Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Debunker Debunked
Earlier this month we ran an article linking Christopher Monckton's attempt to discredit global warming. The submitter asked plaintively, "Can anyone out there go through this piece and tell me why it might be wrong?" George Monbiot has now done so. From the article: "This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong... In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in [the Sunday Telegraph], it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation, and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist... As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate — high, medium, and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was 'the most plausible.' As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000." And on the political front, the only major ally for Pres. Bush's stand on global warming, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, is now willing to look at carbon trading.
It's amazing how many monikers this "debunker uses". "cock-a-hoop", "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish." And while the original article mentioned sources and showed the numbers he was talking about, this article just keeps saying how the first was incorrect, and how others have proven this or disproven that. However, the details are not found there.
This is just pandering to those who want thim to respond. But there's really nothing to see here if you don't like name calling.
Have you read my journal today?
Can we make a hole in the ozone so some of that CO2 can leak out and make everything right again?
There's higher pressure in a warm beer because the product of pressure and volume increases with temperature. Carbon dioxide doesn't magically leak into the beer as it gets warmer. You're not an atmospheric scientist, don't try to act like one on slashdot.
ResidntGeek
If you'd like to run a global climate model (GCM) yourself, you can now do so. The NASA GISS Model II GCM has been ported to run on Mac/Win computers and wrapped in a point-and-click interface. GISS, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is the lab that Hansen (mentioned in the summary) runs.
The EdGCM project provides this free GCM wrapped in a GUI. If you want to add CO2 or turn down the sun or whatever, you may now do so with some checkboxes and sliders.
Space and Computers.
The earth *IS* getting warmer. This is a fact. Annual temperatures are hotter than they have ever been since we started keeping records, glaciers are drastically smaller than they've ever been in recorded history, and the polar ice caps are shrinking. The earth _IS_ getting warmer, ergo, global warming is real.
What is causing it, however, is another matter... some say there is proof that humans are causing it, others will say it's merely circumstantial... that this warming is just part of a natural cycle the earth goes through before another ice age and then a gradual reheating (the latter period being one in which we are currently living).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The Debunker who debunked the debunker has been debunked.
Now, I'm not a 'professional' scientist however I do take interest in such matters, I was wondering if anyone has any information on what it would realistically take to begin to reverse the damage.
How do we make any significant progress to undo what we have already done?
"No doubt one may quote history to support any cause, as the devil quotes scripture." - Learned Hand
I really think almost all of these questions end up as what I call side of the room questions. People line up via their political orientation, and they end up on the side of the room with Michael Moore and Al Gore, or Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. You might not like everything about the people on your side of the room, but if you find the other side of the room more unpalatable, you shut up and live with your reservations. The polarized nature of politics makes you at least act as if you buy into everything from your side of the room--if you vacillate (waffle!) you might embolden the other side of the room. Aaargh! So smart people end up believing stupid stuff, just so they don't have to stand on the same side of the room as Michael Moore (or Anne Coulter, depending on your aversion). And no, I'm not exempting myself from this. I find Michael Moore's stuff smarmy and irritating, but I'd do some serious soul-searching if I ended up on the same side of the room as Anne Coulter.
So... If you inventory of 5.4kg/m2 is correct, then how can the rain scrub 800 kg/m2? Where does the other 794.6kg/m2 come from?
I'm not trying to be a troll - I'm just asking...
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
By your own statistics, we will double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 100 years. That is not a negligible point.
CO2 provides the most climate forcing due to its chemical properties and relative bulk in the atmosphere. To forestall the atmospheric H2O canard - H2O is a more powerful GHG, but it only maintains the current temperature. It is not a forcing agent because it cycles too fast. H2O cycles in 14 days. CO2 cycles in ~150 years.
The comment about rain scrubbing is utterly nonsensical. It shows no time component and is irrelevant because rain doesn't fall evenly over every square meter of the planet.
From the Financial Times, July 7 2006:
"I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.
technically slashdot is exactly the place to pretend you know shit about stuff you don't - the whole commentary for this story will prove this.
Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 /11/cuckoo-science/
Maybe so, but Monbiot is also a masterful spinner of information - his books are intentionally written to appeal to the downtrodden masses to increase sales volume. Any piece, PERIOD, by Monbiot is suspect because he doesn't bother with things called "logic" or "the scientific method."
No idea about him and the scientific method, but he definitely bothers with logic in this article..
Any discussion on this piece is a waste of time. Please see the appropriate peer-reviewed articles in the appropriate scientific journals and/or conferences for a proper discussion of the facts on global warming.
Interestingly enough, the fact that the 'climate change debunking' article was not published in such a form is one of the main complaints from Monbiot, so you may find yourself in agreement with him on where to look for good information on this.
But hey, this is slashdot, so why bother to read the article before commenting..
>Effect, not cause.
Both. One of the reasons we need computer models. Especially since warmer climates speed up some processes that *absorb* CO2 as well as speeding up processes that release CO2.
CO2's causal role is simple phsyics. The numbers on feedback have been hard to pin down. But there's not any question that *other things being equal* more CO2 means a warmer planet on average.
>Humans are unlikely to be the cause:
We are, indeed, responsible for only a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount that was there before we started is responsible for keeping the oceans from freezing. A small change to that large an effect is worth thinking about.
Wrong, there is not scientific consensus, and yes, most scientists were claiming global cooling, based on the temperature drop that occurred from the 1940s to the 1970s. They predicted natural disaster by the 1980s and a "new Ice Age."
Please, do your research before making yourself look uninformed. This is a serious debate that requires knowing all the facts.
"Sufferin' succotash."
and I think you begin to notice that in -this- way GWB is reflecting the will of the American peoples.
There is no set of eco-friendly economic or political rules where the balance of power shifts away from the U.S. that will ever be adopted. For example, when the world starts trading polution credits, a country with rich forests pumping out oxygen won't suddenly become an economic superpower.
Every developing nation with some "fire in the belly" is going to laugh at the foolish american who has no choice but to acknowledge that we have pillaged huge amounts of natural resources and continue to pollute with reckless abandon on our way to global dominance. So why can't they? Well, they can and they will.
I'm all for a less polluted planet, but I don't see how it happens. I see lots of little nature preserves acting like ecological museums or zoos without cages making us feel better. (Yosemite anyone?) But that's about it.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this?
4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j r.html [space.com])
5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770)
How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there.
Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
When I was a kid, the highest SPF suntan lotion you could buy was SPF 8.
I was told: "Higher than that you'd be crazy"
Today I see SPF 50 on the shelves and nothing below SPF 16.
Maybe once I see SPF 1000 we'll finally know what is the cause of Global warming.
