Slashdot Mirror
Earth's Temperature at Highest Levels in 400 Years
thatguywhoiam writes "Congress asked, and the scientists have answered: 'The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The
National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the 'recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.'"
It was this hot 400 years ago? Global warming indeed...
Czech language for absolute beginners
Last time I looked (although I've largely checked out of this debate), no one - including Bush - was questioning that it's getting warmer. The debate (?) is now shifted to what exactly is causing it. plz correct if wrong, kthx.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
To: Mr. Liberal Hack
Please accept that "global warming" is not conclusively linked to man, oil, or any other favorite targets of the left. The Earth goes through cycles regularly, and until you can PROVE that man is to blame, stop using man's actions as fuel for political attacks.
Signed,
The Voice of Fairness and Reason
I'm prepared to be labeled a mindless republican bushite and modded down for this but..
If it currently the warmest it's been in 400 years (or the past few millenia) that means it was this warm 400 years (or a few mllenia) ago. Since obvioulsy it wasn't human generated greenhouse gasses that caused the previous temperature, it does call into question the certianty that human generated greenhouse gasses is causing the current warming.
Now if the scientists can come up with causality for the previous warming periods, such as volcanic or solar activity and we aren't experiencing the same now then that makes more of a case.
The earth's climate is cyclical. If you place that 400 year figure next to the age of the earth (say 4+ billion years), it does not seem that significant. Even if it were the warmest the earth has ever been, it does not mean that human activity is the primary cause.
Good luck to all those people living in Arizona and Nevada - you're entering a spiraling heat wave. Once people build up the land with houses and roads, the cars, pollution, and A/C makes the air even hotter.
Oh, and with much of China and India either already a desert or turning into a desert due to deforestation thousands of years ago, it's not going to get any better for them.
The desert is actually spreading too - look at China in google earth and see how much of China is sand, and with hunter/gatherer populations foraging for food and fuel, animals eating every plant that springs up from the earth, and pavement being laid down everywhere to speed rain runoff and reduce the amount of water that saturates the soil - the situation looks bleak.
Seriously, I hate to sound like a tree hugging hippie, but if everyone in the world planted a few trees, I believe we could have a positive impact on the global climate
The report was championed by a Republican.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Suppose you ask the question: Is X happening?
When a scientist says that a phenomenon "X is probably happening", or "the bulk of the evidence indicates that X is happening", he means "I'm pretty damn sure about it, but because everyting in science is subject to further investigation, I'm open to hear evidence to the contrary."
When a lawyer says that "X is probably happening", or "the bulk of the evidence indicates that X is happening", he means "I haven't the foggiest idea, and I need wiggle room so I don't look like an idiot when someone who knows what he's talking about asks me."
Trouble starts when the two world views are mixed. The scientist hears the bolded words in his part of the speech -- and the politician hears precisely the opposite.
The qualifiers are necessary to the scientist, because they're part of why a theory is explanation falsifiable (and by extension, scientific). Science can't progress except for those areas in which there exists Reasonable Doubt.
The politician hears only the phrases "is probably" (as opposed to certainly), the "bulk of" (as opposed to all of the evidence), and the "indication" (as opposed to conclusive truth pounded out on the table before Judge and Jury) that something is the case. In an adversarial "justice" system, you can't use weasel words, because the holy grail is Proof Beyond A Reasonable Doubt.
And the planet burns because people who don't grok science prefer oratory.
What the hell, the dinosaurs died because they didn't understand science either.
Ah yes, the infamous hockey stick (the chart). It was what convinced me that global warming was human-caused. Until of course I found that when you put random data into the analysis, you got a hockey stick.
What it comes down to is that more than 200 years ago we didn't have accurate temperature measurement. Everything before that is an educated guess. And the precision necessary to show a fractional degree of change is simply unattainable.
Where are the error bars on the hockey stick? It's shown as if we had exact data for the last 1000 years--which of course we don't.
RTFA. The first sentence says 400 years or longer. If you actually read the stories you'll understand why, and get the point that it's hotter than it's been in a long time, and only getting hotter. I have no more patience for these fools who don't have an interest in science or much of anything outside their own little self serving world. They don't read scientific journals, and who hence have no idea how important the global scientific consensus for global warming is. These people don't even give a half a shit literally hundreds of millions of poor people around the world suffer and die from drought, crop failures, and many other near-apocalyptic consequences if global warming is allowed to continue. People often make crazy analogies to Nazis. But seriously, if half of what the entire global scientific community warns of comes to pass, then the ignorant and uncaring people doing nothing to prevent global warming are leading to a holocaust that will be literally tens, maybe as much as a hundred times worse than the holocaust in terms of suffering and lives lost. We're talking about tens to hundreds of millions dying due to climate change. The resistance to accepting the global warming isn't based on scientific logic, or wisdom, or conscience, or anything that could be called credible or ethical. It's just sheer intellectual laziness and choosing to let someone else die because people are unwilling to even slightly inconvenience oneself. That's shameful. The miniscule but well funded dissent is also backed by the fossil fuel industry and people who think their paychecks depend on perpetuating this tragedy so long as it falls on someone else. It's disgusting, tragic, shameful, and represents the worst in human nature.
Dear Voice;
If we don't do something about it like yesterday, then we're all going to fucking die. As in extinct.
Do you want to continue to assassinate the character of the scientists who are trying to do something about it? Or do you just want to sit in your air conditioned H2 and hope you don't run out of gas?
