Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds World Warmth Edging to Ancient Levels
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a decades-long study by NASA scientists. According to the research, global temperatures are reaching highs not seen in thousands of years. From the article: "One of the findings from this collaboration is that the Western Equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans are now as warm as, or warmer than, at any prior time in the Holocene. The Holocene is the relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. The Western Pacific and Indian Oceans are important because, as these researchers show, temperature change there is indicative of global temperature change. Therefore, by inference, the world as a whole is now as warm as, or warmer than, at any time in the Holocene. According to Lea, 'The Western Pacific is important for another reason, too: it is a major source of heat for the world's oceans and for the global atmosphere.'"
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago and what range of error do these readings fall within?
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ - Exercise for the rest of us.
*This doesn't necessarily correlate directly with those countries who have had the longest dependence on fossil fuels. But it's not so far off.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The Earth's climate changes. It's inevitable. It's happened before.
Now, I'm not saying that humans are helping things a long any, but there is NO way to do as the t-shirts say and "Stop Global Warming". Even if we reduce emmisions, we are still a threat of the Earth if by sheer numbers alone. We have far overshot the carrying capacity and are damaging the Earth, but I don't see all the environmentalists supporting, uh, "population correction".
There is way to much hype surrounding global warming. The global climate is getting warmer: fact. This is solely the fault of humanity and only humanity can stop it: fiction.
I'm not saying to screw with the Earth as much as we can, I'm just saying that the climate change is inevitable, especially considering the unfathomable amount of humans on this planet.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
"I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change." --SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
He's right. This issue is being played so much by the media it is hard to get honest science. All in the name of money -- either from the latest blockbuster movie or a never-ending fountain of grant money.
Where's George Carlin when you need him?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
People who keep repeating that climate change is a conspiracy remind me of someone who has just been told they have a cancer and are in denial. WAKE UP! Ugh.
And another thing, how have we come to such a situation where these anti-evolutionist climate change deniers congregate to /.?
Not only do their numbers seem to be increasing, but I see people after all this time still engaging their mindless trolls!
This is the 21st century, we are a global society and as such I am personally confident that it is not a forgone conclusion that the human race is destined for a 'Bladerunner' future dystopia. However, the first step in avoiding such a fate is to acknowledge the true state of our reality. (...cue the trolls to say I'm somehow advocating the downfall of western civilization) ugh...
I've gotta disagree with you there. Those who have the stongest economies* will have the less uncomfortable time of it. People can point fingers and complain all they want, but in the end, the quality of life will remain highest for those who have the best economies
I take it you weren't alive in 1973.
Those with the furthest to fall, will fall and it will not be a pleasant experience for anyone. With the astounding energy dependence of the USA I can't see it going very comfortably. Perhaps this is why the current administration is in such a state of denial, doctoring studies, saying all the facts aren't in yet, etc.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Marginal? The most recent ice cores show that 1) the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today is DOUBLE the highest level observed over the last 750,000 years and 2) the rate of increase in the level of carbon dioxide is greater than ever observed. The earth is big, changes in its thermal characteristics will be slow, but make no mistake, we have already committed this planet to significant changes. Were we to completely stop emitting carbon dioxide today, temperatures and sea levels would continue to rise for the next century. That's the fatal flaw of the "market forces will fix it when the problem becomes annoying enough" argument. The system is not responsive on short time scales. By the time we get to the point at which it becomes desirable to fix the problem, we will already have committed ourselves to far worse. It's like not treating lung cancer until it's already hard to breathe - Too Late.
..but WTF here is mine. I would argue that since the earth is a closed-system, and us humans are a product of this system, that anything that we may do can never be construed as "unnatural". It's not like we were beamed to this planet from some other one, and then proceeded to destroy the ecological balance of this "Eden".
We evolved from other animals, any of which would, in our shoes, behave the same way we do. So we like electricity, automobiles, and such...how can this be defined as unnatural, and therefore be construed as BAD?
Whatever we may or may not do will effect the earth this way or that, we, as all other plants and animals, will, like always, evolve to survive in the new conditions that are forever being created by this mudball Earth. IMO, we cannot separate our actions from the rest of nature.