Until then we should still cut back on any emissions that would make things worse in terms of climate change, REGARDLESS OF the real cause.
While we're at it cut back,..err, cut out polution of ANY kind. I have to dump my AA batteries in the garbage because they wont recycle that but they'll gladly polute the air and water to recycle my newspaper which can rot by itself anywhere.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
It wasn't that long ago that Bush was claiming that he knew for certin that Iraq had WMD (based on secret evidence that the people could not be allowed to see) and that people should be properly obedient and do what he wanted without question and attack Iraq. Just the sort of thing one expects from an American anti-intellectual.
A 22.5% increase over 2 centuries, 19.4% in 45 years, is a small percentage?
[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm ]
>>
An atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the
Siple Station ice core.
[...]
Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration
ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it
increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human
factors.
>>
[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm ]
>>
The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual
concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry
air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004.
>>
Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "consensus". Certainly not all qualified scientists believe "human caused global warming" is a dominant factor in current climate change. You might check this 2002 article (for instance):
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14 /161152.shtml
The one tangible thing that's been done to try and address global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. It is quite flawed, though, in that it gives exemptions to the countries which are most likely to be big polluters in coming decades. It would also impose economic penalties on countries like the US which are already doing quite a lot to reduce their environmental impact.
If /.ers want to rally around a single approach that would be beneficial not just to human related global warming if it exists, but also to energy independence and reduced pollution, do whatever you can to advocate constructing new nuclear reactors here in the US. That is the single best thing we could do at this point.
Those who can plug in hybrids or electric cars to charge would then be running nuclear powered vehicles...sweet! :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Well, there's what Hansen said, and there's what got reported. The meta-debunker went back to primary sources and found:
> Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures.
This one nearly made me spill my coffee !
Ever hear of the law of Conservation of Mass?
Put in simple terms, it says that the amount of Carbon in the can is fixed at the time the can is sealed.
Heating it, cooling it, or giving it a really good shake makes no difference.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
Ever flown into LAX? Seen the giant toxic mushroom cloud that sits over the LA basin? Still doubt humans have any affect on the atmosphere?
Gee, that's a lot of broken links.
Ok, so I'll have to repeat my standard response to stuff like this.
I love this logic:
1. The climate has always been variable.
1a. The climate is variable on other planets.
2. Therefore, man is not having an impact on today's climate!
QED, right?
Here's an exercise: Explain to me how increased levels of CO2 (which are rising due to humans- I challenge you to find an alternative explanation that has not been debunked from here to Shanghai and back), which Arrhenius demonstrated over 100 years ago [nasa.gov] could cause climate change, can't possibly be causing climate change?
Hey, climate science is uncertain, and questioning the current consensus is great. But if you are going to do so, please find a coherent argument why the current thinking is incorrect (again, please stick to the stuff that hasn't been shown to be wrong 100x over). So please go read RealClimate, debunk them (you have to do better than the M&M side show), and then we can have a conversation.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
To be fair, part of the reason for his behaviour is a long standing medical problem. I wouldn't mention this if it were not for the fact that Wikipedia has seen fit to publish it.
Ahh, fine poppycock you're spouting there. Have you ever worked in a lab with solutions in equilibrium? How about buffer solutions, simple high school chemistry stuff? Or indicator solutions? The effects of 1 mL reagent in 100L solution can indeed be drastic, depending on how much reagent is there already. Do you know for certain that 5.6 kg/m2 isn't the tipping point at which we face drastic climate change? I sure as hell don't, and I'm not sure I want to find out.
And your figure for rain scrubbing of 800kg/m2? Utter bullshit, on two counts -- 1) CO2 is simply not that soluble in H20 at atmospheric pressures. 2) That CO2 that does get "scrubbed" finds its way back into the air. It's not a one-way reaction, it's a global equilibrium.
When we add carbon into the cycle, we add atmospheric CO2. Plain and simple. The question is at what point the extra carbon disrupts our welfare to a degree that is unacceptable -- and the answer is based upon the magnitude of the effects and our tolerance for the effects. We're constantly learning more about the magnitude of the change, but our tolerance to change will be in debate as long as humans exist.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The bellboy kept it?
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Global warming is a myth. Just like those dinosaur bones.
I don't mind doing your research for you. Does the National Science Board count?
I'm being modded "Troll" for challenging the global warming hivemind on Slashdot, but that's cool. I have common sense on my side and don't go around declaring the end of the world when we can barely predict the weather tomorrow, much less 10 years from now.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I would like to see a climate study done by someone who doesn't have an agenda.
It seems like everyone I see starts with the premise that Global Warming is reaching epic proportions or that it is bullshit. It doesn't seem like anyone is going out there from a neutral point of view.
It seems like anyone can spin data to prove a point they already have in mind.
What causes the higher carbon dioxide pressure in warm beer than in cold beer is the fact that gasses generally dissolve more poorly in warm liquids than in cold ones. (I think they covered that in the chemistry course I had my third year of high school.) Since a great deal of carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans, the ocean's surface temperature will affect the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
True, for large values of one and extremely small values of 3... Seriously, I find much of the battle over this topic hilarious as most of the people posting here are in the field of IT, CS, or some other variant thereof. I would wager that the entire cast of characters here on Slashdot contains less that 1% climatologists.
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
Newsflash: Methodology is EVERYTHING in science. If your methodology is bad, your data is less than bad - it is misleading. Hence why so much revolves around whether people followed proper methodology when presenting their data.
The reason that the "save the rainforests" is quieter now is because people are actually doing something about it.
Finally, this entire "you have to present both sides of a story" has to stop. Now. This is not a game show where you get to choose which door to open. There is a public debate on an important topic, and that debate needs to happen in public. That's true. However, debating something in public does not mean that you simply pick a side you like and then clamor that everyone needs to listen to you "because all sides need to be heard". It means debating the theory, the data, the methodology, investigating problems and striving towards finding the most reasonable answer or theory. Granted, most news stories don't get this either, but that doesn't mean that we can't tell them to stop being idiots about the way they present science debates.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
From the Arrhenius link which you provided:
.005 degree rise? If the latter, do we really need to be worried about it?
As Arrhenius predicted, both carbon dioxide levels and temperatures increased from 1900-1999. However, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased much more quickly than he expected, but the Earth hasn't warmed as much as he thought it would. (Graphs by Robert Simmon, based on data from NOAA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies)
You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who believes that carbon emissions have no effect at all on the global temperature. What's in debate is just how much effect they have. Will a tripling in global carbon emissions cause a 5 degree rise, or only a
That's the kind of questions which lead to questioning of the overall global warming theory, because they've never been successfully answered. And that's why questions about climate change on Mars and Venus become relevant - because if the temperature is changing on those planets then it's quite possible that carbon dioxide is an almost insignificant factor in the temperature rise which OUR planet is experiencing, and that the major cause is the sun.