Signed,
Reality
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Did they need "precautionary actions" the last time this happened 400-X000 years ago?
What about before that?
No? Hmmm...
There's no question in my mind that things like greenhouse gases and the decimation of the ozone layer are Bad Things, but I think there's more practical arguments that you can make for taking further measures against them than "ZOMG TEH EARTH WILL HEAT UP & KILL US ALL!"
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Please leave your particular country's ideological distinctions out of this scientific debate that they have nothing to do with. Also please acknowledge that there is more to the world than your narrow-minded battle against an ideological perspective that you happen disagree with.
Please at least learn to control your memes to the point that they no longer lead you to infer things that clearly aren't being implied. A phrase like "Please accept that Global Warming Exists." does not imply a belief that ""global warming" is conclusively linked to man [or] oil", or even a preference for left-wing politics.
Your little political campaign has taken your bigotry to the point where you sign yourself off as "The Voice of Fairness and Reason", which is so intellectually dishonest that my dog just read this page and went and took a shit on an encyclopedia in one of his usual crude but poignant symbolic gestures.
Signed,
Fuck You
PS: In case you missed it, I was implying that my dog is smarter than you.
The really interesting question, however, is: is global warming bad?
If you believe the climate is stable, then of course it's bad! But we know better. Based on the data, we're towards the end of a brief (10k year) warm period toards the end of a 100k year warming cycle, but we're still in an ice age. We have 400k years of pretty good temperature and CO2 data now from the Vostock ice cores, and it's clear that a stable climate is an illusion caused by man's relatively short lifespan. This fact is as clear as the fact that global warming is happening.
So, let's assume that mankinds actions are capable of affecting the climate short term (for a few thousand years). Do we want to turn the thermostat up, or down, or try to keep global temperatures about the same? While the last option might sound good, trying to keep achieve stability in a chaotic system that we don't really understand and can barely model is probably pointless.
If we have to choose between sea level rising a bit, and glaciers covering England and most of Europe (on the upside, we'd lose Canada too), warming is probably a smaller problem to del with than cooling. Regardless of what we do, temperatures are certain to return to the ice-age norm long term (all the carbon in the air, water, and all fossile fuels still in the groud are completely trivial compared to the carbon cycle of the lithosphere), but that's a problem we can consider in another 10k years.
If you've never thought about global warming beyond "prevent climate change", you haven't really understood the issue. Preventing climate change isn't a long-term option.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I think the point was that since this is either caused by A) nature, or B) us, perhaps we should start working on B just in case it isn't A.
If its A) and we worked on B), then we profit from less oil dependence and less smog, particulate matter,etc
If its B) and we assumed A), we all die.
Until we know more, I wish people would stop pretending they know what's happening. We have a couple theories, thats it, no proof. (correct me if I'm wrong)
:x
Look, I DO believe in global warming. That said, crap headlines like this are, well, crap.
The fact that this point is warmer then some other point in some arbitrary number of years means nothing. There have been literally countless points in time when you can point backwards and say that it has not been so warm for 400+ years. Any idiot can see that pointing out that we are in another of such periods where the last local max with 400 years ago is thoroughly and completely normal and uninteresting.
Flouting stupid statistics like this is what makes smart people believe that global warming is a crap political ploy by environmentalist/anti-globalist/leftists/exc. If your goal is to divide, crap like this is a great idea as it assures everyone that the opposing side are idiots who couldn't tell the truth if their life depended upon it. If your goal is to build a consensus and spawn action, throwing out junk science is a waste of everyone's time.
There are a lot of good reasons to believe that the Earth is heating in an appreciable way and that humans could very well be the cause of much of that heating. We don't need to throw out junk science and sensationalist crap like "OMFG hottest year in 400 years!" as any idiot with even an ounce of grey matter is going to realize that "hottest year in 400 years" is pretty damn normal during any heating phase, especially heating phases that happen on geologic time.
Is there something unclear about the article? Oh right, you didn't read it. Let me summarize it for you. Scientists have determined that global warming is causally linked to human activities. Any other explanations you may have - supposed "cycles", volcanoes, aliens - have been ruled out. Until there's a reason to doubt what the scientific community has known for years, there's only one prudent course of action. If that doesn't fit with your political agenda, change your agenda.
Because we are talking about a global increase, the changes to the world climate from a change of a few degrees are likely to be catastrophic.
This congressional inquiry dovetails nicely with the documentary that features Al Gore, An Incovenient Truth. I recently saw the movie, and while I was aware of the problem of Global Warming, I'm now truly worried that my later years (I'm currently 35) are going to be more about surviving in an even increasingly difficult environment instead of just living. Watching graphs with exponential progressions coupled with comparitive photographs taken over the last 50 years is turly sobering.
Whoever Has the Most Toys Wins!
To: Brainwashed Conservative,
The scientific consensus is that global warming has been caused by people. It is the politicians and their devoted followers who think that there is some sort of controversy. Secondly, from TFA, solar fluctuations and volcanic activity cannot explain the increase in temperature alone. Finally, you're asking scientists to conclusively PROVE that global warming has been caused by humans. This is impossible. Likewise, it's impossible to PROVE that quantum mechanics and general relativity are true. All scientists can do is look at the evidence and surmise what they think is happening. That's what they're doing, and you're ignoring them because they're telling you what you don't want to hear.