We are just doing what we were gifted to do to survive. If the planet warms, big deal. All that means is some variant of us more adapted to a hotter planet will thrive and displace us, until, of course, the earth cools again as it wavers up and down in the galactic plane.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
This is true... there have been hot periods and cold periods in Earth's past. However, what many of these new findings are suggesting is that the current rate of change exceeds what happened previously. It's that things are heating up *really fast* that is being blamed on human intervention. Further, TFA notes that we are reaching the warmest Holocene temperatures... and we're *not slowing down* yet. That's a bit frightening.
And whether any of this is due to human action or not is, to a large extent, irrelevant. If you're sitting around the house with some friends and one of them points out that the drapes in the living room just caught fire, you don't sit there and argue over whether they caught fire because of faulty electrical, errant ashes from the fireplace, or the cat knocking over a candle. You do what you can to put out the #$(*#& fire! If valid science is suggesting serious problems ahead because of global warming, let's stop arguing and do something, anything, to try and stop it.
The reason it is a problem is that we aren't really prepared for it.
Well, sure, but the rate matters. A ten meter sea level rise over a thousand years means cities gradually pull back from the coasts. A ten meter sea level rise over a hundred years means cities are abandoned, causing national and international distrubances due to displaced persons etc.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It makes sense because we are being told that humans are causing the temps to "explode" over the last hundred years or so. But how then could the temps be warmer 10+K years ago? Why were the temps so high back then? Maybe there are other processes that play a MUCH larger part in this whole temp change than we are currently aware.
Are humans responsible for the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars as well?
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
You can take global climate change completely out of the picture and it *still* is a good idea to look for alternatives to petroleum. Oner, economics. The way it is set up now, this industry sucks a huge amount of cash out of the world and puts it into the hands of relatively few people, and at least in the USA, is a big factor in balance of trade and our ...strange...foreign policy decisions. We need to break the back of that economic dependence and get the cash out to different people. That's my opinion on it anyway. I am rather tired of black suited insane megalomaniacs and fundy mullahs and others of that oil soaked political ilk having their hands on extra billions and billions to play around with, because they just get into..mischief..with it. There's a big tie in with petroleum and the more heinous parts of the military industrial complex and the wars for profits that are always breaking out. One of the ways we can help reduce that is to stop giving them cash for petroleum, and to lessen our dependence on petroleum. I am for a mass decentralization of energy sources basically, using the huge variety of alternatives that we have developed already and that look to be on the horizon.
The next is more immediate and long lasting. The cities keep people soaking 24/7/365 in saturated poison. Petroleum burns dirty, really filthy, I don't care which engine you are talking about, and the obvious health detriments are there to *see* because you can see how dirty the air is, let alone measuring it with instruments. When the air gets chunky styled in a variery of designer colors and fragrances, you know it falls into the "not good for you" category.
Just because you can't see any clear motivation, doesn't mean their isn't one.
Their motivation may stem from any of the following:
Now I don't know how many of these motivations apply to how many climatologists... but I also know that I am not a climatologist (or even an academician) and so I cannot possibly imagine all of their pressures and motivations. And neither can you.
Therefore, the idea that "I don't see an obvious motivation to lie, so why are y'all so skeptical?" is perilously useless.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I suppose the same could be said of human civilization. We haven't evolved to it. The thing that puzzles me here though is what condition haven't we evolved to before? Slightly higher CO2 concentration? Slightly warmer temperatures? More or less rain? These are all well within the range of what the human race has evolved with.
Yea verily!
I acknowledge that temperatures are changing. My question is harder: what is really causing the change, and what can we do to affect the system? So far everything I've heard has been of the "I've noticed this set of factors, and I guessing that if we stop doing X, we'll be OK" and I don't trust that. Making recommendations without complete knowledge (or at least more complete than we have today) could cause more problems than we already have.
It depends upon your perspective. If you make your living growing a specific crop in a specific location, it could make or break you. If you are worried about the possible extinction of a single species that only lives in a specific environment, you may care a lot. If you are worried about the value (or existance) of your beach-front property, you may be concerned. On the other hand, if you can take a longer view, one that understands that the planetary ecosphere has been evolving continuously for many millions of years, and will continue to do so for many millions of years to come, then it may not bother you quite so much.
