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.'"
Save the Universe! Just say NO to irreversible processes!
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
If you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, yet, do try. Like Al Gore, it's a bit clunky, but there's a lot of truth in there and shouldn't be discounted just because you may not like the presenter.
My belief is, we'll keep right on going in this direction until we feel sufficient pain* to stop. Famine and flooding will certainly increase the likelihood of conflict. Darfur as depicted in the film was an eye opener, the severe drought which may be caused by warming now appears more likely the root of conflict as people scrabble for remaining water and land.
It may become the view that USA and Europe, have had it good long enough and they should cut down on emissions first. It will come to a head when cities like Shanghai are under water and each country is blaming the other for the fine mess things are in. Those who have dipped deepest and longest into the carbon fuels trough the will have an uncomfortable time of it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels
Sep. 25, 2006
A new study by NASA scientists finds that the world's temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years.
The study, led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, N.Y., along with scientists from other organizations concludes that, because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which has lasted nearly 12,000 years. An "interglacial period" is a time in the Earth's history when the area of Earth covered by glaciers was similar or smaller than at the present time. Recent warming is forcing species of plants and animals to move toward the north and south poles.
Image right: Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows average temperatures from 2001-2005 compared to a base period of temperatures from 1951-1980. Dark red indicates the greatest warming and purple indicates the greatest cooling. Click image to enlarge. Credit: NASA
The study used temperatures around the world taken during the last century. Scientists concluded that these data showed the Earth has been warming at the remarkably rapid rate of approximately 0.36 Fahrenheit (0.2 Celsius) per decade for the past 30 years.
"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made pollution," said Hansen. In recent decades, human-made greenhouse gases have become the largest climate change factor. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and warm the surface. Some greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, occur naturally, while others are due to human activities.
Image left: Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1880 to 2005, the warmest ranked year on record. Dark red indicates the greatest warming and dark blue indicates the greatest cooling. Click image to view animation. Credit: NASA
The study notes that the world's warming is greatest at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and it is larger over land than over ocean areas. The enhanced warming at high latitudes is attributed to effects of ice and snow. As the Earth warms, snow and ice melt, uncovering darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, a process called a positive feedback. Warming is less over ocean than over land because of the great heat capacity of the deep-mixing ocean, which causes warming to occur more slowly there.
Hansen and his colleagues in New York collaborated with David Lea and Martin Medina-Elizade of UCSB to obtain comparisons of recent temperatures with the history of the Earth over the past million years. The California researchers obtained a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from the magnesium content in the shells of microscopic sea surface animals, as recorded in ocean sediments.
Image left: Data from this study reveal that the Earth has been warming approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) per decade for the past 30 years. This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years. Credit: NASA
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 c
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of _the_past_1000_years#General_techniques
It probably took you longer to post that question than it took me to find that answer.
=Smidge=
Which agenda turns responses into trolls spreading only FUD against a whole scientific discipline?
--
make install -not war
we're already experiencing late falls, and slightly earlier springs. Two years running now the ground hasn't reliably frozen solid until well into november. Therefore, while I feel for those of you living 2 ft above sea level in Florida, I believe I speak on behalf of many residents of Upstate NY, Minnesota, Saskatchewan, etc., when I say, "Good".
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
... were a real problem. I'm so glad Atlantis was destroyed, or else who knows where we'd be since we are only now jsut approaching those Atlantean high temps of 12K years ago.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
We've pumped coal, oil and gas that used to lie buried all into the atmosphere as CO2 and other byproducts at industrial scales for over a century. All that stuff used to live on the Earth during hotter climates, converting CO2 etc into themselves, then dying to be buried. We shouldn't be surprised when returning the gas they cleaned from our atmosphere returns us to the climates that preceeded them. Which we did not adapt to live in ourselves. And which have never changed so quickly, far outpacing the rate of human evolution, even if we were still as subject to natural evolution.
All that spells "extinction", or at best "civilization collapse".
--
make install -not war
The article only actually mentions climate change within the past million years. Measuring temperatures over ththis period is relatively easily done by measuring the makeup of dissolved gas within ice deposits from the period. The gas composition is affected by the temperature at the time the ice freezes so by compiling many samples an extremely accurate climate chart can be put together.