Signed,
Someone who listens to the experts
For example: "I think the point is that, since rainstorms are either caused by A) water vapor in the atmosphere or B) aliens who want to drown us, we should start working on B in case it isn't A. If it's A and we work on B by creating a multi-billion-dollar network of space defense lasers, then we profit from being able to stay alive. If it's B and we assume A, then the aliens drown us all, take over our planet, and make it into a global resort/spa for the Pangalactic Federation."
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
According to the article "Global Warming Skeptics," there are only 12 scientists who disagree with global warming. From the discussion here, clearly there must be more disagreement. I'm sure it's not just a bunch of hacks making stuff up (this is slashdot, home of scientific minded folk), so if you folks could go over to the Wiki and list who your reputable sources for questioning the thousands of scientists who have been trying (and failing) to poke holes in global warming for the last 10 years are it would be helpful. Because from the looks of that article, the creationists have better scientific footing than folks arguing against human influenced global warming. And while consensus does not have a causative relationship with fact, it does, given enough time, seem to correlate frequently in the area of modern science (even ulcers were figured out eventually).
Wow.. great write up. I hadn't thought about it like you laid it out.
.oh.. and that I believe our lifestyle and current population are not sustainable. Either we need to be more conservative of our Earth for our population and trends, or we need to start reducing the number of people on this planet to keep living like we are. That's what scares the crap out of me. Cuz once mother nature says it's gonna take a break for a while.. it ain't gonna be long before 90+% of us are gone and in a not so pretty way.
My big concern isn't global warming but all of the pollutants in our oceans and entire global food chain that could nix us all..
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
There are only a few things that are likely to cause that kind of non-manmade temperature spike, and that's solar and volcanic activity. Since we now track these things, scientists can accurately put them into their models and the guesswork is lessened. Using those spikes as 'proof' is quite misleading.
Well, I for one apologise on behalf of the thousands of scientists from all over the globe for rigging the temperature meters. I mean, how could thousands of bonafide meteorologist be possibly right when their opinions are at odds with an article that can be summed up as "boo hoo, I don't like what Al Gore is saying so I'm going to cook up some facts of my own!".
If you are going to say with a straight face that global warming as evidenced by hotter and hotter summers for instance is not a fact, I suggest you take a good look at the way glaciers in the Northern hemisphere have been rapidly growing smaller and smaller by each heat-record breaking year after another. Of course, glacier shrinkage _could_ just be a part of a huge scientific plot to get everybody to think that this "global warming" is a fact. Surely Al Gore put them up to it!
P.s.
2005, also known as "last year" was the hottest year on record.
You can continue believing all you want about 1998 being the hottest year on record, but sadly for you, that does NOT change the fact that it isn't.
We're all going to die while the people who've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for the past fifteen years just keep repeating "prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it prove it"
To: Mr. Wingnut
Please read the document you are commenting on before spouting empty rethoric. It strongly suggests that "global warming" is linked to man, oil, and other favorite donors of the right. The Earth goes through cycles regularly, but the rate of the current rise in temperature is unprecented as far as scientists can check back. Until you can PROVE that someone has WMDs, or that homosexuality destroys families, or that use of marihuana turns innocent children into crazed killer, or that storing every phone call ever made stops terrorists with the same amount of certainty before taking some inappropriate and inefficient course of action--including, but not limited to infringing on civil rights or starting a war--, stop using your ignorance of the scientific process as fuel for political attacks.
Signed,
The Voice of Fairness and Reason (not assocuiated with the Fair and Balanced Voice)
Even if the climate isn't stable.. life has existed throughout the periods of change and rapid change. The thing is.. this population wouldnt' survive the change.. could we be smart enough to maximize the numbers that do survive and our society mostly intact?
May sound odd.. but this is why I support putting bases on the moon and colonies on Mars. Not so much to actually ahve them there, but to start learning how to survive those situations so we can use the same technology here when we need it. Cuz when we do need it, we won't have the time to develop it.
Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
Except that as Random Destruction points out, we have something to gain other than staying alive. We could break free of our dependance on a non-renewable fuel source as well as reduce air pollution. So it's a good thing whether man is the cause or not. I don't how "creating a multi-billion-dollar network of space defense lasers" could be beneficial if said aliens prove not to exist.
Global Warming deniers are the new Holocaust deniers.
On the one side you have scientists with the historical and current data, and the liberals who cheer them on. On the other side you have those who say Global Warming is just made up by a conspiracy of scientists and liberals.
Discuss.
Start Running Better Polls
The parent wrote:
Although they do acknowledge the existence of a "mini-ice age", the press release put out by the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) specifically rejects the argument that it was warmer in the middle ages then now:
While it's true that "Cyclical Global warming != greenhouse effect", this does not mean that humanity is in the clear as far as global warming goes. I believe the concern is that there is no sign that the current heating trend is slowing down. The trending in the NAS report abstract is pretty disturbing. When this is compounded by the above argument that it's warmer now than it has been in the past, there is sufficient ground to worry that we have broken out of whatever cyclical pattern may have existed.
Beyond this, I don't think it matters whether the current phase of global warming is caused by humans or by cyclical sunspots (or whatever). Rising temperatures have the ability to really throw a wrench into global systems (like economies). If we have the ability to even *try* to mitigate the trend, I think it is worthwhile to do so. Arguing that we have no reason to act because it's not our fault is, in my view, a cowardly way to pass the buck... so that we can continue to live extravagant lifestyles in the short term at the expense of the future.
Anyhow. I think we're on the wrong debate. Everyone is arguing is global warming occuring or not. And if it is agreed that it is, then the argument shifts to, are people to blame or not.