Hell, for all we know, the rise in CO2 might be the symptom instead of the cause of global warming. Granted, it's unlikely, but how do we know for sure? Has anyone measured CO2 levels on mars and venus? So far the only proof we have that co2 is linked to global warming is that any time in the past when temperatures have gone up, so has CO2. How can we prove which one is the cause, and which one a symptom? And if we can't even prove that, how in the world can we possibly expect to determine exactly how much effect CO2 has on temperature?
The real problem with many of these articles 'debunking' global warming is that they have no real intent to disprove the science behind global warming, rather they have the goal of creating confusion and the appearance of controversy with a net result of inaction and a continuation of the status quo. This is why virtually all 'debunking' publications occur in the mainstream media whereas the actual science continues where it always has, in academia, away from the public eye.
One can only speculate on the motives of these 'debunkers'. Obviously there are those who profit mightily and so have a powerful interest in the status quo. Next, there are skeptics who will never accept anything, no matter the evidence or risk of inaction. As near as I can tell, their only goal is to drag as many people as possible to their side. Finally, as an Albertan, I see many other people who have been frightened by the economic doom and gloom emanating from certain quarters. These people will not accept Climate change because they see it as an attack on them and their livelihood. They don't want to change how they live so they choose only to believe what will enable them to continue as they are. The first two groups of people can never be convinced so we shouldn't really bother trying, rather we must be mindful of their effects on legitimate debate. The third, and far largest group, can be convinced once they realize that combating climate change is not just a problem but can be an opportunity; an opportunity to reinvent society and unleash innovation! Certainly, once you accept the science behind climate change most rational people must acknowledge a moral imperative to our fellow human beings to combat this issue.
That's a bit of a leap there, comparing the there-is-no-global-warming "scientists" (with degress in journalism no less) to Gallileo and Darwin.
WRT attacks on methodology, consider:
Sometimes the methodology is the problem.
In this case, the methodology of cherry picking (other comments have explained this well), over-simplification (using theoretical black bodies to model empirical data), and comparison of "apples to oranges", ie global temperature trends to europe temperature trends, are attack-worthy.
Your attempt to relate this debunking, even if it is a bit sensationalised (cock-a-hoop, etc...) to religious-inspired attacks upon people advocating logical thought and divorcement of science from dogma is spurious.
I'm perfectly happy to read articles, studies, etc... (light on the details though, IANACS) claiming humanity's impact on global warming is minimal provided they aren't using tricks and written "sleight of hand" to make their points. The more misinformation I read claiming global warming is not humanity's fault, the more I believe it is our fault. If there were valid reasons to doubt this, oil execs would be shouting it from the rooftops.
Has anyone measured CO2 levels on mars and venus? So far the only proof we have that co2 is linked to global warming is that any time in the past when temperatures have gone up, so has CO2. How can we prove which one is the cause, and which one a symptom? And if we can't even prove that, how in the world can we possibly expect to determine exactly how much effect CO2 has on temperature?
o xide.html
With regards to Mars, the following pages (among many others) contain info about the exact makeup of the Mars atmosphere:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AGUFM.P42A0425K
http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/mars/Carbon_Di
http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mars.htm
This would suggest that such measurements have been made.
I'm pretty sure this is true for Venus as well.
I can't, but I'm sure the Republicans are behind it.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
1) Yep.. lots of scientific consesnsus on that.
2) If you are talking about human recorded temprature mesurements from those periods then we agree. And so scientists generally try and use non-human recordings, such as effects on tree rings, the growth of coral (very temprature dependant, and in the middle of a huge heat sink), etc... So there is a lot of data that can be distilled into good records.
3) If you took engineering then you should know about the laws of thermodynamics, and thus know that you are mearly playing with where the energy is absorbed or reflected, not changing those ratios. You should also know that most of the suns energy output that is absorbed by the earth is not in particales that are affected in any real way by magnetic fields.
4) Your source does not say that Jupiter as a whole is warming up... only that certain spots seem to be. There is a huge difference in those two statements.
5) We don't know enough about Mar's climate to be able to take any lessons out of it. In fact your article states this repeatedly.
6) The answers to many of the rest of your questions are avalible from a lot of sites. A lot of them do examin cyclical effects, and look for the causes. But the very people who are doing those studies and are the best informed about these things are the ones who are very loudly sounding the alarm.
The better question is why do people keep listening more intently to politicions and businessmen who have a vested interest in the status quo, as opposed to the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying these things and have no vested interests (or at least not as big an interest).
As long as you mean "consensus" then no, it doesn't depend. Having a scientific consensus does not mean that every last scientist agrees - only that the broad mass of scientists agree. And on this issue, there is consensus. A very large majority of climatologists agree that human emissions are increasingly causing climate change.
Pointing out one, or ten, dissenters from the consensus does not prove the consensus doesn't exist.
The US has done and is doing virtually nothing to reduce your carbon footprint, and ought, by rights, be penalised. The average US person has a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average Indian. Someone has to pay for your indulgence - it should be you.
The majority of Slahdotters are not from the US, if the demographic from the rest of the web is true here. So we cannot advocate for more nuclear reactors in the US. What we can (and will) do, is advocate for a carbon trading scheme - user pays.... which brings us back here.
.005 degrees if we go 3x baseline CO2 (closer on a log scale that is). If we could gain high confidence that the impact would be more like .005 degrees than yeah, you can rest your case, but we aren't exactly there yet. Of course, we'd still have to worry about acidification of the oceans (guess where a lot of the excess CO2 goes [CO2 + H2 = HCO3- + H+]), but that's another story.
Man is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. I don't know of any alternative hypotheses that come close to fitting the data. There are large carbon natural fluxes and we've tipped the balance.
OK, climate sensitivity is something worth talking about. I'll bet you my house the sensitivity is closer to 5 degrees than
So, to recap:
Increased CO2 concentrations: Our fault. I'll bet my wife and 1st born.
Increased CO2 concentration leads to higher temperatures: Yup. I'll throw in kids 2 and 3.
Climate sensitivity to 3x CO2 is Y degrees: There's pretty good science here, but there's room to haggle. I'll throw in my two cars and road bike that we need to be worried.
Impact of the sun: Obviously a factor, but if there's a smoking gun tying temperature to solar output this century, I sure haven't seen it. Here's a RealClimate article on the subject.
Ocean acidification: Definitely happening; this is basic chemistry. Severity of impact not well known, but think "Alka Seltzer'
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Throughout history, CO2 levels have always lagged behind temperature increases. Even RealClimate admits it http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13.
