Slashdot Mirror
Climate Changes Shift Springtime in Europe
gollum123 writes to mention a BBC article on a study of Europe's changing climate. The study collated information from 17 nations and 125,000 studies involving 561 species. The results indicate that, at least in Europe, 'Spring' is coming earlier and earlier every year. From the article: "Spring was beginning on average six to eight days earlier than it did 30 years ago, the researchers said. In regions such as Spain, which saw the greatest increases in temperatures, the season began up to two weeks earlier. The findings were based on what was described as the world's largest study of changes in recurring natural events, such as when plants flowered. The team of researchers also found that the onset of autumn has been delayed by an average of three days over the same period."
How is it trolling to wonder if a flaw in their research would skew their results?
They don't know. At least in this study they had the integrity to admit it.
But until we know, most of these studies are meaningless; we can't act on the information. If we knew for sure that we humans are causing changes, then we should mend our ways rapidly. But when history shows larger fluctuations than the current one, it could be easily inferred that the changes are all due to mother nature, and all our actions would be noise. And very expensive noise...
"Wasn't there a cooling trend in the 70s, that one that made everyone concerned about global cooling? Wouldn't that skew their results? How is it compared to say 50 years ago?"
North America's climate was cooler from roughly 1950 through about 1975; but I don't know that it was a world-wide phenomenon (it could have been; I just don't know.). However "cooler" is a relative term - it wasn't "Little Ice Age" cool or anything like that. It was just cooler than the period before and after. You might notice that a lot of your local record low temps occured in the 1950s; at least if you live in the US.
There have been a lot of fluctuations like this, and will continue to be whether global warming continues or not (that's one thing that bugs me - the debate shouldn't be "it is warming" versus "it isn't warming". The ice core records taken in the past two decades have established that IT IS WARMING UP. The question really is, is this observed warming trend caused by man's activity [anthropogenic] or is it a natural fluctuation?).
That's one of the problems with the global warming discussion. As the climate continues to warm year after year it becomes more and more likely that this is anthropogenic rather than natural; but by the time we are 100% certain it'll be too late to do anything. Unfortunately this sort of uncertainty is common in science, which means politicians can use their mad spin skillz to argue it whatever way their constituency wants.
#DeleteChrome
So much for my high regard for 5 digit slashdot userID posters.
"If you don't have eyes you shouldn't have wings" -- Carl Pilkington
I believe that more research needs to be done to determine whether human activities are having any effect on the global climate. As history tells us, it is usually the best course of action in the face of uncertainty to do nothing. For example, during the Cold War there was a great deal of uncertainty about what he intentions of the Soviet Union in East Germany were, and due to this fact we made sure to not "rock the boat" b,y sending any troops or weapons of any kind to West Germany. It was of course our steadfast dedication to non-involvement and careful scientific study, examination and research over many decadesof the massive arms buildup behind the Iron Curtain that eventually allowed us to witness the collapse of the Soviet Union and Germany's reunification.
It's especially ridiculous since it's pretty clear we ARE causing it and the fix is a) simple and b) cheap to implement relative to the cost of continuing as we are, damage to the planet not even considered.
The Farewell Tour II
...how the USA is about the only country where there are a significant number of people who dispute global warming wholesale and/or the human cause for it and where such things are a "political issue".
All the dishonesty that happens with the studies. People cry about the dishonesty and corporate backing that comes from anti-GW studies, but it really doesn't seem to be any better on the pro GW side. It's just not science that's being done in many cases. Science isn't about finding evidence to support your position, it's a process of knowing things and to do it right, you always have to try to prove yourself wrong.
n ce.html)
I think Feynman said it best:
"It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another."
(http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_scie
This cherry picking of data, downplaying and/or ignoring of contradictory results and such is just not acceptable. It may very well be that there's something to the idea that humans are causing global warming and that it's going to lead to bad things, but the way to prove that is not to use bad science.
Because of all this crap floating around on both sides, I personally have just said "fuck it" in relation to global warming. I'm not looking in to it anymore, I don't know who to believe. I neither believe nor disbelieve the theory. I'll continue to conserve as much as possible in my personal life (biking to work, for example, which I highly recommend) since I believe in conservation for it's own sake and since it makes economic sense (use less, have more). However I'm not going to get all worked up about it because I just can't figure out if there's anything to get all worked up about.
this year, spring wasn't really readily observeable. it was a fairly consistent gradient from winter to summer.
but then, we didn't have much of a winter. it was barely cold enough for heavy jackets, probably not dipping below 20F but a time or two, with little snow.
and the summer has been pretty mild in general, too - very, very cool, with a very unusually high amount of rainfall.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
People cry about the dishonesty and corporate backing that comes from anti-GW studies, but it really doesn't seem to be any better on the pro GW side.
It doesn't have to be "better". Because the potential downsides are so huge, it's sufficient for people who are concerned about global warming to demonstrate that it is a plausible possibility and that it has significant costs. That has clearly been done. Furthermore, we know that the costs of carbon emission reductions are small in comparison to the costs resulting from global warming if global warming is occurring.
In the face of such a huge downside, to continue carbon emissions at current levels is reckless. The burden of proof is simply not symmetrical; we must reduce carbon emissions until opponents of reductions can demonstrate unequivocally that continued emissions are safe.
Your kind of insistence on "balance" is a debating strategy. Don't pretend that it has anything to do with science--it's nothing more than a carefully crafted PR message.
Lets just replace global warming with eternal torment in Hell. Guess what. Using your logic, everyone should instantly become Christian, "Just in case".
Your analogy doesn't work. First of all, "eternal torment in hell" isn't a plausible scientific possibility, it is exclusively an article of faith. In contrast, there is significant scientific evidence for the occurrence of global warming and its human causation. Secondly, whether you condemn yourself to hell is your own business, but carbon emissions put everybody at risk.
There are plenty of people making a lot of money off of scaring other people.
Yeah, people like you, who try to scare the world into continuing the status quo by painting apocalyptic scenarios of economic collapse if we just reduce our carbon emissions to European levels.
Given that, saying that we should all do without because maybe some fearmongers are right seems kind of silly.
You're quite right: fearmongers like you need to be recognized for who they are.