To some extent it is also possible to measure even longer trends of several millions years using a few methods which have varying degrees (haha) of accuracy. Studying the geological effects on rock (i.e. calculating sea level height by erosion caused on rocks which were on the surface at a known point in time) is one of the most common.
Serously though, with the coming rise in ocean levels you want to be at least above 30 to 40 feet(10 to 15 meters) above current ocean levels, preferably at a higher lattitude, like say Canada, if you want to have something to leave to the kids. :-)
And if you want to make them wealthy, buy a lot of land that will still BE land.
New Orleans is in a very BAD long term position, amortising over 30 years, you're likely to find your real-estate holdings underwater. (If you want to see how bad it can get, just look at the Champlain sea and the fact that the mid western praries are prime flat growing land because they were UNDERWATER.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
They assume the laws of physics and certain chemical processes were the same before as they are now. That's how science, generally, works.
I could point out a few contrived examples, but instead, I'll just let you deduct from here.
No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore.
Assuming you're right, that means you're probably lying since you're part of society. Assuming you're wrong, means you're mistaken. Thus, your opinion kind of defines itself as irrelevant, huh?
Ever wonder How fast a normal climate change occurs ?. stmRead this first
BTW : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5357606
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Just to clarify, when I read your post, this is what I think you're saying:
that it would raise temperatures in the past as well!
Because 12,000 years ago, the temperature was as high as current measurements. You are saying that if US emissions of CO2 are the cause of the current rise in temperature, it must be the cause of the ancient high temperatures as well.
This is the kind of information that I try to show
You show them what? A slashdot article? I take it you give them verbal statements alone, such as this one.
I'm not saying that pollution is okay, but I do think that it has less to do with long term global climate shifts than others would have you believe.
Are you referring to the Big Tobacco article? Some would tell me there is no global warming. Others would tell me the world is about to end. Some even tell me that tobacco companies want me to believe there is no global warming.
That's what I mean when I say, "The debate is heating up!"
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...
So while the world will not end in 10 years, if the earth's temperature increase continues, it will be a real problem.
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago. .
.and what range of error do these readings fall within?
From the article:
"The California researchers obtained a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from the magnesium content in the shells of microscopic sea surface animals, as recorded in ocean sediments."
. .
When applied over thousands of years, not bad. It is clearly warmer now than during the last ice age, innit?
When applied over the past thirty years the margin is larger than the measurement. If the graph on the linked site were in whole degrees over the past thousand years it would appear to the eye as a straight, level line.
This is not to say that small changes cannot have pronounced influence. They can. But we are talking about very small changes against comparitively large margins of error. The trend has been warming for quite some time. We really do not have a very good idea about what is happening now, nevermind why it is happening.
One thing seems clear to me though (Warning! Warning! Incoming opinion. Get a grip), while man may well be able to destablize environment, he is absolutely powerless to stablize it.
KFG
Rather than try look for temperature indicators, changes in amounts of ice are a far better indicator of global warmining for a long time still.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
More data equals more confidence. If you dredge up thousands and thousands of ice cores, mud cores or what have you, take all the data and plot a histogram of it, you usually get a nice bell shaped curve. If you've got lots and lots and lots and lots of data, which these guys do, you can safely say that the middle of the bell curve is the mean of your data.
Of course, as you mention, there is a margin of error. However, by a happy chance of mathematics, the more data you get, the more confident you become that the temperature was within so many standard deviations of the mean. The bell curve won't change shape, in fact you want it to stay the same. And if it does, that means, on average, the temperature or whatever was in and around the mean value.
Basically if you get enough data, i.e. do enough experiments, you can tell the doubters to stick their unsubstanciated opinion where the maths don't shine.
May the Maths Be with you!
Welcome to critical thinking where you have to gather info from various opposing sides and attempt to discern between the lies to gather what is often at best a blurry picture. But you're right in that you should pretty much never take what one side tells you for the truth, because then you're guarenteed to be wrong. (This goes along with the post above that says everyone lies, because everyone does by tilting it in their favor or framing it in their perspective)
- Kal`Goblez
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.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I would have to agree with this. A lot of 'scientific' reports are funded by political organizations that want to push an agenda. I find it hypocritical that SlashDot will rip apart and condemn a MS SQL benchmark article (for example) that has some MS funding but completely believe a scientific report on a political issue like global climate change - and yes, these days, it is a political issue.