A major component of this is that climbing temperatures release large amounts of CO2 locked in the permafrosts. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/
So there, in two links, are strong evidence that CO2 change could be a result of temperature change and not vice-versa.
Now I await the flames... let me guess the order:
Like I said, I've done this before.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Even more importantly, rain only falls in the lowest parts of the atmosphere. Anything above 40,000 feet won't ever see a drop of rain until it falls to lower altitudes. So expecting rain to clean the entire atmosphere is, at best, a slow process.
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
What is causing it, however, is another matter... some say there is proof that humans are causing it, others will say it's merely circumstantial... that this warming is just part of a natural cycle the earth goes through before another ice age and then a gradual reheating (the latter period being one in which we are currently living).
This isn't good enough.
If you want to assert a non-human-generated cause you can't just imagine something random might be out there. You need mechanisms and observable facts. Saying "there might be something else" is true, and facile, and has been explored heavily for decades.
If we had climate scientists 10,000 years ago with modern scientific understanding and observations we'd also be able to attribute climate change then to specific causal factors.
Answer is that no explanation which excludes major human-induced greenhouse warming is compatible with known physics and current observations.
Obviously there is a natural cycle of some sort relating to astrophysical parameters, and there are other effects in geological time due to volcanism. But the Earth has not magically changed its axis and violated angular momentum since the advent of industrial civilization, nor has global volcanism simultaneously gone haywire. Those are measured facts.
As to the "circumstantiality" of the proof: direct measurements of infrared emissions from the upper atmosphere (the causal source of the greenhouse effect) have been taken for decades by aircraft, balloons and satellites, simultaneously with samples of the chemical composition of such atmosphere. The result is that the increase in IR flux has been observed and correlates exactly with the significant change in atmospheric composition (due to human activity) and known laboratory-verified facts about the scattering cross sections of molecules. This is the forcing term from the greenhouse effect, and it has changed on human timescale.
It is really impossible by the laws of physics for the climate not to change as a consequence.
And this is but one small piece of the evidence.
How?
By destroying the credibility of the Monckton article in several of its major assertions, it makes any claim by Monckton suspect. This is basic skepticism 101.
Do you remember the principle, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" The Monckton article is at the extraordinary end of the scale because he is a journalist making claims that run contrary to the consensus of climate scientists. To be credible, his evidence has to be impeccable and virtually irrefutable. Monckton did well for a pseudo-scientist, getting a normally credible, but known to be biased widely read mainstream British newspaper, to print his claims. When I read the original article, I thought to myself that he may have some valid points, and raised some interesting questions. I judged it likely that he was wrong -- the scientific consensus is not easily overturned -- but I was opened minded to his views to some degree. Now that Monboit has shown several of Monckton's claims to be not only wrong, but an egregious misrepresentation of the facts, now I know that he is not credible. His somewhat extraordinary claims have weak or no evidence that we can believe, so his claims should be rejected by reasonable people. In this way Monboit, by answering some major claims convincingly as shown that we can believe nothing really that Monckton says on this issue and has refuted indirectly everything.
If someone else has a separate claim regarding some particulars that were mention in Monckton's original article, then they will have to show some somewhat extraordinary evidence for that claim, and to give us some good reasons to listen to them. It is not up to the rest of us to refute any more of Monckton's claims. He credibility is shot. Nor is there any need to congratulate him or give him further attention.
You've missed one subtle point... the total concentration of CO2 water can dissolve at saturation does decrease with increasing temperature. However, Earth's oceans are nowhere near saturation. In fact, they are one of the largest CO2 sinks in most climate models, but that's a reservoir which is rapidly filling up.
Have sources for those numbers? Also, the removal of CO2 via rain is mostly a net change of zero, given this thing called the hydrological cycle. That water eventually evaporates and whatever CO2 it had dissolved goes right back into the atmosphere, minus the small fraction that does react to form an inert species (i.e. via weathering of certain rocks).
P.S. as an aside to someone mentioning 1% of slashdotters having a degree in climate science... I actually do and I can tell you it's a very small field, I'd be surprised if it were even 0.1% of the people here.
John Howard is a very accomplished politician. He's making "climate change" noises now purely to distance himself from the US election results. This is the man who claimed that the Boat People refugees were "throwing their children overboard" even though the military told his people that wasn't true within 24 hours after the alleged event. He continued to support the Children Overboard story for over a month, until after the Federal Election. See http://www.alp.org.au/features/lies.php for a breakdown of some of his side-stepping and double dealing. Or even better try http://www.google.com.au/search?q=john+howard+lies for a wider view.
John Howard has been using his absolute majority in both Houses to force all sorts of ideologically motivated laws through, regardless of how they may change Australian Culture. He seems to be intent on making us a new state of the USA. He is the person responsible for ensuring that the USA is not alone in its' Kyoto stance. He is responsible for a "Free Trade" agreement which is dismantling our fair-use provisions under copyright, is introducing DMCA legislation, is changing our patents office to be in line with the US model, is diluting our PBS (the Government sponsored sale of pharmaceuticals, all of which must happen before 2010, yet the USA is under no obligations under this agreement until 2022.
He is responsible for setting up concentration camps for refugees (more precisely, for illegal immigrants who are requesting refugee status). Most of these camps are in the back of beyond. There are children who have liven for most of their lives behind the razor wire, and there is a horrific incidence of mental illness associated with this detention in sub-human conditions.
Now that public opinion can be shown to be swinging against the US Republican approach to the Middle East and "The War on Terror" he's simply waving an extremely large, colourful and exciting flag (climate change acceptance) to distract people from his complete failure to interface with the Democrats. The news is now that the Democrats are going to demand a US inquiry into the AWB scandal (The AWB, run by Howard's mates, was busted paying hundreds of millions of dollars to Saddam Hussein to get around the trade sanctions, abusing the UN "Oil for Food" program).
I, along with many other informed Australians, do not believe there is any change of heart in Howard's new "Climate friendly" position. It's all just an attempt at distraction from the real issues.
Most of what you say is true. Up to the "and not vice-versa" part. Bzzzt! Faulty logic! The first part of your statement is true (CO2 can lag temperature changes), but you present nothing to prove the vice-versa (CO2 can't be a driver) part.
Sure, in the past CO2 has lagged temperature. However, that doesn't mean that it hasn't sustained climate changes as a positive feedback. What it does mean is that CO2 has often not been the driver for climate change events. Until now.
We are generating lots of CO2. A small amount relative to natural fluxes, but enough to . Can anyone provide a plausible alternative hypothesis for current conditions?
CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. This is basic physics. What's not so basic are all of the other feedbacks, positive and negative- water vapor, ice cover, and so forth. That's where the action is. Let's talk about that. But to get caught up talking about whether we are responsible for increases in CO2, and whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas, is just a colossal waste of time. It's basic frickin physics and chemistry. It's the fluid dynamics that makes everything so hard to resolve.
To recap:
Climate varies naturally. That doesn't mean it can't be affected unnaturally.
Historically, CO2 concentrations have lagged temperature changes (b/c yes, Virginia, there are other factors that affect climate). That does not disprove that you can drive climate change with CO2; it just hasn't been tried often.
All else equal, higher CO2 = higher temperatures. Basic physics. The problem is the all else equal part.
Humans are trying an interesting experiment. What happens if we try to force climate change with CO2?
Why does everyone here think that they are smarter than climate scientists?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
There is plenty of genuine debate going on and opportunity for journalistic and political "balance" in covering it
I've no doubt that journalists could do an excellent job at explaining this (and some do). But that would assume that the majority of journalism and media is about informing people. It's not. The media outlets are very clearly about selling eyeballs. What do you think would sell more eyeballs, an honest discussion about what we really know about global warming (it's happening, it's caused by us, we're not sure how large of an effect it'll have). Or examining the extreme positions? "Global Warming May Reach Tipping Point Soon!", or even "Global Warming is Big Fraud Created by Lefties!" sure will sell a lot more eyeballs to advertisers than "Will Average Global Temperature rise
AccountKiller
The oceans are not saturated with CO2, buddy. The oceans were roughly at equilibrium with the atmosphere before atmospheric CO2 increased. The driving force is into the ocean. People actually measure this stuff. Find me valid research that shows a global (not regional- global) net flux of CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere and I'll buy you beer for a year.
Here's a decent page at NASA:
Evidence for solar output as a driver for current warming is weak (but at least plausible). Please stop the idle speculation; there is a rich body of knowledge here.
I did write my M.S. thesis on oceanic carbonate chemistry, so you'll have to do better than 'If water gets warmer, it absorbs less CO2.'. Yes, solubility decreases with temperature, but that's a completely irrelevant factoid.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Well, unfortunately these questions won't be answered any time soon with any degree of reliability, but rest assured that if they are I'll be coming around to collect that house, bike, car, etc :) You can keep the wife and kids though, I'm not in a hurry to acquire any of those.
Anyway, the way I see it, as long as we can't determine how much effect CO2 has on the earth, we can't effectively combat it. I mean, realistically, if we believed the global warming studies, we should be switching entirely to nuclear power within the next decade, and then bombing the shit out of any country that refuses to do the same. If the global warming proponents are right, the growing economies of India and China are a massive threat to the survival of our whole species. We either get them to stop polluting within the next 10 years, or we have to kill them off in order to preserve as much of our species as possible.
On the other hand, I'd rather not be an alarmist. I'd rather not ruin our economies, turn global politics upside down, and start multiple wars on the idea that maybe, just maybe, CO2 might cause the world to overheat. We can't be certain just how much CO2 affects global temperatures....but we CAN be certain that the Kyoto protocol is useless at combating it...and we CAN be certain that the only truly effective ways to combat CO2 pollution would also cause massive global economic disruption, as well as requiring force to implement. So let's do a little more research first, huh?
And now onto policy. Uncertainty yields inaction. That's quite a gamble. What happens if you wait too long?
That's a nice strawman, that we have to go to war to reduce CO2 emissions. It's especially funny that you talk about turning 'global politics upside down', like the status quo hasn't had any of that (see: Middle East oil). The cost of (low carbon) energy independence, fully accounted, might not be so high.
I agree that China and India are huge factors in the CO2 game. Especially considering their economic growth and coal reserves. Kyoto doesn't cut it. Agreed. One interesting issue here is fairness. In the U.S. we've generated a lot of wealth by burning fossil fuels; hardly seems fair to make the rest of the world cap their emissions at a fraction of our per capita emissions. But that's a challenge, not a deal-killer.
I would submit that we can address our CO2 problems without "massive global economic disruption," but that's another debate for another time. I need to ride my bike home and play with my kids.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
You missed the whole point. Your original post asked for any information that said CO2 followed warming and not vice versa. Read in that context, the single sentence you decided to pick at, makes perfect sense. I did not claim that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. That would be foolish, nay, idiotic. I attempted no such thing.
.
My answer was in reply your original comment which said, and I quote, "Explain to me how increased levels of CO2 (which are rising due to humans- I challenge you to find an alternative explanation that has not been debunked from here to Shanghai and back)...."
So, that's what I did, I presented a source other than humans
Read in that context, the single line you chose to pick out has exactly that meaning. It is a mechanism for CO2 increase that is not the cause of warming, but the result of it.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
AARGHHH. There is a TON of research on this stuff. Readers of ./: I know how this place works (post before thinking), but this is ridiculous. Why speculate when basic facts are a Google away? Start here.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
The existence of naturally observed causes for physical climate change does NOT rule out human-induced causes in any posssible way.
All it does is point to a starting place for understanding the underlying physical mechanism.
Everything you discuss has been known by actual climate scientists for decades upon decades.
Consider yourself as an electrical engineer: It would be like observing "gee when I move my magnet there are induced EMFs" (true) and then going from that to being skeptical about elementary, and professionally-established, facts regarding the fundamental physics of all sorts of classes of transistors which have been professionally studied in laboratories for decades.
The answer, "yes those people who make the transistor models do happen to have heard about Faraday's laws and can say whether some effect is important or not or explains the working of the transistor."
Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens?
complicated answer, but best belief is that there are astrophysical and other forcings which can start warming and then there are feedback loops which amplify greenhouse gas emissions. This is bad for current climate change because human induced forcing could end up being multiplied to a large degree.
Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?
No.
Does the existence of naturally occurring lightning in any way debunk the theories of physical causality in transistors? No electrical engineer imagines so. What they care about is of course the underlying physical principles of electromagnetism in in natural and engineered systems and these predict behavior. This is of course the right way to proceed.
Why is it that when it comes to climate, and pretty much climate alone among scientific subjects, the equivalent sort of incomprehensible "arguments" or "skepticism" against the professional understanding of climate scientists come up?
Well... We can always do an experiment. Let's release massive amounts of greenhouse-gasses and see what happens.
Oh, wait. We started that experiment at the beginning of the industrial revolution, didn't we?
If nothing happens, we saved lots of money and effort on not developing low-emission technologies.
If the outcome is screwing up the earth, it's lucky we've got nice biospheres like venus and mars right around the corner.
But we have no reference so we wouldn't know what would have happened in the other scenario anyway...
Maybe we should just restrain our emissions anyway... Just in case.
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
Why does everyone here think that they are smarter than climate scientists?