It's all entirely irrelevant. There are two things we should always be doing.
1) Trying to live responsibly on the Earth. This means, minimizing pollutions of all sorts, etc.
2) Figuring out how to adapt to changes in the Earth.
Ultimatly we WILL have an impact. It's the nature of the beast. At best we can try to minimize it, if only to have cleaner air to breath and cleaner water to drink. The Earth will under go changes. Some caused by us perhaps, many not. We simply have to adapt or die out. Short of killing every human on the Earth, we will never remove any impact that we cause. All we can do is try to minimize it.
--- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
RTFA. Nowhere in the article does it say that 2005 was the hottest year we know of. It refers to "recent warmth". For those who care to look for themselves, the actual news release indicates (in its first sentence) that the findings are about "the last few decades of the 20th century". So, this is not "blatant stupidity and carping that passes itself off as science", it's an ambiguously-accurate digestion of real news that passes itself off as journalism, followed by your blatant stupidity and carping that passes itself off as an informative comment. Don't blame the scientists for doing research that gets ambiguously reported by the media.
I know your comment is a response to Gore's book (I read your link). But your comment is irrelevant to the story you commented on. Thanks for the knee-jerk reaction. Your comment should be modded -1 Offtopic.
Anyone else notice that they only looked at data for the Northern Hemisphere? How can you say the Earth is warming if you're only looking at data from the Northern Hemisphere!
This is a self correcting problem. There is no way you can stop this. Fossel fuels are a form of "free energy" it's there in the ground all you have to do is dig it up and set it on fire. There is such strong incentive to do this that we will work as hard as we can to do it as fast as we can. The good news is that we are good at this and have likely burned up 1/2 of what's there. All we have to do is burn up the other half and the problem will be gone forever. So the next 100 years it will be hot. But for the next one million it will not. OK maybe my numbers are wrong and we've burned up only 1/4 or whatever. Still it will all be gone very soon in relative terms. Basically the human race stumbles along with stone tools for a million years then discovers hydrocaron and burns half the hydrocarbon on earth only 400 years then the other half in 100 years but then continues on for the next millions of years without using any hydrocarbon. In the larger view of things it's a "blip".
I know that's a joke... but eh.. I don't see how it got a 5 for funny. 5 for crass maybe.
Seriously, if only half what the sceintific consensus predicts is left to happen, we're all going to be pretty damn sorry we didn't do more sooner. The not giving a shit attitude isn't going to cut it when all hell breaks loose.
When the oceans rise accelerates in the next decade and property taxes go up to the stratosphere to pay for sea walls and such, as propetry values plummet, I don't think anyone living near a coast will be laughing. Or hurrcaines devastating the gulf region. Or freak heat waves over 100' lasting a week or more in the midwest. And a bunch of other things from freak rains and flooding in some places to droughts in other places. If the whole country goes the way of New Orleans, who will be laughing?
Who will be laughing then when power consumption becomes mandated and taxed to bejezus becasue of some global crisis making the present oil shock seem like nothing? Or when there is mass starvation killing maybe a hundred million or more due to weather changes. Then terrorism goes totally out of hand. The global economy could suffer creating massive hurt everywhere, even in rural America.
Imagine for example massive and widespread starvation in Africa and places like NKorea, Pakistan, and many others who will also be struggling start exporting nuclear technology to countries in the midst of civil unrest who need bargaining chips to get aid for starving nations.
One thing is proof of global warming: global warming. An increase in the global mean tempature. Saying that you can't test this is just wrong. You can. You just measure a large number of evenly distributed points on the surface and take the mean. Then use statistics to determine how significant the warming is. If this couldn't be done, it wouldn't be published in scientific journals.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
What I'm also really curious about is why so many are so adamant about refusing to acknowledge what seems to be obvious
Easy. It's because most of the people who push for people to do something about it have unpalatable hidden agendas. For every person out there using global climate change as their stick to get you to live your life the way they think you should, you've got another who sees through their agenda and finds a way to believe they're lying about the climate change too.
You want people to believe the climate is changing? Stop using climate change as a weapon in a culture war.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time it happened the dominant life form wasn't industrialised and happily stuffing the atmosphere with greenhouse gasses
Thing is, it's going to be very difficult to remove greenhouse gasses and stop global warming in 100 years' time should the majority of climate scientists actually turn out to be right. It's really not going to hurt us that much to stop producing greenhouse gasses now, and it might even turn out to be the right thing to do. Why not do it?
Personally, I'll take a warmer planet to a cooler one.
I'm guessing you're also looking forward to the collapse of the food chain that a bit of warming could bring?
Forget global warming, worry about Judgment Day. If you don't accept Jesus, seriously, if only half what the biblical scholar consensus predicts is left to happen, you're all going to be pretty damn sorry you didn't do it sooner. The not giving a shit attitude isn't going to cut it when all hell breaks loose.
What, you don't believe in Hell? What, the amount of scariness of the claimed bad things that are purported to happen doesn't make it any more convincing?
Wow, talk about mis-representing a report. The 400 year number is due to lack of high-quality data prior to that date, not selective choice of reference temperatures. As you've clearly read (at least) the summary, you'll note that they also claim that the past few decades have likely been the warmest since ~900AD (a time frame which included the 'medieval warm period' as well). As for 'unprecented low temperature interval,' that is a rather blatent fib...quoth the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: "modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1C, and says current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."
In other words, the conclusions of Mann et al. aren't very well supported --- and those are the ones most often used politically.