I think there are fundamentally two kinds of thinking and everyone does both of them to some degree. You can develop an opinion and then look to find support, or you can analyze the data and use it to form an opinion. If you predominantly do the former you'll end up with opinions like you just expressed. People don't like MS and thus show reasons their numbers are wrong. People do like the idea of global warming, so they don't find reasons their numbers are wrong. I can sort of understand that perspective.
The other way to think is to look at the numbers from a MySQL study and see if they hold up, logically. Are all the number presented and the data to evaluate it including error or is it just PR? Use this analysis to form opinions on the study. Apply the same technique to the global warming studies. In this case, finding one study to be credible and another to not be is in no way hypocritical.
As for trying to judge the credibility of those presenting data to lie, well we look at motivations. Do people conducting a study for MS have motivation to skew the results in favor of the product MS is trying to generate marketing material for? Do the scientists who conducted this study have motivation to come up with false positives?
This particular study is culled from multiple, publicly available sources and includes that underlying data and the margin of error. Your approach of disbelieving everything is not a workable model as it is useless. Making decisions based upon emotion and then trying to support them is even worse for accuracy. The best we can do is look at the data and the people presenting it and make our judgment based upon that. I suggest you rethink your decision making processes.
I, for one, welcome our new gigantic dragonfly overlords.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
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.
If the last time it got this warm was thousands of years ago, then doesn't that mean that after that, it cooled off for a very long time? Wasn't there even an ice age in there somewhere? Doesn't this contradict the scientists claiming that this warming trend is irreversible? Doesn't this data show that in fact, this exact same trend did reverse, thousands of years ago, before it started warming up again to get us to where we are today?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The last time they were able to grow crops in Greenland was during the time of the Vikings.8 ,434356,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,151
And locusts are natural parts of the system too. And it is perfectly natural for their populations to skyrocket regularly. But it is also natural for those populations to crash soon afterward. Now with us, I would say you are correct in asserting that whatever we choose to do is natural and driven by our human instincts. However, we do have the high intellect that allows us to recognize that our natural actions may lead us to a natural, corrective crash. How we, as a species use this knowledge, is up to us.
Specifically, relating to global warming, maybe we are the cause. On the other hand, maybe it would be occuring without any human influence. But what really needs to be recognized is that it IS happening and that there are some potentially serious side effects. Given that, should we be thinking about what we can do to slow down global warming? Or should we just write it off as natural and accept that any resulting human population corrections are just as natural? I don't know... just a couple thoughts.
www.DIYTVAntennas.com
A little cynical are we? The vast majority of research in this topic is still done by college professors and graduate students who make very little money and profit very little from the results. If you think that money is corrupting the earth sciences you are kidding yourself. A person that could show compelling and verifiable data that climate change IS NOT happening could really make some money, so there are some scientists doing that. You really need to think through whether or not someone would put themselves through the hell of getting a PHD so that they could lie about the results.
> It all depends on which agenda they're pushing, or who's funding them.
And even if accurate, facts are usually pretty easy to abuse into supporting a political position.
Consider. These guys want you to believe the Earth is at unprecedented highs, thus we MUST panic and DO something. Something usually being defined as harmful to Western Civilization. Note that Kyoto would only limit CO2 emmissions from advanced Western nations yet allow China and the 3rd world to spew unlimited amounts of the stuff.
Now consider the unescapable fact that the Earth HAS been hotter in the past, despite the FUD coming from the enviro political hacks. Greenland wasn't given that name as some sort of horrible joke. It used to be GREEN. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth it is thought to have been much warmer than today. Note also the evidence of melting polar caps on Mars, something unlikely to be caused by humans.
Fact #1: The biggest influence on global climate is a big semi stable fusion reactor that has only been studied in detail for a fairly short period of time but is already known to vary its output on multiple cycles measured in years. Several studies indicate solar output is currently increasing.
Fact #2: More and more evidence points to Earth getting warmer.
If you are a green who secretly yearns to eliminate humanity (or at least Western Civilization's share of humanity) because of our 'raping of the earth' you leap on global warming as a way to scare people into surrendering their technological civilization, thus making it easier to achieve your goal of if not 'killing all humans', at least allowing war, pestilence and famine to thin the herd 90%. Sane people notice the earth getting warmer, Mars getting warmer and the sun shining a little brighter and connecting the dots, figure it is natural. But if it gets bad enough to interfere with our lifestyle we will do something about it. Shouldn't be all that hard.