That is very simple to explain. It is fear of what they (or their descendants) are likely to face if the climate scientists are right - either significant lifestyle changes or major climate problems. Far better try to convince yourself that the majority of respectable scientists are wrong than to live in fear of the future.
Let me try.
1. I believe global warming is caused by people.
2. I cannot present evidence to support this assertion.
3. I cannot explain why other planets with no people are also experiencing global warming.
4. Since I cannot explain it, it is irrelevant.
5. Therefore I am right.
QED, hey this is fun.
> Try and pick somebody who isn't a complete loon next time.
Yea, someone else noticed that. And went straight to -1 same as my post will go. You can't rationally discuss religious issues with fanatics and most of slashdot fits that description when it comes to socialism and it's pet front causes.
Good grief, Slashdot thinks (from the way the posted it it is clear the editor is advancing this drivel as an "answer" to the earlier article) an op-ed in the freaking Guardian! by a socialist mouthpiece who thinks writing a book makes him an expert.
Ok, other than hearing the name pop up in moonbat circles on a regular basis all I know about the guy I just pulled from Wikipedia. But it is generally held to be a leftist dominated site so it is probably being biased for him and not against. Other than what looks like a politically motivated "environmental science" gig his other formal education is all fuzzy/political/socialist stuff except a degree in Zoology. And he is criticizing his opponent for not being an expert. Pot, meet kettle.
This only reenforces the asstertion I made in the thread for the original piece that in the end all us laymen can do is evaluate the credibility of the proponents for each side. On the pro GW side we have an assortment of socialists and marxists who, coincidence of course, are preaching that if we don't all adopt a one world socialist government that will be powerful enough to save us from Global Warming that we are all going to die. Meanwhile the GW believer who also belives in individual liberty and Repreventetive governments is all but unheard of.
Now combine with the fact that all the leading lights in the political face of GW have been WRONG on every other major issue they have championed and it gets hard to buy into it. You name the failed idea, they pushed it. Appeasement of the Soviets, Nuke Freeze, Alar scare, Fat nazis, hell a lot of em were on board the Ice Age scare of the seventies. Then you get the ones who fell for Paul Erlich's doomsday scenarios like the population bomb who are now sure GW is going to kill us all... unless we abandon free markets and liberty.
Plus we get what looks like blatent supression of alternate theories and contrary evidence on these political science theories. Somewhat related example: I was watching Nove recently, the ep about the impending magnetic pole reversal. They showed a map of localized distortions in the field. Guess where the biggest one is? Right about where the Ozone Hole is. Now a weak spot would allow more radiation in and radiation breaks up ozone. Plausable enough that even if there is a hole in that reasoning they should have anticipated it and added a few seconds to deal with it. Silence, nary a word. Considering the political bent of the show it tells me there is probably something being covered up.
But back to GW. Solar output is up, temp increases are being observed on planets other than the Earth. No computer model to date have made an accurate PREDICTION of future longterm patterns. Managing, with enough massaging, to roughly reproduce past datasets isn't good enough to justify the sort of upheavals in society the GW faithful are proposing. We haven't had powerful computers long enough, period. Do a run today that predicts the weather patterns twenty years from now and in twenty years I'll consider the theory... IF it gets it right.
Right now we have two theories. The earth is warming slightly along with the rest of the solar system, perhaps with some influence from us but it has both warmed and cooled in the past and will almost certainly continue to do both in the future. The other says it is all our fault and will spiral out of control unless we act NOW and only socialism can save us. Occam's razor makes short work of this decision.
Democrat delenda est
Experts apparently do not think the climate changes are related. Here is one example.
Has not been the cause.There are tremendous difficulties when one is studying a system that cannot be broken into components and cannot be tested experimentally. Every result should be assessed skeptically.
"Anyway, the way I see it, as long as we can't determine how much effect CO2 has on the earth, we can't effectively combat it. I mean, realistically, if we believed the global warming studies, we should be switching entirely to nuclear power within the next decade, and then bombing the shit out of any country that refuses to do the same. If the global warming proponents are right, the growing economies of India and China are a massive threat to the survival of our whole species. We either get them to stop polluting within the next 10 years, or we have to kill them off in order to preserve as much of our species as possible."
This is the "perfect is the enemy of good" argument. If we can't solve the entire problem then we should take no action at all. Not even a little.
It's a dumb argument. Saying that you don't know the exact degree of risk and beause you can't quantify it to nth degree of certainty you will do absolutely nothing is just insane.
"nd we CAN be certain that the only truly effective ways to combat CO2 pollution would also cause massive global economic disruption, as well as requiring force to implement. So let's do a little more research first, huh?"
Bullshit on all accounts. Oh and by the way I think a little more research has been done. It's just that you refuse to believe it. I don't think more research is going to change your mind. Lucky for us not even bush is that stupid. Even he is starting to come around.
evil is as evil does
Of course the anti-capitalists (which is the true goal of the so-called environmental movement) would never present a low probability wild guess based on intentionally falsified data (such as the "hockey stick") as fact...oh wait...that's exactly what they did.
Do you really need to name calling for those who you disagree with? You're doing the same thing as what you accused the grandparent of doing. Fact is is not all environmentalists are anticapitalists, sure some are but not all. I know people who, like me, are both environmentalists and capitalists as well. And more and more companies are getting into the act as well. The book Natural Capitalist offers a bunch of case studies and such illustrating how businesses have been able to cut expenses by reducing resources and waste. The Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) is a nonprofit that "shows businesses, communities, individuals, and governments how to create more wealth and employment, protect and enhance natural and human capital, increase profit and competitive advantage, and enjoy many other benefits--largely by doing what they do far more efficiently."
FalconShould there be a Law?
Sounds good. But um, the carbon is still there.
That's because trading is only half the picture. The other half is reducing the units.
Country A uses 100 units, has 150 units allowance and sells 50 units. Country B uses 300 units, has a 250 unit allowance and buys 50 units.
Next year, both countries have their allowances reduced by 10% to 135 and 225, giving only 35 units to sell and 75 wanted if neither country reduces emissions. Looking at the overall picture, each year the total pool of surplus units reduces and the demand for it increases, so surplus units become more and more expensive. This provides an incentive for even countries well below quota to reduce emissions since their surplus units are more valuable.
Agreed that political opposition to Kyoto motivates some people; they'd be better served by highlighting that than by trying to undercut the science. I was hearing about the GW debate for quite a while before I learned about the developing-countries Kyoto exemption.