That is also a rather slanted view of the report. It isn't that the general conclusions aren't supported, it is that the data is of too poor a quality to make such a claim as 'warmest decade in a millenium.' The very next paragraph says that surface temperature reconstructions for pre-industrial revolution time are one of multiple pieces of evidence for anthropogenic climate change, and "they are not the primary evidence." So, really the report agrees with Mann that post-industrial human events have increased the global temperature. It is also notable that Mann's 1999
paper does note the uncertainty of proxy measures for such long timescales. "Taken at
face value, the 20th century appears to be the warmest century this millennium, the
1990s the warmest decade, and several recent individual years the warmest on record.
However, the expanded uncertainties in early centuries preclude, as yet, any definitive
conclusions prior to about AD 1400."
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
You appear to be insinuating that people who recognize the preponderance of evidence suggesting anthropogenic climate change is occurring argue that any instance of unusual weather is proof of global warming. Of course I shouldn't have to say that this is either intentionally misleading or simply really, really dumb.
Climate may change in different ways in different places, but no individual weather event is, by itself, proof of climate change; at most it's merely a data point. Anyone who doesn't recognize this isn't necessarily a nut -- they may merely be misinformed.
Of course, it's just as common to find people who don't want to believe the evidence, and use this as part of the logical fallacy that goes: "people claim their unusual weather is due to global warming, but since any single event can't be definitively linked to climate change, then global warming isn't real."
Sometimes this is followed by "and I like warm weather anyway," or something similarly obtuse, which of course demonstrates they've either got a wit so dry it'd make a lemon pucker, or they completely fail to grasp the actual implications of global climate change.
Proxy studies and urban heat island effects cloud the results of all such studies.
Except for, you know...studies done on polar ice. Real problems with urban heat islands there.
Look, folks. We're clearly being astroturfed by someone. But no matter what your local Republican party shill tells you, there is no scientific dissent: global warming is caused by human-produced increases in CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
We know that temperature fluctuates over time, but you appear to be arguing: "since the global climate will change over time by itself, climate change doesn't matter," or "...we shouldn't bother trying to do anything about it," or possibly even "...and therefore people aren't causing the warming right now."
Those may range from irrelevant, to merely wishful thinking, all the way through to completely illogical. The fact that climate has changed in the past isn't really relevant to the negative effects that we will suffer as it happens now, nor does it diminish the fact that humans are causing it, and causing it at a rate unparalleled in recent geologic history.
Fortunately a study of the world's mass extinction events (mass extinctions basically require a collapse at the base of the food chain) suggests that in most cases a single factor wasn't adequate to trigger wholesale foodchain collapse. Since we're merely causing catastrophic global climate change, the foodchain is unlikely to completely collapse. But I really don't find the unlikelihood of a "top 5" or "top 10" extinction event very reassuring considering the amount of havoc that even a few degrees of rapid warming will still wreak.
It didn't get "a 5" for Funny. It got 5 moderators who thought it was funny. Slashdot's moderation system is broken in a lot of ways, and the popularity of a given mod doubling as the degree of that mod is one of them.
Of course, our preoccupation with such infitesimal trivia as Slashdot moderation while we burn the planet is pretty disgusting. Especially considering all the CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere posting this discussion. But it's clear that the only real obstacle to stopping the pollution before it's too late is the vast inertia among most people. The only way we have to deal with each other without deepening the defensive denial is to kid and kibbitz with each other, while keeping committed to stopping the pollution.
It's not much, but it's all we've got.
--
make install -not war
Have you stopped to think that it is possible that they are fighting that cultural war because of climate change. If you accept that it is our actions that are causing global warming and destroying the planet then you really have no choice but to change those actions. I'm not sure that climate change is cuased by greenhouse gases, but if it is then I believe that the only real way to stop it will be tro recude consumption. You find me a politican that will tell that to their elecorate.
I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
Except for the fact the global warming is proven. Even little things like the cost of road repairs going up thanks to heat shows that global warming is real. I mean, the severity of weather related damages has gone up ... this is per asset damage not simply because we have more stuff to break. New Orleans should be a fairly big example. Also they are two different things, having faith is essentially closing your eyes and running full speed. Having faith that there are no problems with global warming is the same, take some time and learn the facts and you'll be quickly cured of that faith.
Global Warming = based in fact and science
Judgment Day = based in fairytales and closing your mind
> It's even funnier watching people who are completely clueless
> about climate science trying to shoot down the studies of people
> who have spent their whole lives studying it.
I dunno... I think it's very disturbing --like having an idiot in the room waving around live grenades. Doing the will of oil barons, pushing the idea that there's nothing wrong, sending the world climate further in the wrong direction isn't much different. It's just harder to see the direct connection. The poor of New Orleans didn't get blown up by terrorists, but they're still very dead.
Ask me about my sig!
CO2 has been proven to be directly correlated to temperature increases. There's a theory (I'm sure you've heard of green house gases, yes?), a working model, and data that fits the theory. Overwhelmingly. I'm sorry that you're not following the global warming debate, but frankly, that's your issue, not mine.
Regarding your prediction of stable CO2 levels - that'd be a dramatic improvement over the current situation, which forecasts (and currently is) about 7% yearly growth in the best cases where the countries in question are actually doing something. And this is not going to happen unless people drastically change their habits and their demands.
Finally, dealing with climate change will be a LOT harder than trying to stop it or reverse it. The principal mechanism of global warming is known (green house gases, and primarily CO2). The mechanism through which global warming can at least be mitigated is well known. On the other hand, odds-on scenarios of what could happen during the next 50 years of current CO2 increase are dreadfully expensive and disruptive. It will cost me less to cut back on my energy expenses than it will cost me to accomodate the global economic crash that will follow any hypothetical large-scale climatological changes.
Your little snippet was not hard reality - it was little more than smug justification of why it's ok to continue with the current course. It might be the more probably outcome, but self-fulfilling prophecies are too easy to put forward to consider them serious debate.
Air and water pollution might be a large problem as well (and it certainly isn't a hidden problem - ask France), but that doesn't mean that you can't deal with both. Especially since the solution for one might be the solution for the other.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
> relatively short lifespan. This fact is as clear as the fact
> that global warming is happening.
But is it happening faster than it typically does?
In many parts of the US, it's common to see temperature changes of 100 degrees over the course of a year. And it's not really a problem - plants are adapted to that cycle, animals migrate/burrow/grow or shed winter coats, people know to wear the right clothes and use the right technology, the change is gradual enough to largely avoid thermal shock to infrastructure, and so on.
If you saw a temperature change of 100 degrees over the course of an hour, though, it would be a disaster. If it happened in summer, for example, vast swathes of vegetation would freeze and die and whole populations of animals would be unprepared and freeze to death, both of which would lead to ripple effects up the food chain, including us (crop failure). Thousands of people would die as they were caught unprepared without proper clothing and heating. The immense heat differentials in the area would whip up enormous storms.
Analogous problems could happen from unusually-fast changes in global temperature -- for example, disruptions of whole ecosystems as plants and animals are unable to adjust fast enough, substantial increases in dangerous weather as energy is rapidly added to the system, flooding displacing hundreds of millions of people over the course of a few years, and so on.
Most of these problems are made worse the more rapid the change is; there's a reason flash floods are more dangerous than seepage. Add to this some of the nonlinear effects that oceanographers I know are worried about (e.g., the Gulf Stream shutting down -- which we know has happened in the past -- and drastically changing the climate of the Atlantic region), and you get the potential for immense human suffering.
Will it kill off the human species? Probably not. But using that to suggest it's "okay" is as nonsensical as saying it's "okay" to have all your limbs blown off, so long as you survive.
> trying to keep achieve stability in a chaotic system that we don't
> really understand and can barely model is probably pointless.
In your opinion, perhaps. Throwing up our hands and crying "ohh, it's all too complicated" is not the approach that has led the advance of civilization and knowledge. We control chaotic systems pretty successfully every day - the turbulence around jet engines, for example - so there's reason to believe we could usefully influence other chaotic systems.
If nothing else, the simple fact that we're already influencing this chaotic system and pushing it into a state which is worse for us makes the question somewhat moot. We're already influencing the system, so we have no choice about whether to influence it, only about how. Unless you're arguing that blindly whacking away at an incompletely-understood system is just as good as employing what knowledge we do have as best as possible.
But that would be a strange claim for you to be making, given the continued success of jet engines and our continued incomplete understanding of turbulent fluids. If that's your claim, the evidence isn't on your side.
Being "apathetic" IS taking a position, it's supporting the current "going to hell in a handbasket" strategy. And the real case is, if you read this or any other FA in a scientific publication:
It's very much like the health issues of smoking. Billions of dollars spent lobbying to make it look as if there is doubt when the case is proved by any reasonable definition.
- Scientist 1: Global warming is for real
- Scientist 2: Right, here's why
- Scientist 3: If that is true, X should happen...oh see, it does!
- Scientist 5: Oh, but Y does not fit...ih, once we correct for the measurement error, it does!
...- Scientists 900-1100: Let's summarize all this in a number of reports
- National academy of science: Let's also summarize this...oh look, the summaries agree!
- Paid shill: But duh! Erm...no, isnt!
Of course this still underestemiates the degree of work and scrutiny that has gone into our scientific understanding of global warming, but you get the idea.Stephan
It's true that there is a lot of disingenuity on the warming-is-fake side, but some of it is caused by disingenuity and outright stupidity on the warming-is-real side.
If you look at places like dailykos.com and other political proponents of "we need to do something", even mainstream ones like Al Gore, they're at huge odds with the scientific literature. For example, you now hear all sorts of nonsense about how increased hurricane frequency proves we need to do something, even though there is no evidence at all of a relationship (some scientists have hypothesized a relationship between warming and hurricane intensity---not frequency---but even that is highly speculative and not generally accepted).
In addition, I've heard claims that severe winters also support global warming, but the UN's general reports on the subject dispel that as a myth, and claim that global warming would result in, on average, slightly less severe winters. (Of course, severe winters don't *disprove* globl warming either---there are still plenty of year-to-year fluctuations even if the average is getting warmer.)
People are also conflating multiple trends. The important issue from a human-change point of view is the extent to which greenhouse gases and other human creations are changing climate. That's a separate question from the *aggregate* climate change. There *is* indeed good evidence for human-caused climate change, but it is still a separate question. For example, glacier retreat is often cited, but is largely a different phenomenon---Canadian glaciers have been retreating since about 1842, long before significant human-caused global warming. Current glacier retreat does appear to be caused or accelerated by global warming, but showing a picture of "glacier in 1840" and "glacier now" is just shady politics, when most of that recession happened from 1840-1930. And, of course, we should also take into account the estimates that about 30% of current warming is caused by an odd increase in solar output.