Democrat delenda est
http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.
"There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations...
1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess
As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.
This scenario poses new challenges for the United States, and suggests several steps to be taken:
Health Insurance Quotes
"History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
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.
The worst part of global warming is the impact that climate change is having on sensitive species such as the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ Get involved and help protect this rare species!
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
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
"variability in temperatures prior to the past century were generated by Mann and his co-authors."
;-)
See? Global warming isn't caused by man, it's caused by Mann and his cronies. We need to find them and make them pay.
There are probably some people who view environmentalism as a moral/ethical issue, that we are interfering with God's creation. However, I think most people do believe that what humans do to make a living is morally okay, if not 'natural'.
I think what people construe as 'BAD' is coastal cities flooding all over the globe ( think Katrina in New York, LA, Amsterdam, Copenhagen, etc. ), increasted desertification, famine, ecozone change, loss of farmland, etc. etc. The suffering, loss of life, destruction, displacement, famine and starvation are what people are concerned about and consider 'BAD'. Sure, in the course of human history there has been plenty of tours of the Four Horseman, but civilization is an attempt to mitigate these risks. I suspect a lot of people who think this kind of thing is no big deal because it has happened regularly, would change their tune is they had to flee famine or invaders.
Yes, it has happened in the past, and it certainly will happen again, but the whole point of civilization is to make life easier by removing or mitigating these risks. Some people are indifferent, and some people what to try to avoid this kind of catastrophe, for themselves and future people. Everyday that I get my fat, lazy ass up and get in the car to work on the internet, I thank god for all the technological advances that allow me to spend my life looking at pictures of naked women on the internet.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
That's because snide comments can't be bookmarked.
Ha! I just drag the little "/." icon in my Firefox address bar to the link bar, and I've bookmarked them. Suck it, Trebeck.
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.
A. The earth's orbit is elliptical. Not only is it an ellipse but the eccentricity, or variance from being circular, is not constant.
2 0Images/Spirograph%203D.JPG, which has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years.
B. The earth's orbit and the earth's axial rotation when in this orbit begins to resemble a spirograph http://physics.indstate.edu/west/zoorings/ThreeD%
C. Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles explain: "The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years."
D. Earth's climate graph shows no distinct pattern. Earth's glacial coverage has gone from historic minimum to maximum in the period of 100 years. It is nonsense to claim that our temperature will continue to rise or even fall for that matter. It is a flip of a coin.
I do not concur with human-caused global warming. I feel it is hysteric, unfounded, and egocentric. I also do not bother watching media hype movies starring washed up politicians who claim they are making a documentary while ignoring an entire side of the debate.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
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
I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why?
One word: funding.
Have we lost faith in the scientific process? Do we disbelieve that it is possible to make hypotheses and discover through investigation the nature of our reality?
Um, I take it that most people are just fed up with scientists and the entire global warming debate at all. They've been fedup since shortly after global warming has been announced to be a really long term problem. Most early research (70s and 80s) was stating nothing to worry about for a good 200-300 years and more like 1,000-2,000 down the line. Let's be honest. Humanity isn't at the stage, yet to objectively defend itself against really long term threats. We are fairly good at personal survival, and regional survival. China is our longest lasting cultural entity that we have. Their government has gone through many changes. We need a governmental/social structure that will last/have actual real power 500-1,000 years down the line. The only institution that I can really think of lasting that long is the Cathloic church. We need an organization devoted to preserving humanity against all unlikely and likely long term threats.
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.
Back to my "funding" again. It slightly is a conspiracy, but not in the tradional sense. We really should design and build long term monitoring of the Earth's biosphere. I mean build a system to monitor this planet for a good 1-2K years. We really should have built such a system in the mid 60s or early 70s even if the system had to double as a spy stat network. The truth is we don't know. I've been fedup with the subject after trying to stay somewhat current. I took numerous HS classes in the early 90s. They were still not sure and every scientist wanted funding to establish a longer term base line. Our knowledgable people didn't think that we had nearly enough data. From what I've seen since then. I still think that we don't have enough data, but political folks are wanting to cut funding of all that long term monitoring. Which means, that to ensure future support they have to show a need/cause to the politicans. I'm kinda mixed myself. I think that alot of global climating monitoring should be cut and we should build several really long term stats to do the monitoring instead of all the Phds doing field work. We have alot of brain power that I think should be redirected to other uses. If we could extend the human life span to 200-300 years then we would start taking a more serious interest in global warming if only for personal survival.
But that's why it's so difficult! Without 2 or 3 PhDs in biology or geography it's difficult to understand the "facts". Just like if my docter tells me I need tests Foo, Bar, and Baz I'll probably let her do it, but I don't understand the tests or what they do. I have a rudimentary understanding of the human body and of biology and chemistry but not enough to know how some of these tests work or what drugs I'm told to take afterward. I trust my docter though and will do nearly anything she says I need.
What happens if she's "motivated" to support certain drugs? Or my insurance company? What if she believes in practicing medicine certain way and doesn't want to give that up and that in turn is harmful to my health, or to others down the road?
She's now compromised my health in favor of $MOTIVATION.
So what if scientists, journalists or politicians are motivated by certain industries, associations or businesses? I already don't trust studies by industry, even if they are right. But I'm not sure I trust scientists or journalists either. The former can believe in a certain school of thought and never consider other views. Consider certain scientific journals, many times they won't publish things they don't "like". Those are the preachers and not the scientists. The latter (journalists) knows as little as I do, and if they can get a story that preaches enough doom they'll publish it, regardless of facts. If it sells papers, subscriptions or gets ratings: w00t!
Good. Cheap. Fast. Pick Two.
Where have all the teachings of the Age of Enlightenment gone ? What has happened to the :
"You can't convince me of anything unless you present facts before my mind that makes me think like you do" ? (grossly paraphrased)
"I submit to no authority except Reason ?"
Facts are there, dig them. Trust no one, the truth is accessible to anyone with a brain, espiecially in the internet era. But nobody ever said it would come without efforts.
Yes, it will bring you to debates, to arguments, retort, counter-retort. But contrary to a popular belief, this is not an endless ping-pong game. This is not because there is debate that one must settle for a middle ground. When there are enough facts gathered, all assertions are either true or false. Famous people, fundings, politics don't matter, they don't enter into consideration. See the facts, see the claims. Evaluate their merits. Don't trust those who say you can't. You can.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
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.
The truth is scary thats why. Contrary to what you wish, human instinct doesn't evolve much. People prefer to put their head in the ground and wish the problem to go away. Hopefully there will be a couple of major hurricanes ripping up the east coast before the warming trend moves beyond repair. And yes there is a beyond repair, which is when enough ground is visible at the poles to make the process self feeding. Downfall of western civilization, well it won't be limited to a particular continent. Even if you think you can't be sure either way, how long do you want to do nothing? Personally I would rather try to do something about it before my house is permanently submerged; Which is about 3 degrees average temperature away. I would also like to be able to visit tropical islands on holiday.
Thousands of years in a 4.5 billion year history.
I'm quaking in my boots.
How can we evaluate all the data if it is not present in the article?
If no data is given for a study we can't evaluate the data and you can ignore it if you're following the scientific method.
A list of broad, sweeping, generalizations about the way the planet is changing is not data.
The article linked to the study, which does contain the numbers including error and sources.
I really disapprove of the way the article talks about how the seas are heating up and then segeways into OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD, then back into how the world is changing followed by more OH MY GOD GLOBAL WARMING IS BAD.
That is why I usually spend no more than a minute reading the article before moving on to the actual study, which is often much more informative and less sensational than the "news" articles derived from it.
By the way, did you know that Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction?
This is actually a very good example. All these claims were made without providing any data to back them up. Thus, we can dismiss them as probably untrue. The actual reports from intelligence agencies that have been released and which these claims were supposedly founded upon turned out to show that the evidence pointed to the opposite conclusion. Also, reports from other nations in the UN that were published indicated the opposite. Look for the data and evaluate it. Then look at other studies and their data to see if it has been independently confirmed. That is science.
How can we evaluate data which is probably at least partially false. Several times studies like this have been caught ignoring data that didn't fit the viewpoint they were trying to advance. Several times studies have been discounted because big oil/tobacco backed them (even tho facts are facts, right?).
Ahh, but this data and the methodologies are presented and they are supported by hundreds of other studies that found the same.
Long term- science works- facts are facts. Short term- it is subject to group thinking, politics and even basically religious belief that certain concepts are right.
It has been several decades now that we've been looking at this issue and the community and studies do a good job of showing certain reliable facts, especially once studies that have been discredited when their results were refuted by dozens of people who tried to reproduce them are taken out. I think if you simply look at the studies and ignore all the press articles, it is pretty easy to see what is going on.
The trouble in Darfur, Sudan is a classic example of this.
The two groups here are settled African-speaking agriculturalists, and semi-nomadic Arabic speakers.
As desertification takes its toll, the arable land is less and less, and hence the nomads start to encroach on the farmers. The defining event was the failing rains and ensuing famine in 1983 and 1984.
Of course, as with most human conflicts, the reasons are complex, and there are other factors contributing to this, such as regional powers meddling with the issue. However, the weather is a preciptiating factor here.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
From the article:
What the article fails to mention is that the entire human contribution to global warming is about half a degree Celsius. (0.48 C http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/) So we have a ways to go before everyone dies.
The problem is that this system has a bit of momentum to it. Currently we're on a train barreling down the tracks and some guy with binoculars has just told us the bridge is out ahead, and we're still pushing forward. But we're not pushing quite as hard as we were, and that seems like progress to me.
No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore.
People like you are the reason everything sucks. "Both sides are corrupt" and "your vote makes no difference" are messages that are drilled into our heads relentlessly in this society and as more people fall for this garbage, democracy slowly dies.
Honesty is something you need to expect from the institutions in your culture. If you don't get it, you don't lower your expectations, you get mad.
CO2 isn't released by melting ice or melting permafrost (at least only in negligable amounts) it is the warming of previously frozen soil that allows decomposition and the release of CO2 that makes it a problem.
"Perhaps historically, when the temperature goes up, Co2 is released into the atmosphere."
Yes, it can be self-reenforcing but you'd have to ask how did the temp go up in the first place? Unless the sun suddenly swelled for no known reason the only mechanism would be greenhouse gases. Methane could be blamed but they may have ways of eliminating that possibility so you are back to CO2.
One thing rising temps do that decrease CO2 is they increase the activity of carbonate formation in rocks that is encouraged by erosion. You'd have to live a few tens of thousands of years though to see that work.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
I don't actually believe there is any evidence of England's wine production threatening France. English wine has a long history, with the historical peak of English wine production occuring with the arrival of the wine loving Normans during the medieval warm period. The Domesday book, a census taken at that time, recorded 42 vineyards in England, all restricted to southern England, and mostly coastal southern England. It can hardly have been a threat to French wine production given that vast amounts of imported wine were available in England during that time. Wine production in England declined after that, possibly due to some climatic cooling, and possibly also due to changing cultural factors (such as an increasing taste for beer and ale), and was practically non-existent through to about the 19th century. Since then there have been various flirtations with wine growing in England, and a flowering since about 1950. There are currently far more vineyards in England than at any time in history, currently over 400 - about 10 times the number of medieval England - and extending further north than at any previous time. From this we can, at best, conclude that the medieval warm period was probably warmer than the 13th to 20th century, but then we knew that, and historical temperature reconstructions clearly show that anyway. If you're going to consider volume of production and location of vineyards as a good proxy data source for climate, however, then you would have to conclude, given the vastly increased volume and more northerly extent of modern wine production in England, that it is warmer today than it was in the medieval warm period - again, as historical temperature reconstructions show. And let's be honest, wine growing is hardly a clear sign of a warm climate in the area the wine is grown. Canada has a large wine industry, and there are even vineyards in Alaska!
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.
RealClimate.org is an excellent source for busting the myths that appear with nauseating regularity in every climate related thread on slashdot.
RealClimate was started and is run by some of the best climate researchers on the planet, the study in TFA is by Hansen, yet another respected scientist that claims politicians have recently attempted to gag him.
The scientists predicted an ice age myth was made popular by a novel (ie: a work of fiction). A certain senator was so impressed with the novel that he intoduced the authour to a senate committee as an "expert on climate change" and asked him to advise them on the subject.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.