I believe that humans have adapted to a lot of different environments over the years, and will continue to do so for many millenia to come, so while there may be some short-term pain, as a species, we'll continue to thrive, even if it does get a little warmer or a little colder.
We call it art because we have names for the things we understand.
Therefore, the idea that "I don't see an obvious motivation to lie, so why are y'all so skeptical?" is perilously useless.
Well, compare that to the opposite view (that climate change is not happening). Here there is a quite understandable incentive to lie, since many of the corporations whose use of fossil fuels is the alleged cause of climate change are extremely valuable funding sources.
Both groups make claims, more or less, to scientific credibility and objective truth: one is claiming X and the other not X. (I should say that many of the claims are only qualified support: "studies support X" rather than "X is true", etc.)
One then has to make a choice. One view, the absolutist one, is that no conclusions are trustworthy for the reasons you stated and I expanded on.
Another (potentially error-prone) approach requires making a choice and determining who is more likely to be correct. With this in mind, choosing the group that has the least motivation to lie (rather than no motivation) seems like a plausible strategy.
Credible? Or possible? Its possible that most scientists are left wing and support Kyoto because it has "socialist" politics. But if you can prove scientists are "mostly" left wing politically you then need to prove that:
I know you believe these four items are true, but I think that item four can be interpreted either way. But I wonder why, exactly, a "Leftist" is inherently opposed to CO 2 emmisions. I am what you would call a Leftist, and I don't oppose industry! A lot of this conflict comes from the fact that those on the left tend to favor government regulation of industry and those on the right oppose it. The science seems to imply that these emmissions are doing real harm and the free market is not going to save us from this, in the highly likely senario that this is a real problem. (see: the tragedy of the commons) What, exactly, is the cause of your scepticism here? The evidence seems to be pretty strong that this is really happening. What makes you doubt it?
But honestly, I don't see how changing our energy policy could be a bad thing here. Industry isn't going to just give up and fold because of emmissions restrictions anymore than forumla 1 stopped when they banned turbochargers. The end result is more research, cleaner air and less dependance on foreign oil. The industry doesn't want to do it because they believe it will hurt their bottom line. They are right of course, in the short term emission caps will require more investment in r&d, hurting short term profits. But dammit, they aren't just going to close the doors and give up!
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
It makes sense because we are being told that humans are causing the temps to "explode" over the last hundred years or so. But how then could the temps be warmer 10+K years ago? Why were the temps so high back then? Maybe there are other processes that play a MUCH larger part in this whole temp change than we are currently aware.
First of all, it's not temperatures that are important at all from a human standpoint. It's change in temperatures. So, an Earth on averate 10 degrees C warmer than it is today is perfectly inhabitable. If it happens too fast though, all our stuff is in the wrong places. Our "breadbasket" farming regions end up in deserts or in places so cold an rainy the crops can't get ahead of diseases; our cities are partly underwater (not a linear affect of temperature, it is strue); our populations are in places that are too hot or (ironically) too cold.
It's all a matter of rates.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Scientists can lie just like anybody else. The key lies in the level of punishment that results from lying:
When a politician lies, they get elected. And *maybe* impeached later on. (Bill Clinton)
When a corporation lies, they lose a tiny fraction of the income generated by the lie. (Enron, Big Tobacco, Microsoft)
When a scientist lies, they get about a year or two before they're caught. At which point they lose all standing among fellow scientists, get barred from all reputable journals, and often lose their university/institute jobs.
Summarized: when a scientist gets caught in a lie, their life is over. When a corporation is caught in a lie, they lose a small part of their illegitimate gains. Who has more incentive to lie?
The implied question is, "If that sort of climate change was possible ten thousand years ago, what makes you so sure that humans are the cause of current climate change?"
Which is the same question I keep seeing get asked over and over again. Here's the answer: it doesn't freaking matter. Here are two questions that I think people should spend more time mulling over:
1) Do we, as a species, WANT global temperatures to reach levels not seen since the Holocene period ?
2) If the answer to the above is "No", is there anything that we, as a species, can do to help PREVENT that from occurring?
How we got here doesn't matter. What we do now does. Some think we're helpless and that the climate's gonna do what the climate's gonna do whether or not they buy an SUV, so they buy an SUV.
Personally, I disagree.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
Thousands of years in a 4.5 billion year history.
I'm quaking in my boots.
Don't you mean promoted or awarded a medal?
Lose income? Maybe in fairy land.
The problem in the US is the unholy cluster fuck of big media, fortune 500 companies, and the GOP political machine. The gullible maroons in this country don't stand a chance.
USA will be the Brazil of the new millenium--a powerful elite controlling huge resources while the majority of the population lives in ignorance and squalor.
USA #1... yes you are! Yes you are, you cute little thing! Those big bad scientists are all after glory, they don't care about real science, that's right! Come and snuggle up here between Big Tobacco and Big Oil, because we care and luv you!
Just because a person doesn't like dictatorships, it doesn't mean they are opposed to all forms of government. Academics may be less trusting of industry (and a whole lot of other things - organized religion, simple-minded patriotism, etc.) but that's their job. Academics are supposed to take a hard look at the world and figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.
You seem to be restating your previous point. An academic will have certain views. To the extent that it is possible to measure an overall trend, those views may coincide with views associated with "the left". One of the views associated with the left is a distrust of corporate leadership. But that's just a re-statement of your previous point.
Whether the publicity is free has no relevance. Furthermore, publicity is valuable only for generating a feeling of pride in one's work that would be completely undermined by involvement in a cynical conspiracy.If everyone already agrees (that is, they're on the "bandwagon") then there is no need for a conspiracy.
That would be a symptom of the conspiracy but not a cause. Furthermore, it would undermine the conspiracy by bringing people with false loyalty into the conspiracy.I doubt that either is "fun" but the ultimate satisfaction to a scientist comes from being correct about something important. Forming a conspiracy will not increase the probably that global warming is correct or that global warming is important.
You don't go into science for arbitrary personal power (that's what MBA's are for), the power comes from the correctness of your ideas. Anyway, the vast majority of academics have no more desire to dismantle all current industry than they do to dismantle all current government. There's a huge difference between wanting to dismantle something and wanting to subject it to checks and balances.
So far nothing you've mentioned makes it plausible that there is a large scale conspiracy among climatologists. Sure, it's possible but just about anything is possible. What you need to show is that it's probable. Maybe you've been listening to the right-wing religious conservatives too long to know the difference but, believe me, possible and probable are not the same thing.
GP: "No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore."
"I would have to agree with this....[slashdotters] completely believe a scientific report on a political issue like global climate change"
How can people be so ignorant about the line between science and politics. In case you have trouble I will spell it out...Science informs Policy. The science is sound and if people like the above two posters actually understood the difference between scientific findings and the (sometimes dishonest) action taken as a response to the findings they may see a reason for hope. However I doubt it, it is much simpler to throw your arms in the air and shout "you are all money hungry liars" or "I'm too stupid to understand".
"- and yes, these days, it is a political issue"
There is nothing new about this, take a look at the political and legal shitfight between Edison and the Gas companies in the early 1900 or Galileo and the Pope if you want something older. The reason that it is a "political issue" is because the conclusion that mankinds CO2 emmissions are causing the globe to rapidly warm is scientifically very strong (much stronger than the economic models used as justification for political inaction). Certain powerfull groups are looking down the barrel of significant change to their profitable status quo (fossil fuels on one side, insurance on the other), of course there will be political dishonesty, psuedo-science and FUD but how is any of that a reason for joe-public to ignore genuine findings?
Those who argue against the conclusion that anthropogenic climate warming is occuring at an unprecedented rate are either ignorant, intellectually lazy or belong in the same camp as the creationists. The reason I say that is because the science does not back them up, not one single paper in the last 10yrs has dipsputed the basic fact that we are warming the planet via our emmissions. And yes, what governments and corporations do or don't do about that conclusion is by definition political. There are still plenty of things science doesn't know about the climate, studying these things will make our understanding (and thus our predictions) stronger, burrying ones head in the sand crying "it's all too hard, I can't trust anyone" is a pathetic excuse for intellectual apathy.
Never has my sig seemed so appropriate.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.