I think on the whole shoddy pro-global-warming argument is hurting the case. When the facts are on your side, there's no need to embellish them, and it damages credibility. This is why Real Scientists tend not to do it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I agree with everythign you have said.. and your logic is good. Yes we should react, otherwise we will wait forever.
The only problem is. The oil industry / Polluters are also applying the same logic, but for their means.
Have a nice day!
Look again, kozumik. The GP poster hasn't claimed that he believes in Jesus, and I think he probably doesn't, although that's by no means certain. What he's doing is highlighting the fact that the GGP poster is claming that you should believe in global warming becauses of the severity of the consequences. You shouldn't do that. You should believe in global warming, or any theory (including Christianity,) based on the evidence that affirms the truth of the theory. Here's how the GP poster accomplished that. He described another theory, one that many believers of global warming disbelieve, and claimed that you should believe in that theory based on the severity of the consequences. Now, if a believer in global warming rejects that argument, then by analogy, he should also reject belief in global warming if the argument for global warming is based on the same type of argument.
It's a lot better when you don't have to explain it.
-Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
"What I'm also really curious about is why so many are so adamant about refusing to acknowledge what seems to be obvious, but that's a task for psychologists and philosophers I suppose"
Ill take a stab at it from an arm-chair philosophers perspective.
The conecpt assaults two sacred cows from the USofAmerican worldview:
1) Capitalism is good.
2) Religion (Christianity) is good.
If you acccept Anthropogenic Climate Change, you have to recognize that it is (literally) being caused by behaviours encouraged and enabled by the free market (Hyper Consumerism). To *stop* emmitting CO2 would require a curb in the marketplace.
People being happy, making love to their partners, singing, reading -- just existing isnt causing this problem. People's overconsumption of Oil (in the West) is causing this. Where is this oil being consumed? By our over-producing, unnecessary economies.
In my opinion, our Governments should tax the heck out of the worst abusers (automobiles / sprawl (development) / ?). But the Gov. cannot be a tool to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, thats a job for the invisible hand, anything else is COMMUNISM. And we know how we feel about that dont we. Totally Un-American.
The USA Government can not be trusted because it is corrupt plutocratic body. Its power is derived from monied interests, not the people.
2) The earth was created in 7 days to be the posession and playground for God's favorite playthings: Humanity. If God had wanted us to Save The Planet, he would have included it in the Commandments. The planet is outside of our control, as God controls everything, from the planets' natural disasters to its seemingly man-made ones. That the planet appears to be undergoing human-caused ills it is untrue, its really human arrogance denying that God is truely the master of our destiny... and on and on and on. Any manner of empty-headed foolishness can be justified when you accept the supernatural.
Accepting (or taking precautionary actions) on Anthropogenic Climate Change require that USofAmericans question the foundations of their self-percieved greatness.
As long as A) The USA Gov. is corrupt and B) Fundemental Religosity reign, the American People will not be ready to address the externalities of their behaviour (Global Warming).
The people who respond to these articles with "...but we don't know what's causing it; It may be part of normal variation." miss the point. The question is not whether it has been hotter in the past but:
1) Will climate changes significantly affect the carrying capacity of our biosphere/economy/ecology?
2) Is there anything we can do to mitigate such affects, if any?
3) At what point do we lose the ability to make such an impact?
Scientific opinion seems to be crystalizing on at least the first two items. Yes, the Vikings may have thrived in warmer temperatures, but the entire population of the planet in 1000 A.D. was less than the U.S.'s today (about 265 million). There was more resilience in the system to accept large migrations and crop/prey shifts. I think that's not so true today.
We also seem to be reaching agreement that yes, mankind does have an effect of some kind on world climate. How much of an effect is difficult to define.
In the end, it becomes a question of risk mitigation: If we can take action that might make the affects of climate change less, and the actions would have low enough impact on worldwide standards of living, we should take those actions. The debate seems to come down to this: What level of impact on current living conditions are we willing to accept, given what we know, and our confidence in the information. The answer will be different in Washington, Beijing, Paris, Islamabad, and the Kalihari desert.
Who was alive 400 years ago to confirm this so-called "global warming"?
Who was alive 13.7 billion years ago to confirm the Big Bang, or, if you're a creationist, who was around 6000-odd years ago to confirm Genesis?
If you want to know where these claims come from, try finding out instead of just rubbishing something you clearly don't understand.
Anyone who thinks we, as humans, are big enough to affect this God given Earth in a permanent way, has a blown up ego.
Sure. Thing is, I don't particularly care about this God-given Earth. As you say, it can take care of itself. In the event of e.g. nuclear armageddon, the planet would barely notice and would carry on spinning round the sun in much the same way. Why, it wouldn't even wipe out all life!
But that wouldn't be much consolation to the folk left crawling around in the glowing ruins of what were once cities, dying slowly of radiation sickness.
I don't know about you, but I'm actually kind of attached to human civilisation, and I'm pretty damn sure we, as humans, are quite big enough to do quite a bit of damage to that. For example, by use of the aforementioned nuclear weapons -- or, according to some scientists, by the effects of our actions on the environment.
Global warming, if true, probably won't wipe out life on earth. But it could make it pretty uncomfortable for an awful lot of humans. Again, I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned, that counts as a Bad Thing. Now, yes, fighting global warming would cost money, money which would be wasted if it turned out not to be true after all. But what I want to know is why so many people seem to think that this makes it stupid to spend that money. Nobody seems to have any problem with paying for health insurance (you have no proof you'll get sick!), or car insurance (you have no proof you're going to crash!), or house insurance (you have no proof you're going to be burgled!). So what's wrong with planet insurance?
The earth is billions of years old. Lets put things in perspective. If you put it on the scale of a human life, the last thousand years corrosponds to 1 second of an average lifespan. Who cares if its the hottest in 400 years - does it really mean anything in the scope of billions of years? We simply freak out if there is any change whatsoever - it scares us - but it is the only certainty. Unfortunately there will always be those who think that 1) they can somehow stop change from occuring 2) think that anything that is foreign to what they are used to is bad and 3) will miss the point that while we should understand our environment, maintaining it just as it is now is simply never going to be a possibility no matter what we do.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
Thank you for phrasing this better than I ever could.
/that other people told me so/, I've never looked into a telescope so I'll just take them at their word. I really don't have time to analyze studies in chemistry, astrology, geology, physics, medicine, and what have you. For the most part I have to rely on experts to disseminate the information and report back to the general public.
/I/ can see is two sides claiming the other is wrong, there's little else I can do except wait for a real answer(and as mentioned throughout the rest of this forum, there will always be someone willing to contest a final decision on the matter).
/I/ do about it? I honestly don't know, and am willing to try some REASONABLE suggestions. Buy a Prius(I can't even afford to get rid of my 1993 Ford Taurus Stationwagon)? Conserve and recycle(I already do this)? I can vote Democrat or Republican? I can maybe write my representatives some letters instead of posting here on /. and hope somebody actually reads it. Maybe we could all quit our jobs and become full-time political campaigners. It's the only real contribution I can make because I don't think I can get enough vacation time from work to go on an armed revolution to overthrow a corrupt government into throwing off Big Business influences and declare environment friendly regulations.
/live/ on an individual basis, and step one is to find a job that has opportunity for real career growth, and step two is to settle down with a nice girl. Saving the world from Global Disaster is going to have to be step four or five.
IANA(I Am Not Anything)
I'm just a dumb college kid. A layman. I only believe in the moon and stars because other people told me they're more than pictures on the ceiling of the world. I don't have any other evidence except
So when all
We have a problem because the media profits from reporting disasters. So we have a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. I'm still waiting for SARS to kill me, to be killed by human-borne bird flu, to be blown up by terrorists, to die of cancer, to die of obesity, to die of cancer(again), see economic disaster in social security, peak oil, man-made disasters from nukes, or anthrax... Because of the mostly BS catastrophes above, I get a very high noise-to-signal ratio, so much so that I'm increasingly disenchanted with listening at all.
Without real scientific reports that follow the filter requirements of the parent poster, I just have to listen to what the "experts" say. And there's so much crap out there that I have to pick and choose which reports to follow(but which ones?!) or just tune the whole deal out and get back to my job pumping out 401k distribution confirmations here in HR.
And if we do reach a good consensus(which the majority here says we have) what do
Me, Mr. Average Joe, lives on a diet of work, leisure, and sleep. The news is 90% entertainment, and maybe 10% relevant news. I don't feel like there's a whole lot I can really do at the moment with my meager resources, and there are more pressing issues. This "global" perspective stuff is great, but I
No, if it's caused by human beings, then human beings can do something about it. Heck, if it's caused by volcanos, there has to be _something_ we can do.
I don't really give a damn what the cause is. We -- the human race -- can have a net positive effect on this issue. That, alone, is reason to do it. The potential to save our children and our planet only adds to that reason.
The only problem is. The oil industry / Polluters are also applying the same logic, but for their means.
This makes a funny point, as well.
What do scientists have to gain by claiming global warming is happening/refusing the oil industry? A salary, at best. Climatologists and research scientists definitely don't make big bucks (maybe decent money on writing books, but hardly billions), relying mostly on NSF grants to do their research. Lying for a meager living is not something most people are willing to do.
What does the oil industry have to gain by refuting the scientists? Lots and lots and lots of money. Lying for a few billion dollars is something that even I would consider. Everybody has a selling point.
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Imagine I see a line of people going on and on, until that line bends around a corner. Now, let's say I tell you that I'm taller than everyone in that line until it bends around that corner. Would you necessarily conclude that immediately after it bends around that corner you'll find someone taller? Because that's the kind of logic you're applying here.
Now, let's imagine that you do claim that. I now find a way to see around that corner and find tham I'm taller than everyone I can see there until it bends around yet another corner. Will you know claim that this claim means that there's someone taller right around the next corner?
Has it ever been hotter than it is now? Absolutely. Were we here to suffer the consequences? No. Has it ever heated up this quickly before? Probably not since the Earth first coalesced.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Okay, I'm going to get a -1 flaimbait for this one...
a w/LM_Fig8_2_1.jpg h ange2/04_3.shtml,
<rant>
What happens after an ice age is over? It warms up, right? Well, we've been in a post-ice age period since, well, the last ice age. It's still significantly cooler than it has been in the distant past, and IMHO the earth is going to warm up, whether we do it or not.
Look at this, from UCSD:
(graph): http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/images/r
(article): http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatec
and: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age.
Now, of course that doesn't mean we should be responsible, and reduce our emissions. I'm just tired of all of the FUD and fearmongering being spread around about doomsday and the like. A little science if you please.
</rant>
just an analog boy living in a digital age.
Biblical scholar consensus is not comparable to methodical scientiests. Witchcraft practitioner consensus is not comparable to empirical scientists.