In 2000 instead of voting for who I wanted to vote for I specifically voted against Bush. Within weeks he confirmed my doubts about him when he came out against Kyoto. However when he did he said something I hadn't known, that not all countries had to meet emission limits. That very night I looked it up and sure enough some countries didn't have limits. China and India being two of them. At the tyme both were building a bunch of new coal fired power plants. In 2000 the per capita emissions of China and India was about 2 tonnes CO2, and the US emitted about 22 tonnes per person. With 300 million people that's 6.6 billion tonnes whereas together China's and India's emissions are about 6 billion. With a population of about 3 billion people between China and India if they were to double their emissions to 4 tonnes even if the US elimited all of it's emissions their increase would of made up for the emission reduction of the US. Fact is is without China and India limiting their emissions there's nothing any other country can do to reduce emissions.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Great question, good answer.
I'd only add that interested, wealthy parties (the energy industry being the most significant) have deliberately fuelled the idea that those climate scientists are corrupt or have some bizarre malign agenda of their own. For those who don't follow the basic concepts of science (eg. peer review) and are conspiracy minded, it's convincing, reassuring and reinforces their basic view of the world.
You also get to play smart-ass by pointing out how different from the 'herd' you are by holding the 'alternative' view. Cool.
Dangerous, self-defeating, stupid...
I believe this is the great challenge of our maturing generation - everyone in their 20's and 30's now. The last couple of generations created this mess. The middle-aged politicians of this generation aren't capable of getting their heads around fixing this: they're still fighting the cold war and trying to fight for oil. We're going to have to step up or watch our children suffer the consequences.
'This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Over-rated if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it' - Eeyore
The original article asked for a point by point analysis and evidence that the first article was wrong. This "believer" in global warming throws out a few personal attacks against the original author, and then boldly states that "The medieval warm period is accepted as having not happened" But gives no evidence whatsoever. I was taught about this period all through elementary school (in the early 80's). The leading theory then was it was this warm period that allowed the world to escape the dark ages because less people had to spend 100% of their time subsistence farming.
.1C? or even .3C?
Basically this article says "Global warming is happening, accept it" while providing no evidence other than "This guy's an idiot, he doesn't even have a degree". He only tries (very weakly) to debunk one of his claims, that the world has been warmer in the past. A claim which if not confirmed by the warm period of 5-600 years ago, is certainly confirmed in the earth's history. I read an article in Scientific American or National Geographic just last month that conceded this point, stating that the fluctuation of the earth's temperature has a range of 15-20C over the past 3-5 million years. Obviously more than 5 9s of that data is pre-industrial revolution (thus not caused by man). Those articles also plainly laid out that we are at historical lows in both temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
If this Stefan-Boltzmann equation is designed to model a "black body" how is the UN justifying any modification to this model? What are they basing their alterations on? How do they decide how "non-black" the earth is.
The only other thing he mentions is Hansen's predictions. Ok, so Hansen had 3 predictions low, middle, high and said it would probably be middle, and it was close to that (.1C). The UN itself had much higher predictions (3C-5C) so why are we supposed to believe the UN now when they say 5C-9C over the next 100 years if its going to be closer to
In short, this is a completely typical article to see from global warming believers. They pretty much all go like this "The world is over, if we don't turn off all electrical devices by tomorrow and start riding bikes then global warming will kill us all. If you don't believe this statement you are an idiot!". If you ask global warming advocates for evidence they say things like "The evidence is all around you! Look at the hurricanes! Look how many people died in the heat wave last year!" People die in heat waves every year, the temperature and localized weather events fluctuate wildly. The climate on the whole remains pretty steady, and if anything activity on the Sun is much more likely to change the climate than anything we do.
"http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/1 4 /161152.shtml"
LOL! This is too good. To refute claims of scientific consensus, you refer us to an article on NEWSMAX.com. "Well it depends on what you mean by 'consensus'". Just like the meaning of "is"? Or is this different?
Do you people modding this guy up know what NEWSMAX is? It is an online conservative news re-publishing magazine.
When I clicked through the ad on the right said "Conservative T-shirts" picturing a T-shirt reading "Hippies Smell". God, this has scientific, scholarly research written all over it!
There were an additional 11 ads lined up along the left column. And a further 6 ads on the bottom of the page.
The linked article is actually an article from csnnews.com (it says so at the top of the article).
CSNNews.com claims:
"Study after study by the Media Research Center, the parent organization of CNSNews.com, clearly demonstrate a liberal bias in many news outlets "
And further:
"The Cybercast News Service was launched on June 16, 1998 as a news source for individuals, news organizations and broadcasters who put a higher premium on balance than spin and seek news that's ignored or under-reported as a result of media bias by omission."
LOL. The Slashdot mods are being duped by the online equivalent of FOX "News".
"Slashdot contains less that 1% climatologists"
/. The exception to this is the environment and earth sciences, on this subject many of the early posts contain a similar form of logic to flat-earthers and creationists (see first post for a shining example). This is not because of a failure amoungst /.ers to understand science but rather a success for industry propoganda, astroturfers and fools. Come back to the article in a few days (when the mods are finished), read at +4 and you will see that a bunch of computer nerds do indeed understand the basics of climate science.
It should be such that a BSc in any field gives one the basic capacity to sort the shit from the clay when faced with conflicting scientific claims. This is the normal outcome for psuedo-science posted on
A BSc certaily does not give you knowledge about the climate but it should give you the ability to recognise and debunk psuedo-science when it smacks you in the face.
Disclaimer: I have a general interest in science and a BSc in computer science, I use this site ( > 1% climatoligists ) to help me with any unfamiliar concepts peculiar to climate science.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Hey man,
Here's an interesting exercise: replace "India" everywhere in your post with "the U.S.", and you'd basically have the status quo. If anyone is getting invaded over global warming, it'd be us. Except no one else is really into invading right now. You may not have noticed, but the U.S. is a teensy bit behind the rest of the developed world on this issue. And we're the ones accusing others of plotting to tear us down by saddling us with emissions restrictions. You've actually captured the situation quite nicely, but in reverse.
it's useless unless we can convince ALL countries to do something about it. I don't see any way of achieving that short of war.
There was a time, ancient history now, when nations employed something called- wait for it- diplomacy. You seem fixated on some sort of war on global warming. Frankly, I think that idea is, pardon me, retarded.
