperature cahnges, one must first determine the global temperature chang es,as one of severala necessary input measurements.
"Research from the University of East Anglia in Norwich, U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD. ... The findings support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change."
I didn't know the burned so much fossil fuels in 800A.D.
Vote for Pedro
"Except for the fact that water vapor is SEVEN TIMES the green house gas that CO2 is, and it is present in the atmosphere in MUCH MUCH higher concentrations. Over all, water vapor contributes 280,000 time more to the greenhouse effect than CO2, and it's been doing it for ages, long before CO2 rose 25% to a measley 375 parts per million."
The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is very short, on theorder of a few weeks. Perturb the equlilibrium for water vapor, and within a very short time, the atmosphere returns to equilibrium. The residence time for CO2 is many, many, many orders of mgnitude longer. This means that CO2 increases can create long-term perturbatins in global atmospheric heat flow, but water vapor cant. The climate people refer to this with the pharase, "CO2 is a driver, water is a feedback."
"Possibly the real contributor to global warming is not the warm fuzzies of CO2 but the the heat itself that is released when Carbon based fuels are burned. A coal, oil or gas burning power plant needs to waste one unit of energy for every unit of energy it delivers to the consumer, and that is with the power plant operating at close to 100% efficiency. The worse the efficiency the worse the heat waste. Eventually, all energy generated or wasted by power plants ends up as waste heat. That waste heat raises the mean temperature of the atmosphere until the T gets high enough so that the energy radiated (proportional to T^4) back into space equals the total of the incident Solar energy and the waste heat energy."
That waste heat radiates VERY FAST. Ever notice how cold it gets at night? That is due to radiative heat loss. Add more heat at the surface, and the excess is very rapidly lost. You might also want to calculate the ratio of human heat release to heat input from solar irradiation; the results might show you that this argument is pretty weak.
"Atmospheric scientists know that the concentration of CO2 is not high enough by itself to cause global warming, so they postulate a "trigger" or "catalyst" effect, which is unproven. Neither my theory nor theirs can explain the last hot house period that occured 1,200 years ago. Then, the CO2 was lower than it is now and there were no power plants spewing heat, so the burning of fossile fuels was not the cause. That leave other possible causes: solar output or volcanos, to name a couple."
Your first sentence her is simply absurd. Our planet is not a ball of ice only becaus e of global warming due to CO2. The question is how much the ADDITIONAL CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere is causing ADDITIONAL warming. And we know that effect is happening; the debates are over how much additinal warming we are/will going to experience with this much additional CO2. That discussion involves known feedback effects (not triggers) like waramer temps causing increased atmospheric water content, for example, leading to a magnification of the warming effect. BTW, this article does NOT say it was hotter 1200 years ago. That is simply as far back as their analysis goes. Other good studies show it was NOT as warm than as it is now.
Every time we have a winter colder than average, it's attributed to global warming... every time we have a winter warmer than average, it's attributed to global warming.
Unless we get nothing but winters that are the exact average of whatever arbitrary set of statistics they're using at any given time, it's "another piece of evidence supporting the case".
Really who heated the earth up back in 800AD? There were no fossil fuels being burned as they are today, no factories burning coal, no aerosol cans, and no cars. So what is causing it in 800AD. Could it possibly be that it is unrelated to humans and might have to do with factors out of our control, such as solar winds and sun spots?
I guess the sun spot theory doesn't support the liberal view of Bush f-ing up the economy. Or manybe he had a time machine and he is not transporting the "bad" chemicals in the air back to 800AD, that would be so like him to take the blame of "BIG" oil.
Nor do you refute his argument with data!! So your arguments are as specious as his are. "Because I say you are wrong" proves nothing.
not to be confused with 'i dont think global warming is a problem'
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
Neither one of you is 100% right or 100% wrong. See http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/cli mate_effects.html
Global Warming and Ozone Holes are THEORIES until we really know how what we observe (or think we observe) can be validated via scientific proof via experiments. We know a lot less about climate than we think we do.
when will logic ever take hold of this subject. the global warming people have an ego the size of the Pacific to think that man has anything whatsoever to do with the weather on this planet. They think that a few thousand years is a true representative sample for their argument. this just shows the naivete' of their thinking. yes I know that this is a rather harsh reply to our global waming friend, but it's this type of irresponsible writing that hurts everyone. if they are so worried about the weather it is my opinion that they should see firsthand how pitiful the emerging countries are with their lack of emissions. oh, and by the way, did you notice the smug countries that berated the US for not signing the Kyoto treaty? The fact that our emissions were less than theirs is not a subject that the anti US crowd wants to bring up. Breathe deep, it's ok.
Yes, that's true, from reading both our posts, we don't know whether his statement is true. That's why I said that as a matter of LOGIC his statement was flawed. Notice that I didn't say the point was necessarily false. However, if he makes the statement, I consider the burden of proof to be on him to back it up.
And you know a lot less about science than you think you do. Next time, work out the difference between a theory and a hypothesis, and between proof and absence of falsification.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
1) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING - yes, I said it. We know from the geological record that weather cycles. We know that it has done this since long before puny man put in an appearance. I seriously doubt that any of you here would argue with me if I mentioned ice ages and mammoths. I also seriously doubt any of you would argue with me if I told that the weather during the Createcous period was much warmer than what we have now. Why should we be panicing about a shift in the weather now? It's supposed to shift. It will get warmer and then it will get colder. Either buy a parka or a bikini and just get over it.
2) Weather changes on a cycles of thousands of years. We also know, from the geological record, that when it does start to shift, it happens fairly quickly. We've only been collecting accurate weather data for maybe the last 100 years. Before 1900, we collected data, but the instruments weren't all that accurate. Another 100 years before they and they were putting a candle in a possum hole. Trying to say that we have anything like a sufficient data set is flatly ludicrous. Even with your tree rings and mollusk shells, you still can't cover the time span necessary to make that determination.
3) Volcanos - It's kind of arrogant for us puny humans to think that we are even capable of doing the things that have been suggested. Volcanos routinely spew more crap into the atmosphere in a few hours of an eruption than we humans can spew from every car on the whole planet in decades of operation.
Now the fact of the matter is that you want me to shuck out my hard earned dollars via taxes for some boogeyman we're calling global warming. I'm calling it the normal cycling of the planet. Prove me wrong and you'll have all of my backing. Until then, in the immortal words of Gru'ul, "Pike off, berk!"
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Do any of these studies consider the effects not of what humans do but just their
existence? There are now 10x the population as estimated in 1700, 30x since 800AD.
What is the heat output of that many people? What is the cummulative output? What about methane, etc? My quick calculation gives a baseline of nearly 800 20KT nukes for the equivalent output of the planets population - per day.
This "yet another multiproxy study" is examined by McIntyre on The Climate Audit site, and reveals that it is based on the same ingredients as the other "hockey stick" type studies, with the same bias toward the result.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
Yes. A wonderful speech, but I have a feeling it's as likely to happen under Bush as the Mars project. We need action, we need legislation. It would be nice to know who Cheney spoke to when developing our energy policy, and it would be nice to know that rather than drill in ANWR, we simply spend the money somewhere else. Bush's words were good to hear, but I don't think he believes them. And I certaintly don't think he's going to act on them with the vigor necessary to make it a reality.
Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
And as the other poster hinted: Scientific theories are never "proven" in the sense scientists use that word. There is always the possibility that we are just a simulation in an alien's computer and he will trip over the power chord tomorrow. Compared to the concept of "proof" in a legal setting, most current scientific theories are extremely well supported.
Stephan
The problem is that we have no way of doing an experiment to determine whether the climate change is caused by humans, or would have occured more or less identically had we not dumped CO2 into the atmosphere. This is because we have no way of observing what the climate would be today had we not polluted. That is, we have no control for our experiment. Any 3rd grader doing a science fair project can tell you that you have to have a control in an experiment. Thus, simply saying "this is warmest century on record" etc. does not amount to a scientific statement that humans are at fault in the slightest. Neither does it acquit us, of course. In order to make some sort of scientific statement, we would more or less have to model the earth's climate over the last n hundred (or even thousand) years, both with and without human pollution. The modelling with human pollution is necessary as a check on the quality of the simulation. If it gets the right results (ie, predicts what we have observed), then we might be able to trust the no pollution modelling.
Until and unless we can do some sort of legitimate comparison between 2006 with a couple centuries of human pollution and 2006 without a couple centuries of human pollution, claiming that humans have caused "global warming" is not science. That is not to say that it is wrong, but merely that it is not science.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
> U.K. shows that the 20th century was the warmest for the
> northern hemisphere since approximately 800AD...The findings
> support the argument for global warming as a result of human
> interference rather than natural climate change
It also supports the conclusion that there's nothing terribly wrong with it, either.
But who cares when there's an economy to be crushed and power to be gained by politicians?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Some places will get warmer, others colder. Some will be wetter, some dryer.
Right, so let's summarize this...
If temperatures increase, then it was caused by human-caused global climate change.
If temperatures decrease, then it was caused by human-caused global climate change.
If temperatures remain the same, then it was caused by human-caused global climate change, because the previous two forces cancelled each other out.
Uh, okay, how can you falsify such a prediction? Regardless of what happens...it was caused by global climate change.
You might have more luck converting them to your belief system if the "solution" to the problem isn't always a call for more authoritarian government instrusions into our lives.
I had a post basically about why government intervention is needed in certain markets a few days ago. To sum up, the environment is a "common good" which means that it is rivalrous and non-exclusive. People cannot be stopped from taking the good without force, and use of the good degrades it for future users. Since you cannot prevent people from taking the good without government force, you cannot monetize it, and you have the free rider problem. Free market competition forces businesses to ignore the external costs of how they use a common good or a public good, and thus the free market rewards bad behavior.
There are multiple ways in which the government can fix environmental problems. There are bans on certain behavior which have substitutes like the use of ozone-destroying CFCs or health-ruining PCBs. This is the most "authoritarian" and should only be used when there is a compelling public need for a good to no longer be used such as due to the extreme harm it causes to the health of people and wildlife.
Mandating technology is another "authoritarian" solution that is rarely a desireable one to do because a technology that is efficient today may not be the most efficient forever. A good function that government can provide however is to set minimum standards such as for fuel and energy efficiency that the market would otherwise discourage due to upfront unit costs and R&D costs. (This is an example of a free market making inefficient use of resources because free markets only strive for the local maxima of efficiency instead of long-term maximum efficiency.)
For controlling emissions in the environment the government can set up trading schemes which turn the common good of air quality into a private good which free markets are extremely adept at maximizing the use of. The Kyoto agreement is implemented in terms of carbon trading schemes, though some are more heavy handed than others. Making a common good monetizeable is hardly an "authoritarian government intrusion" when the free market cannot solve the situation itself.
Government has to step in because there is no alternative. I'd love to hear a good explanation of how free markets can solve the problem of external costs when it is in fact price-oriented competition that creates the problem in the first place. In my opinion, the function of government is to prevent people from hurting each other when it would be profitable, from violent crimes to fraud to abuse of power to dumping things on everybody else to clean up. What you see as "authoritarian" I see as merely telling people to stop hurting other people for their own short-term benefit. It's no different from anti-mugging laws.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
No surprised that that insightful two cents was brought to you by an AC. Get a life.
Theory derives from Hypothesis. Hypotheses can be proven true or proven false by experimentation and/or other evidence. Absence of the false case in a Hypothesis does NOT prove the True case. It only means you cannot disprove it, it lends weight to the True case but does not prove it. Theories have been published and proven wrong all thru the History of Science. Global Warming is a HYPOTHESIS not a Theory, and based on what I have seen it's borderline crackpot just like Darwin.
Actually most scientists I have know are as anal about proof of a Theory as any lawyer. Probably more so as the lawyer only has to beat his adversary at trial,the scientist has to convince his peers in the entire community who will pick at his Theory unmercifully looking for holes. As to conflicting with your story, it does in a few places. Not major disagreement but with Global Warning we know so little in reality that a small difference can throw off the measurements. Based on the data I have seen and trust (from NASA experiments and from the UAH Climatology Center) IF there is any warming it is quite small. People starting harping on Global Warming in the late 1980s and predicted we would see NYC flooded by now. Last time I looked that hadn't happened and the weather pattern changes predicted have not either.
I don't disagree, I'm just saying, if it gets warm enough, the Atlantic Conveyor will shut off and some parts of the world will get much colder even as other parts get much warmer.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Back when I was taking English classes, we were taught irony was when the definitive meaning of the words being used was the opposite of the intended meaning. A particularly rigid form of sarcasm.
Of course that was when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth; nothing from that era could possibly have any application today. I stand corrected!
We, as a planet, have seen, much, much warmer days. We're not talking a few degrees, we're talking a lot more. What was life like on the planet when it was warmer? Were we a desert planet unable to sustain any kind of life, and where civilization was unheard of?
No. The last major warming cycle saw the creation of several major civilizations. The population boom spread humanity all over the globe. Tools became more complicated. Writing was invented. And the first set of written laws was produced.
I find it silly to think that the earth is going to die if we change any of the parameters of its operation within the recorded physical evidence of past history.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
I don't think our capital system would suffer if we had to move our coastlines back by a few meters. And that's all they are talking about if the ice caps melted. Sure, some unlucky souls would see their property---gradually---swept under ocean tides. But it wouldn't happen overnight, and they would have time to sell the property (at a depreciated value, to someone who is gambling the earth will cool) and find somewhere else to live. And if they lose their property? It's not the first time nature decided to wipe out perfectly good property, and it certainly won't be a disaster to the nation or the race.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Ok moron.. HOW do they take them into account? Guess work? By guessing how much heat is stored, radiated in each city? YES!!! Imagine that....
Look it up. And now take that foot out of your mouth. Stupid fuck.
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?