You are mixing up a lot of issues. India and China have less oil than the U.S., so they will have similar geopolitical motivations to move away from it. Interestingly, the US, India, and China all have a buttload of coal; what will be necessary is to strike a deal on using that, or at least sequestering the CO2. Sequestering carbon will probably increase generating costs by 20% or so (that's the number I recall). Factor in distribution costs and you're looking at a 10% increase at the outlet of the cost of electricity. Not insignificant but not exactly catastrophic. Transportation is more challenging but still feasible. Let GreenFuel get their technology mature and use the CO2 from the coal plants to make biodiesel. I don't know what the technology will be, but the point is it's not that hard to do. But right now utilities, oil companies, etc. don't have the incentives to do jack. We do need global consensus, (and yes, it's OK if North Korea and friends don't play), and that isn't easy. But to oversimplify, it really comes down to the US, China, India, and Russia. That's where most of the coal is. Oil will more or less take care of itself through the price of scarcity and where it's located. Natural gas is a low carbon/unit energy fuel, so we don't need to worry about it so much either. If we figure out how to mine the methane hydrate deposits, though, all bets are off!
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Given the potential consequences, if we don't know, wouldn't it be wise to err on the side of caution?
We can always dump more CO2 into the atmosphere later if we learn that it won't be a significant problem.
http://outcampaign.org/
> it's all about risk management from here on in, and any individual's 'opinion' regarding the 'facts'
> should be ignored.
Exactly. RISK MANAGEMENT and FACTS are the last things the GW faithful want to discuss. Before we get to risk management we have to get down to real facts so that we can determine the ODDS of each proposed action, the cost of implementing it and the potential costs of not implementing. And Paul Erlich had a lot better 'facts' on his side than Al Gore does and was still WRONG, WRONG WRONG.
> If the nay sayers are right, and there really isn't this terrible threat to our planet, then the worst that
> can happen is that nothing will happen, whether we choose to change our world dramatically or not to
> accommodate... we'll get cleaner air and a whole stack of other benefits for free.
In your land of Fairie perhaps. Here on planet Earth nothing is "free", not even Free Software. (Said as a 90% Pure member of the GNU Generation.) Poverty, lost productivity, millions dead when resources are diverted away from lifting the third world into the 20th Century, high probability of a new Dark Age when it is realized the only way to force the required measures on people is to remove what little liberty remains in the West. Perhaps you don't consider these things to be a 'cost.' I do.
> If on the other hand the tree hugging socialist swine you refer to are right, then not doing anything
> about the problem MAY cause our civilization to suffer irreparably, or worse.
The fallacy of a binary choice with an assumption of 50-50 odds. Almost as stupid as any argument that begins with "if it saves just one life...." or when they have to invoke "the children" to sell a crackpot idea. By your logic we should say screw global warming and devote all our industrial output to building an asteroid defense. We KNOW there is a danger there and that the odds of another strike approach 100% eventually.
But we don't do that because sane people know the game of life is about risk management, not risk elimination. Is man made change to our environment a problem? Probably. Important enough, at this time, to kill millions over? No. Important enough to divert resources from other more pressing problems? No. And that is exactly what the choice you propose is all about. You utopians get these grand notions so you can feel better about yourselves... because YOU are enlightened.... because YOU care more. Same sort of binary decision insanity that banned DDT and caused tens of millions of dead bodies in the third world from malaria. Was/is DDT a problem? Yup, but one that with proper RISK MANAGEMENT could have still saved millions AND kept concentrations low enough to keep secondary effects to managable levels.
Democrat delenda est
I particularly like how you "prove" your point by offering your family as property.
I'll "Bet" they feel special.
What happens if you wait too long?
What happens if instead of waiting, knee-jerk reactions take place instead, the world's economy is trashed and then it turns out that not only was CO2 not the threat that it was made out to be, it was actually a red herring and that something else was really behind global warming and, without a functioning economy, there's nothing we can do about it.
I'm all for reducing CO2 emissions (actually, I'd like to see a reduction in all forms of pollution) but there has to be a way to reduce C02 that doesn't require the destruction of the worlds economy.
At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
The biggest credibility problem, though, is simple: weathermen can't predict the weather next week. Climate != weather, but really - why would anyone think that people could predict the weather in the next 200 years when they can't see through to next week?
Because there's a big difference between long-term trends and short term variation. But since that argument has already, apparently, flown clear over your head, there seems little point in trying to explain it again.
A: No, but Gaia is. And are millenia-old stores of CO2 being released by volcanoes, ocean outgassing, and animals enough to even completely mask human "contributions"?
A: Well, have you done that? Has anybody? Al Gore? Bueller? Bueller?
A: 02. So?
Three more questions:
A: Who said it wasn't? But if it is a minor contributor instead of the awful horror it is being made out to be by the CO2 detractors, then maybe the fuss is a smokescreen for something else.
A: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." -- Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow
A: Good question. How about methane? How about the aforementioned H20 vapor? Consider "Does increasing carbon dioxide affect Earth's mean temperature? Yes, although probably only trivially and to a declining extent."
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
You seem to think the whole world is a very reasonable and honest place. I'm sorry to break it to you, but that just isn't so.
Thanks for the newsflash, kid. Your conclusion seems to be that there is no hope for nations to cooperate, ever, because not everyone is 100% honest and reasonable. Bullshit.
India has a shitload of people who would be threatened by sea level rise. China has atrocious air quality, and at some point their citizens are going to be pissed about their kids dying from asthma (increased wealth leads to people caring about these things- see: US, Clean Air Act). Keep in mind China has a wee problem with civil uprisings already.
You are asking me to provide The Solution. I'm not that smart. But if you have a global carbon emissions cap and trade system, for instance, who benefits? Perhaps those countries with, say, low-cost labor that can crank out solar panels at $0.50 per Watt? Whom might that be? And would it be advantageous to have an agreement that stimulates global demand for such products?
The point is, it's conceivable to have a framework that are potentially beneficial for these countries, and not overly injurious to us.
Your powers of recall appear weak. Canada says it remains in Kyoto climate pact, posted 12 hours ago. Australia didn't follow through because the US didn't. Sure, Canada's waffling and having a hard time. But that doesn't exactly excuse the US for failing to offer any constructive alternatives to the (admittedly flawed) Kyoto protocol.
In the CO2 game, compared to our peers in Europe, we are the bad guy, if you think CO2 is a problem. If you don't, we're frickin heroes. I am rightly critical of the US when our leaders do not act in a fashion that is consistent with our country's greatness. I criticize not because I hate my country, but because I love what it stands for.
Do you remember the Non-Proliferation Treaty? It was created at the height of the Cold War. I would submit that the world is collectively much, much better off than if this treaty had never come into place. Sure, you have Iran and North Korea, and we have to deal with that.
And how about the Montreal Protocol on CFCs? Did we have to go to war over that one? Or did countries see a mutual problem and actually agree to do something? Did the switch to CFC alternatives lead to massive economic upheaval?
War (used to) require an immediate threat. No one (myself included) is going to send their kid to die invading another country to reduce their CO2 emissions. The threat is too vague. Like CFCs, it'll have to happen through diplomacy.
Anyway, I'm done here. Good luck.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories