Slashdot Mirror
Could Global Warming Make Life on Earth Better?
mikee805 writes "A lengthy article in Spiegel explores the possibility that global warming might make life on Earth better, not just for humans, but all species. The article argues that 'worst-case scenarios' are often the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s. While climate change is a reality, as far as the article is concerned, some planning and forethought may mean that more benefits than drawbacks will result from higher temperatures. From the article:'The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu." Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.'"
Only if you bought lake front property in Siberia for no money down ... and you were hoping that one day you could use it as a Winter home.
I live in the Netherlands. We are now taking measures to prevent the flooding of my country. But, recent calculations show that we can manage the extra water that we will have to cope with.
-- Cheers!
the increased popularity of scantily-clad women running around in bikini tops and shorts, due to the heat.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Would the decrease in cold-related deaths be countered by an increase in heat-related deaths?
(IANAL)
40,000 more somewhere else from increased range of tropical diseases and their carriers.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Hate to tell you, but you can get the flu in summer. But all that aside, people die every year here in Texas because of the heat.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
What about the guy who did the original paper on Global Warming, who is saying it is a sham?
I don't know, but as the first Iowa poster, let me say...
Global warming? Yes, please.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C1 bottles of beer on the wall. Take one down, pass it round... Oh, umm...
I don't know if you can call it good or bad, but life will adapt. Some species will die off others will thrive. Humans? We're the best adapters of them all.
Global warming will be good for all species? I think polar bears, coral reefs, penguins and humans living near coastal regions might disagree.
Who is the hoaxer?
Seems like there are an awful lot of people in on this conspiracy you suggest.
Namaste
Spiegel is a German newspaper.
There is a war going on for your mind.
For the last 100000 years or so, you're right. The only problem is that in the last 150 years or so, CO2 concentration has changed its correlation pattern with temperature. Now, there's a massive CO2 spike that is not explained by temperature dependencies.
Besides, since you are so sure, riddle me this: we can calculate our CO2 output (it dwarfs natural emissions). We know the physics behind CO2 absorption of solar radiation. What makes you think that this is affecting the earth?
I'm always amazed by how easily people believe things they want to believe.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Um, no offense, but this is a German article.
And they said that it would good for some, not all - in TFA.
But you do have a point about some the articles that appear here in the States.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
I remember watching a BBC newsclip once where one of their reporters was near Murmansk (northwestern Russia), talking to two Russian engineers working in the middle of a field of snow. He told them about the theory of global warming and they both visibly perked up. One asked him, "Really? How can we help?"
That talk like this will make Al Gore hot, but not in the sexy way.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
When the weather isn't consistent with what models predict, it's the weather that's wrong, not the models.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Regardless of why the earth is warming (either man-induced or a natural cycle of the earth), I welcome it with open arms.
Milder winters are going to open up trade routes through the arctic.
I will potentially be able to grow stuff in my garden that won't grow there today. My tomatoes may become perennials as they are in their native habitat. And I could do with some citrus trees in my yard.
If the ocean levels rise, landmass on the North American continent will shrink as populations rise. The equity in my real estate investments will grow at an unprecedented rate.
Living in Raleigh, I will be much closer to the coast than I am today.
OK yes this does mean I will have less buffer from hurricanes, and the hurricanes may be more frequent and more violent than is typical.
Inuit may lose their traditional way of life, but they are sitting on vast chunks of currently frozen land that will become desirable temperate areas that the yankees will pay good money to move to once they start experiencing the kind of weather that is more typical of the southeastern US.
It's not all doom and gloom, folks. There will be extensive collateral damages, whole species will be lost, but life has a way of moving on. And Homo sapiens is one of the most adaptable vertebrates on this planet, so I'm sure we'll find a way to thrive through this.
40k fewer deaths to the flu, and 40k more to malaria in Ethiopia. Or 400k more to frostbite to Europe if the North Atlantic Gyre switches its course slightly.
The issue is not that it's gonna get hotter, damnit. It's that we're changing the world drastically in unpredictable ways. That means a mass exodus of people from the coasts, from the new deserts, from swampland that used to be permafrost. Global warming is a practical and moral issue for the world about whether they want to move a significant portion of their population, and everyone else's population, somewhere else, with all the horror that being forced off your land entails.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
would get a Mediterranean climate. I have been all in favour of global warming ever since so dont go telling me that prediction was innacurate.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
And Slashdot is an American Site. I know for sure I've heard of such stories being run in foreign countries to make them seam less biased
todo - The developer's equivalent of confession: "Forgive me Father, for I have sinned..."
Yes, it's a nice sizable article, featuring women in bikinis enjoying a nice drink on a hot day, quotes from important figures, official-looking charts, and subtext in places like "a warm future" under a simplistic image of warmer-colored earth.
The problem is that I don't see it citing many sources, and when it does, it seems to selectively quote them, such as limiting it's considerations to "gradual thawing of the Greenland ice sheet" only when considering sea level changes. I'm not going to call this a whitewash, but it seems to be a sales job for a point of view, rather than a well-founded findings of a respectable research effort.
Ryan Fenton
I'm sure it will come as a great relief to know the flu is cold related, especially for people in places like Vietnam or south China that of course never catch the flu - avian or otherwise - and who have been rightly upset that we persist in naming flu varieties after cities in their countries in direct defiance of the now obvious fact that it can't have originated from there. Any reports of flu in warm areas are complete fabrications, and dissembling disseminators will be summarily shot for a long time.
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Sir, this is Happy Thought Hour!
Didn't you see the pictures in the article of pretty young ladies enjoying the sun?
Eliminate the negative! Accentuate the positive!
Visualize palm trees in Germany, and put out of your mind the massive droughts and desertification in the torrid and equatorial zones.
Yes, but Der Spiegel is German.
Conquest's 3rd Law: Every organisation behaves as if it is run by secret agents of its opponents.
from TFA: ...each time the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel...
If it's the president, his punctuation is as bad as his oration.
but remember, heat-stroke related deaths? UP!
That being said, evidence that I've read a while ago suggests that the earth was at it's peak biodiversity/total-biomas when it was 4 degrees celsius, on average, hotter than it was around 1995.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
April 2007 (subscription probably required for back issues.)
Similar article in that the premise is accepted: global warming is real, and it's too late to stop or turn it back. So, on to the next question: who will benefit from it? How will market forces respond to higher sea levels, longer growing seasons, etc? And one big theme, and irony, is that the developed countries will likely reap large benefits, while the developing countries will be faced with the worst detrimental effects.
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Article says the global warming will reduce 40,000 deaths because of the flu. However, what about heat related problems. Just a few years ago, thousands died in Europe because of heat waves. Also, the relation between flu and cold weather is not clear. As the temperature increases, we will see more A/C usage which will generate artificial cold. There are some scenerios about why flu spread more in the cold weather. The theories include cold force people to stay inside, creating a good means of transportation in the crowd and the dry weather helps the spread. Either will still be true when people stay inside because of heat and the air will be dry because of air conditioner.
I've got friends who think that global warming is a big crock of shit and (in a very immature way) bring up Al Gore and say how he thinks he invented the internet as their basis for not believing anything he says.
One of my biggest annoyances with people who question global warming isn't that they think it's not happening or that it isn't us who are contributing to it, but rather the fact that they use these previous statements as an excuse to not do anything about it.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that carbon dioxide emissions really don't have any effect on global warming... does that mean that we should keep driving SUVs and not care about how much pollution we dump into the environment?
Although people who announce that the earth is doomed because of global warming and come across as being panicky appear to be crackpots to all them skeptics, it doesn't mean that we should ignore them. we should do what we can to conserve what we have. It's worth it.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
The argument that "yay more sunshine, more warmth, what's the fuss, party!" is generally not considered a serious one.
Although arguing based on authority is something I don't usually do, but in the case of global warming most common people just display ignorance about the matter. That in itself is not a problem, but writing articles proclaiming truths which show signs that the guy didn't even bother to do basic research is bad. I wish people would try to inform themselves before trying to form the opinions of others.
Science is complex, deal with it. Naive, overly simplistic ideas set off my bullshit alarm, like in the case of "paranormal" stuff.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
Yes, but higher temperatures also mean more tropical diseases, particularly malaria, and notably the plethora of parasites and other pests which are currently controlled by cold winter cycles.
My understanding (and it's limited, I admit) is that there is a reason the Northern Hemisphere has fewer problems with diseases, and that correlation is caused by the winter cold-cycle limiting the growth of aggressive and infectious disease. If that's true, and you take the cold-cycle away, there is nothing preventing these tropical diseases from growing here. Given this, I would expect that the savings in deaths due to the flu will be more than accommodated by the introduction of more aggressive diseases that are able to exist and persist in the newly temperate climate.
While tfa is biased and has its far share of fud, the argument it makes (which others have too) is a valid point. There have been at least 2 super continents, thousands of ice ages and geographic and atmospheric changes we can't even phantom. 99% of all species to walk this planet are extinct, and man has very very little to do with that. If the history of Earth was a day, humans have only been around for the last 4 seconds so this brief snapshot of the planet we consider to be the ideal state isn't the way things have always been (considering you agree w/ science and not a certain book). The planet has an always will change and we need to deal it with. I'm not saying we're aren't contributing to it and doesn't it at a much faster rate, but change is inevitable.
Does this mean we shouldn't change our habits, absolutely not. But Global Warming doesn't mean it's time to prepare for the apocalypse. Adapt or die.
I never ceased to be amazed at the sheer number of "Global Warming's a Myth / Good for Us" stories in American Newspapers and on American websites.
Hmmm, a German media outlet, Der Spiegel, a German author, Olaf Stampf, and a Swedish physicist, Svante Arrhenius. You really didn't read the article before you jumped on the Anti-Americanism bandwagon, did you?
As for your minority dissent argument (A few "scientists" must be heretics, because the majority disagrees), you might consider that Galileo was considered a heretic because of his accurate minority opinion.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the article, because I don't think we have a clue one way or another what the future holds, but you've completely written off a possibility simply because it doesn't fit in with your political agenda -- kinda like the oil companies from the other direction.
First-positives. I'm originally from upstate NY, a region not exactly known for its' pleasant weather. Winter lasts from November->April (I am not kidding) with severe snowfalls from January till April. Just two weeks ago, a snowstorm blasted through and canceled classes at many of my friends colleges. (Snow day with 2 weeks of classes left is pretty crazy) Oswego, NY had over 8' of snow on the ground at one point during the February storms this year. Obviously we could deal with warmer weather.
However, I go to college in New Orleans, and obviously with a warmer climate globally there would be a higher sea level. It is already difficult enough for this city with substandard levees, adding a few more feet to the height of the ocean and local waterbays would be catastrophic. For the Americans who say to hell with New Orleans, take a look at New York City. A rise in sea level would inundate the city, especially Manhattan and Brooklyn which both are low boroughs as well as directly in contact with the ocean.
Overall while there may be positives the eroding of our seashores, the centers of economic activity, would definitely outweight the positives. Still an interesting piece though.
Hoaxes take time to be discovered. There are always people saying "um, folks, this is a hoax", but there are so many people who believe the hoax that it takes them time to come to their senses.
I wonder if it would help if Snopes listed Global Warming as a hoax? I don't mean Climate Change -- that's the scientific observation that the climate is always changing. I mean Global Warming -- the idea that mankind is responsible for changing the weather -- as if that were possible!
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The documentary wasn't broadcast by the BBC. It was broadcast by Channel4 (known for more controversial and speculative content). Many of the scientists interviewed in that programme have since complained that they were grossly mis-represented in it.
It's still an interesting programme though.
Many of the coastal cities/states/provinces may end up underwater. For example, Newfoundland, California, Vancouver... hmm, I'm starting to understand why life will get better!
http://www.skullsecurity.org/blog/
Just a sidenote: Newsweek [Europe] ran a very well written column about "Winners and losers of the global warming", which tried to show objectively what is most probably going to happen. Basically the rich countries get richer (like new beaches in scandinavia, lots of income for modern capitalist companies running building and salvage operations on the deserting places) and, guess what, poor countries gonna suffer most. Middle of Africa won't be a nice place to be, small islands going underwater etc. (Niue photos, anyone? Hurry.) Overall: we won't die. But some of us, the poorer part, definitely will. (And it's not a hoax anymore.)
"Florida, much of California, Michigan, and many East Coast states, including much or all of New York City completely under water"
Hmmm...maybe it will be better.
The flagship publication of the reactionary publishing house Springer Presse puts forth an article in favor of heavy oil and coal consumption?
That's unpossible!
The "big 4" global warming assumptions:
1) The earth is warming due to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
2) Humans are causing the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase
3) Humans can control the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration
4) A warming earth will cause bad things for humankind
You have to fervently believe in all four of these to be a true believer. If you don't, you're just another mindless neanderthal who doesn't care about the planet. The article questions No. 4 and should be ridiculed and banned, of course.
They cite figures for places about which Western media care while ignoring the corollary--increased incidence of tropical and sub-tropical disease.
Start citing sources for data, because on this case, you're dead wrong.That's funny, none of the scientists see said spike. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what year(s) this spike is over, which CO2 measurement you see it on, where the CO2 is (since no such measurement is ever made without an atmospheric segment,) and what the change rate is? (Of course, if you were making the data up, you'd insist that I do the research for myself, that I'm being lazy to ask you to cite data to back up your false claims, but that's what I'm expecting, since I've never seen a pseudoscience book make your claims, and since it's sure as hell not coming from actual planetary data.)Where do you get this stuff? Humanity is responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere. We are positively dwarfed by rotting vegetation, dead animals and the tundra. However, the vast bulk of atmospheric CO2 (~72%) is released from the ocean CO2 reservoir.I don't think it's affecting the earth. Why do you? Don't pull what you did above, making up data and spouting things you expect. If you can't explain with references to data, accept that you have no idea.Imagine how that would sound if you found out I was actually operating on good, solid science. Next, go watch the video I posted.
You're in for a dry shock.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I never ceased to be amazed at the sheer number of "Global Warming's a Myth / Good for Us" stories in American Newspapers and on American websites.
And I never ceased to be amazed at the sheer number of idiots on the "Global Warming is going to kill us all" side. Case in point: this article isn't from an American Newspaper or an American website. It's from Der Spiegel. Name sounds kinda funny for American English doesn't it, like, maybe, because it isn't? As in, it's a German magazine. The article in question is about a German researcher.
A few thoughts:
Please spare us. Based on your opening comments, your thoughts aren't worth a lick of spit.
I love the way people are able to discard mountains of scientific evidence on the basis of a crappy documentary.
The documentary (which wasn't made by the BBC) has been strongly debunked, and it was seriously dishonest:
From Wikipedia:
Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed. He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two." Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.
People who deny the science on climate change are in the same boat as creationists and Flat-Earthers.
This is NOT a BBC documentary, it was aired on Channel Four. Believe me, that makes a huge difference.
No matter which positive aspects this warming trend has, I think it's also important to look at the flux of refugees that will eventually develop when (if?) most the southern hemisphere transforms into a desert. I'm sure we Europeans would be happy to welcome all North Africans on our shores because their arable land has completely dried out while you guys will embrace most of South and all of Central America moving to the States.
It's now a feature. I love how spinners work, first, it was not happening, then it was not humans really doing it, now the spin is that it is happening, but it's actually a good thing.
It's like a politician caught in a lie trying to turn it to virtue.
You mean like last year . . . with the total of 0 hurricanes. Damn youze Global Warming, I'll get you for that!
I think you'll find that over the past few years the average number of hurricanes may be unusual, but it isn't unusually high.
Apathy; it does a body good.
And, speaking of Katrina, some scientists studying global warming believe that it is responsible for the more-active-than-usual hurricane seasons of the past few years. Which makes sense since the main cause of hurricanes is -- wait for it -- heat. Who paid these shills?
Is it also responsible for last year's dead hurricane season? Really, these things are far too complicated to generalize in that manner. While I do believe global warming is anthropogenic, I don't think it serves any purpose to use half-baked, unreasearched theories to blame everything short of a supernova on global warming.
The documentary has also been debunked by several experts and cross-edited participants, Just fucking google it for more and more accurate information, or just follow this link .
It's amazing that your post now is +4 Insightful, -1 Troll is more appropriate IMO.
Your tomatoes will be lovely, and you will still have magnificent Southern bacon, but when Raleigh creeps from Zone 7 to Zone 9, your lettuce is going to bolt before you even get the seeds in the ground. Think of the poor BLTs!
Yes, there's an entire industry behind it, worth about eight times what a science field with that count of people in it is typically worth. Academic funding goes to hot topics. Watch the video.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Errrr, climate change has both positive and negative effects. If the cost of reducing carbon emissions is greater than the sum of the positive and negative effects of global warming, why should we spend the money to reduce carbon emissions? Are you saying that scientists shouldn't do this research? Isn't that a rather faith-based idea? What's the difference between you and a believer in creationism? They don't question cretinism, and you don't question global warming. /me buys you a white coat so you can better pretend to be a scientist.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
I do also believe that our "Global Warming" is just another planetary cycle of which has been occurring for million/billions of years prior to the existence of the first human.
Your belief or otherwise is irrelevant to what is actually occurring. If you have contrary evidence, then start writing papers.
Just to remind everyone, there are countries near the equator that are warm enough as they are. For every person who survives a flu in Germany, please rest assured a few thousand will die of thirst (water sources drying up), hunger (food production will decrease), disease, floods and all sorts of pestilence that ultimately spring from the inability of the greedy SUV owning middle class westerners to limit their conspicuous consumption.
The article is a nice try to put some good spin on Global Warming. To some extent, they're right. There will be positive effects from an overall warmer climate: Siberia won't be quite so forbidding. Canada could get some better agricultural areas. Cold spells will kill hundreds less of homeless people in nothern latitudes.
The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks. Is it a necessary part of the discussion? Of course. Does it change the negative aspects of Global Warming? No. Do the negative aspects of Global Warming outweigh the positive aspects? Yes. The cost of Global Warming is still going to be in the trillions, because people generally already accounted for this.
Fewer deaths from flu spells will be offset by increasing deaths by malaria (which is already migrating north). Actually, reading through the article, it seems that the author has no idea about what has already happened, and is content with merely posting speculation about what could happen. I'm reminded of the troll piece recently posted on C|Net about intellectual property. Same lack of content, same latching onto vague promises that have not materialized, same complete lack of evidence for their position.
I'm off to tagging the article flamebait.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It'd definitely be different. But "better" depends on what you look at.
The thawing of the Siberian and Canadian tundras could more than double the amount of arable land, providing more food than we could possible use, as well as provide land for trees which could halt the process. Done with some intelligence, we could "tune" the climate and the planet, and turn problems into solutions.
On the other hand, by the 2080's, the summer high temperatures in the southeastern US would average around 115. The energy use for the increased air conditioning could accelerate the process.
The simple solution is to move everyone from Flordia to Canada and and Siberia to become farmers. They'll have to go somewhere, because Florida will be almost entirely under water.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
1: That's Channel 4 (NOT the BBC), who currently appear keen to promote creating controversy regardless of its basis and relabelling it "thought provoking". 2: Many of the claims are based on conclusions torn apart by Laut et all a few years ago because of mathematical "errors", questionable selection criteria and some downright dodgy graph plotting. Including the central premise.
The simple fact of that documentary is that it panders to two things an ignorant audience LOVES. Firstly, the viewers can feel smarter than those silly scientists because there's actually one simple answer that they've overlooked and secondly, joy of joys, that answer is that everything's going to be all right. I hate to break it to you, but science is messy and it's hard, but it's not about conspiracies, just getting to the truth.
Already there are reports in Italy and Norway of an increase in non-native insects moving north into new territory. Sure, it might be nice to avoid frostbite due to global climate change, but at the expense of catching the plague or malaria, it ain't much of a bargain.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
What about Tipping Points?
Things might really suck for us!
i notice that the ones that are comfortable with "collateral damage" are the ones who won't be -- or at least believe they won't be -- "collateral damage".
note that i'm not necessarily talking about, just making an observation in the general.
mr c
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
We have the technology to save them. We weren't around to help the Woolly Mammoths but we can do something about the Polar Bears. Let's make sure nature doesn't fuck up again.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
I agree with the parent. Global Warming is a hoax. Period. End of story. Yes, the temperature is rising, this much is certain. That being said however - the temperature of the earth is constantly in flux. C02 has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature. C02 levels rise and fall as a result of the temperature increasing or decreasing. They do *NOT* CAUSE the temperature to increase or decrease. Man-made global warming is an even more ridiculous idea. C02 makes up 0.05% of the atmosphere. Humans create less than 10% of the total C02. So, humans account for 0.005% of the total atmosphere... and that's being generous!!! How can you honestly believe that we're changing anything?! The SUN is what affects us the most. The number of sun spots on the sun directly correlates to the temperature of the earth. When there is a lot of activity on the sun, then the temperature goes up. When there isn't.... then the temperature goes down.
"This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes."
Read any good sonnets lately?
Last year's "dead season" was caused by El Nino.
My blog
Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple.
Raleigh is betwen 250 and 300 feet above sea level, and the total sea level rise if all the ice melted is about 270 feet, so I hope you are on a hill. The ice caps start really coming apart at 4 degrees C warmer than now, which is within projections for the 21st century.
The issue isn't that I want us not to clean up our mess. The issue is that we are using the spectre of a problem which doesn't exist to prevent the development of the non-industrialized world, and the effects of our preventing that development on the environment alone are far worse than allowing the development would be (and that's before you look into the starvation, the disease, the horror, the menial labor and so on involved in living like it's the 1700s.)
Industrialization is important for a whole lot of reasons. Lots of those wars going on in Africa would never have happened if they had had the kind of reasonable food supplies that you get from electrified irrigation, refridgeration, and cooking without animal dung.
I am not saying we shouldn't try to do the ecologically sound thing. All I'm saying is we have no idea what that is, and we're not doing things we should be doing out of a culture of fear spawned by 1960s science which has long since been disproven to a degree that would have scuttled any other movement in modern politics today.
It's time we started the science from scratch, and then looked a second time at the Kyoto treaty. The Kyoto treaty is well meaning, misguided, ecologically driven international scale murder.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Your belief or otherwise is irrelevant to what is actually occurring. If you have contrary evidence, then start writing papers. You have to get published first, which basically doesn't happen. The existing establishment doesn't want their money train to stop rolling in. Just link the words "Climate Change" into the title of ANY research topic and BOOM: instant funding.
You're right in implying there's an element of deception in the global warming "debate". People mistake correlation for causation all the time, often because they're told to and they're unable to think for themselves. Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today. As well, you are right to assert that global warming causes higher CO2, a known causation.
:)
I don't know if you're right about the sun (though there is evidence to suggest you are), but you're certainly right to be skeptical about CO2 causing global warming. Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.
However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing!
This seems to me to be more of the same from the denial team.
No, global warming will not make things better for all species. Many areas rely on snow pack melt off in the spring and summer months to supply needed water. If the snow packs melt early or don't form at all it causes drought.
I believe the figures are something like forty percent of the world depends on snow pack melt off for their summer water supply.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
As for your minority dissent argument (A few "scientists" must be heretics, because the majority disagrees), you might consider that Galileo was considered a heretic because of his accurate minority opinion.
Galileo was considered a heretic (in a literal sense!) by the Church rather than his fellow scientists. This was because other scientists, after reading his arguments, were agreeing with him!
It's not a hoax. It's gotten so bad that our blatant disregard for the environment is even heating up mars http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 0228-mars-warming.html It's obvioysly us that's doing it. Not that giant orb of fire we orbit.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Nuff said.
Deleted
Aww geez, it's a joke. Lighten up :)
"Humor... it is a difficult concept."
u-bend
Why is Michigan going to flood? Are great storms going to rain down upon us? Lake Erie(which the other four lakes that affect Michigan drain into) is 571 feet above sea level; pretty much all of Michigan is above that.
. shtmlt _lakes.htm7 0407/METRO/704070370
These guys think global warming will *drain* the lakes:
http://www.ecocenter.org/releases/20030414climate
http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/oh/111803_grea
http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200
So before you say 'shill' make sure you are dealing with actual facts.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
So the US can start exporting dirt. Works for me.
If you really found that documentary convincing, you need to get your head examined.
Have you read Carl Wunsch's response to that "documentary" that he was featured in? Here's an interesting excerpt:
If you want to attack global warming, focus on climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing (if you really think there is zero CO2 forcing, please provide a reference for that ?) and the hurricane stuff. Plenty of uncertainty there. But to claim "It's all about the sun" is to expose yourself as deeply ignorant/blind. Note that I am not claiming the sun isn't an important driver of climate; that is an equally insane proposition. But to ignore basic physics that no one can or will debunk is a little silly.
Can we all step back and admit that our opinions on climate change are fundamentally formed by deeper philosophical values that we have? It is clear to me that many, many people on both sides of this issue don't really pay attention to the science (read that IPCC report lately); they find the factoids that fit their preconceptions and go from there. I'm no different, though I actively try to objectively consider the available information. If we can start to get past our idealogical blinders, maybe we can have a conversation. But that goes for just about every issue these days.
BTW if anyone can explain how ocean acidification might not be a big deal, please share.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Katrina happened in days, global warming is going to be happening over centuries. Ignore the mental images from Gore's movie. Water will not be rushing up the streets of Manhatten.
I hate to rain on your Chicken Little routine, but where were the numerous and powerful hurricanes last season?
Bah!
What ever happened to the hole in the ozone? I thought everyone in Australia was supposed to have skin cancer by now.
It's all there for a great satire: The vaguarity. The complete lack of citation. The telling reference to a controversial and widely decried TV movie. The potent mixture of credulity and cynicism. The reference to the sun.
On the other hand it might a real person who's just new to the subject and not very knowledgable yet.
If it's a joke then Internet Honor demands that I stay away and not get hooked. But if it's an honest post, Internet Honor demands that I respond with well-reasoned rational counters to everything that's wrong.
Maybe I should just go with a goatse link.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
"lake front"?
I'm guessing you haven't heard of the rising oceans thing..
MABASPLOOM!
This is awful!
Please resection this article to FICTION.
1) Humans need OXYGEN to survive. Increased CO2 and changes in ocean temperatures will massively impact the growth of pyhtoplankton, the largest producer of oxygen in the world (look it up yourselves.
2) "Scientists" are not acting as preachers here. In fact, the only people who think we are actually shrieking that the world is ending is people who don't want to have to change our CO2 emmissions.
3) I actually agree about climate change changing economic tourism etc. That's well and good.
Hawaii will be either A) underwater, or B) uninhabitable.
hmmmm?
Never, if X is negative :P
those who treat the direst predictions about Global Warming as fact also treat Darwinian evolution as fact and yet are absolutely terrified about the natural implications of both theories: namely that you're going to die, it's going to unpleasant if not painful, and ultimately there's nothing you can do about it.
Standard disclaimer: no, I don't believe that Global Warming is fake; and if you're planning to equate speaking ill of Darwin with being a Creationist, I'd suggest going here first.
Nice way to not read TFA:
"But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice. On the contrary, current climate models suggest that the Antarctic will even increase in mass: Global warming will cause more water to evaporate, and part of that moisture will fall as snow over Antarctica, causing the ice shield to grow. As a result, the total rise in sea levels would in fact be reduced by about 5 cm (2 inches)."
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
El Niño the burrito, or El Niño the global coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon?
"Let's see, with Florida, much of California, Michigan, and many East Coast states, including much or all of New York City completely under water."
The only real loss there is Michigan (which I believe you are wrong about, since most of MI is well above sea level), good riddance to the rest of them.
Perhaps, Good Citizen whisper jeff, but to those of us who wish to grow gills when so much of the planet has become covered with ever more water (I guess you'd have to be a real Aquaman fan to appreciate the future) - just prior to the resulting Ice Age, think it may just be durned fun......
Amputees find they save money on socks.
Really, the title and claims are too vague to even argue about. make "life" "better"? Which species? How many? Better for otters or better for Rush Limbaugh's ego?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Did you also know that among suicide victims, the cases of death by cancer, disease, or AIDS are on average 0.0! This is strong evidence that we should advocate suicide to our children.
Just because something causes fewer deaths in one particular category doesn't mean that overall it causes fewer deaths, or that it won't increase other causes of death (for example... oh I dunno... heat exhaustion, maybe).
...and everyone in Bangladesh can move to Germany.
In capitalist world, New Yorkers go to Florida.
In grand new Soviet World, Florida comes to the New York.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Why does everyone refuse to acknowledge that Katrina was so bad because the levees in New Orleans failed. Other than that, this was no worse than past hurricanes.
Katrina was only proof it is bad to live below sea level.
Milder winders are actually causing problems with trade routes to the arctic. A lot of the stuff that gets delivered gets done so in the winter on ice roads, and with milder winters the window in which the lakes are frozen enough to drive large semi trucks on is getting narrower and narrower.
-Xoltri
You seem to be confused. Allow me to help you. Nobody said "humans aren't warming the earth." Nobody said "we have no part in global warming." Was was said was "our current climate models are so poor as to be unusable, and the international treaties we've made to stop this phenomenon are based on bad science."
Is there a problem? Yes. Does the Kyoto treaty address it in any way? No.
Carl Wunsch is well known for being excitable. I'm surprised he hasn't lambasted any of his own out of date work as clueless and reprehensible yet. He's a brilliant scientist, but he has completely lost the ability to interface with normal people. If you can show Carl, or anyone else, pointing out specific flaws in the science, I'm all ears.
That said, when you get right down to it, the carbon dioxide we're introducing into the atmosphere right now is NOTHING. Canada's tundra farts more CO2 than this on a semi-regular basis. Every single Russian earthquake scares more CO2 out of the taiga than this.
Am I saying we're not pumping anything awful into the atmosphere? God, no. But the CO2 isn't the problem, and our current treaties don't address the problem.
I believe that CO2-driven Global Warming is a hoax, and it's not just based on that documentary; you can dig through my comment history and see me pointing out many of these things long before that documentary was made. I'm basing my beliefs on clear science: the CO2 levels are way below planetary norms even after human involvement, there's a much stronger predictor of temperature data, and there's a clear proof that CO2 is an effect, not a cause.
Without making vague claims that "such and such" has been debunked or that "some scientist [I just learned about] says that documentary didn't waste half its running time listening to me vascillate," can you point to any actual science that shows any good reason for the CO2 to have that lag, or why the current CO2 rate should be a disaster when it's roughly half the level it was just four hundred years ago?
You can make personal attacks until you're blue in the face. Science laughs at ad hominem. Cite data or stop feigning familiarity.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
... All the leftists are blaming the historically bad Hurricane season of 2006 on Bush.
Huh? There was no bad hurricane season of 2006?
Nevermind.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
There will always be "scientists" who are willing to say what someone pays them to say....
This is a problem. If a lawyer betrays the ethics of his profession, he can be disbarred. If a physician betrays the ethics of his profession, he can lose his medical license. There is no official license to practice science.
From the other end, another result fo this is that any joker call him/herself a scientist and claim to be providing scientific information, with no penalty if s/he's not. Ah, but if someone says they are a physician and give medical treatment, they can go to jail. If they claim to be an attorney and give you legal advice, there are severe penalties also.
I wonder if these future weather forecasts factor in the effects of sunspots and cosmic rays?
...
Of the people out there that are *very* familiar with the technical aspects of global warming, I'm very curious what you guys think about the correlation between sunspots and global temperatures? Have you guys seen "The Great Global Warming Swindle" documentary that talks about research that demonstrates an 800 year gap between co2 and temperature (where temperature changes *precede* co2 changes)?
I'm really curious what the rebuttal to that is. Please no hostile responses. Just trying to use my analytical mind to figure out what to believe based upon the evidence (since I don't put much stock in consensus science)
"A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
It'd be nice, but Snopes doesn't have the balls to take on something like that.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I know creatinoists who believe the science on climate change.
I can't speak to any flat-earthers, I've never met one.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Dude. Where to start?
Ok, historically CO2 has been part of the feedback to solar forcing of climate change. But the increased CO2 has been a positive feedback, sustaining the climate change well past the solar forcing. What's different this time is that due to human activity we are pushing CO2 directly, so if our understanding of physics is correct (as established by Arrhenius himself), the result is heating. This is basic theory and the temperature record, though noisy, hardly contradicts this over the 20th century. Now, there's uncertainty about feedbacks, clouds, etc., but the CO2 forcing is there.
Do you see the spike? My eyeballs tell me the slope is roughly 100ppm/century.
Natural gross CO2 fluxes are huge. Net fluxes are small (i.e. they largely cancel out, and that's not accidental). Human fluxes are large compared to the net flux. See above link.
If you really don't think that CO2 traps heat, you are wrong. Grab a physics textbook, or start here. It has pictures and everything.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Actually Michigan and the Great Lakes will see a large increase in waterfront property because global warming makes the Great Lakes water levels decrease. When the lakes don't freeze in the winter they lose water all winter to evaporation that was normally protected by ice. There are some people suggesting this is why New Jersey and New York have had flooding recently.
It's already caused some problems with shipping in my area and a lot of marinas are being dredged because they are getting too shallow for some of the larger boats. Warmer water also means less oxygen content so there is a good change the type of animals living in the great lakes will change and fisheries will become more important then ever.
He probably won't drown at all. Given a sealed container of roughly human size, he'll suffocate far before drowning. If it's much larger than human size, like a pond, it wouldn't need to be sealed as he'd only need to be tied in place. If this is similar to how you would design experiments for global warming, then please don't publish any papers on the topic just yet.
OTOH, your point about rates of carbon uptake is a good one. What evidence do you have to support your implied hypothesis that the system has less than 0.1% slop in it? Do you have evidence from your research suggesting that 0.1% additional carbon dioxide will not simply result in more plants and microbes rather than significant warming?
Oh, but didn't you hear? Global warming causes supernovas as well!
Michigan will flood because of the exodus to Canada will create a great flood of pee from all the moosehead drinking. all that urine will raise the great lakes level by 300 feet causing michigan to be a tiny island in the Boyne area.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Parent post (my own) is not flamebait. It is a belief based on clear science, and it cites an explanation. There's nothing even remotely trollish about it. Please meta-moderate the moderators who've confused disagreement with trolling into the ground, lest they do the same thing to you the first time you say something unpopular.
Slashdot should be looking into a more permanent fix for people who don't know what (-1, troll) means. This has been a serious problem for several years now, and it's getting progressively worse.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
more population + less water = !
So yeah, we will enjoy some more tropical weather, of course, we'll need to get along with the frigging mosquitoes and war will be for water and not oil, that's better!
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
"Florida, much of California, Michigan, and many East Coast states, including much or all of New York City completely under water"
Uh... Lake Michigan is already under water.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
What ever happened to the hole in the ozone?
First, the ozone situation is atmospherically completely unrelated to the CO2 question.
Still, what happened? There was a global response and as a result, the situation improved. Might be a model for dealing with the CO2, huh?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Ocean Warming, which is a recorded fact has severely harmed coral reefs.
I have no doubts that life will adapt to global climate change, fewer corals but lots of algae and red tide in the new warm oceans.
I think maintaining the status quo of historical climates seems to have many economic benefits that should not be ignored. And major global climate change would likely shift most markets fast towards the red. The markets would be forced to adapt quickly, which they are not very good at doing without a lot of suffering by the people at the bottom. Perhaps this is the conservative in me talking. (not neo-conservative!)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
And consider this: They have begun naming sub-tropical storms, the most recent is the one off of the FL coast now. This was not done in the past, only real hurricanes had been named.
So what does that mean? More named storms each year than in the past! Defacto proof of an increase of huurricanes!
Talk about manipulating the data.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Clearly El Niño the mexican wrestler.
More Twoson than Cupertino
What part of "don't bother replying without data" is too complicated for you? I most certainly am not dead wrong about that; I've got a history in this. You, I suspect, do not. (Whatever fool moderated that "informative" doesn't have the slightest idea how moderation works; saying "nuh-uh" is not informative in the slightest.)
Stop claiming to know things you don't. Either cite actual data, or shut your mouth. All you're doing is spreading environment FUD. The problem is, this kind of FUD can do us all very real, very permanent damage.
Cite data next time, or consider yourself called a liar in public.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Is it just me or does this strike others as "lalalalalalalalalalalaI'mnotlisteninglalalalalala la!" Way to ignore the vast majority of solid information out there and try to put a rose on a pile of shit.
Unfortunately, it's not just you. Many people believe that all change must be bad because change, by definition, means things will be different. Some things will be better and some things worse, but all things will be different.
Different != Bad
That said, if I had to chose between between global warming vs global cooling, I'd take the warming 100% of the time! When the climate changes, it's going to go one way or the other.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
No Galileo was convicted of being a heretic because of a book he wrote and published "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" in which he mocked the pope.
o .html
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galile
-Will
I listen to the BBC World Service every day on my way to and from work. In my gas-guzzling SUV.
Just about every story is about how the world is ending, mostly because of man-made global warming. Yesterday, I heard that dams and hydro-electric power release more greenhouse gases than coal-fire electric plants. If they keep on like this, the only option for humanity will be mass suicide. Though, only if a decomposing corpse releases less methane than a living person, I guess.
Earlier this week there was a story about RFID devices in trash cans, to measure and control the amount of garbage thrown out by Britons. If this were in support of the George Bush's Global War on Terror, the masses would be out on the streets, but any invasive authoritarian measure can be justified in order to "Save the Earth" (tm).
I'm over it. Bother me no more with stories of global warming. At this stage, it's become a catchphrase to justify all sorts of bureaucratic intrusion and control, instigated by the watermelon left (green outside, red inside).
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I agree that there certianly have been times in the geologic past when the earth was hotter, and colder, and CO2 was in higher - or lower - concentration. It's "just a few degrees" right? More summer sounds like a good idea, of course, unless you hate the heat of the summer.
Everytime someone touts the variations over the life of the earth, I'm always compelled to point out that almost nothing that was alive then is alive now. So as long as you're not really concered about becoming extinct, it's not a big deal. Whether climate change occurs "naturally" or by human intervention is somewhat irrelevant if the end result is that we are all going to die. It seems that it is in our best interest to maintain the status quo. To do so, we should not be ignoring the changes as "inevitable" but determining what effects we can have to keep the system stable. That's a pretty big order, but given the consequeces I think a little forethought might not be a bad idea.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Viruses survive more in warmer weather. Though we associate the common cold with colder temperatures, the cold actually inhibits them from growing. Viruses are more prevalent in the winter because humans are in closer proximity to each other due to the fact that they are inside more.
He was considered a heretic because his book was written in Italian (the common language) rather than Latin. He was supposed to be pandering to the church and intellectuals, and we was talking straight to the people.
He was not condemned because of his beliefs, in fact, the pope wanted him to expound on his theories, just not in Italian.
"If God had intended us to walk he would not have invented roller skates." -- Willy Wonka
Or just like a PlayBoy, just looked at the pictures
> Besides, since you are so sure, riddle me this: we can calculate our CO2 output (it dwarfs natural emissions).
. stm
> Where do you get this stuff? Humanity is responsible for less than one tenth of one percent of the CO2 in our atmosphere. We are positively dwarfed by rotting vegetation, dead animals and the tundra. However, the vast bulk of atmospheric CO2 (~72%) is released from the ocean CO2 reservoir.
Human CO2 output doesn't "dwarf" natural emissions, but it is a major part of the total - roughly a third, cf: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460
Unless you can find another explanation, besides human activity, for atmospheric CO2 being "higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years."
Come on, put some effort into this, the information is not that hard to find. If we can get past the basic facts, *then* we can argue correlation and causality with temperature and climate.
How dare you, Slashdot! You have posted blasphemy in the name of Our Religion. The sins of man have sullied our great Eden, and when the Judgement Day comes and the waters flood and the fires burn, it will fall on your head, so sayeth the Lord Gore. You must repent your sins and pray through ritual recycling, carbon credits to make companies rich, dangerous mercury bulbs, and higher taxes. You damn Christian capitalists and your fundamentalist religion. You're a bunch of Nazis! Now pay the government for the shame of your existence.
"Sufferin' succotash."
That is not true. Tropical Storms are named. Subtropical storms have also been named since 2002.
die444die
And you base that on what, exactly? Humanity has less than 30 years of atmospheric data, so I'm rather skeptical. Don't waste my time by bringing up ice core samples; there is no correlation of ice core samples to global temperature which is accurate to less than ten years, and if you actually bother looking at the ice core record, you'll notice that the correlation that we've seen for more than ten million years is actually holding exactly where we would expect for it to.
Well you've managed to convince me that you're completely wrong. That little tirade about ice cores proves you're either disingenous, stupid or both. Ice core samples don't have to be accurate to less than ten years, you use ice core samples to estimate atmsopheric readings beyond the years we have atmospheric readings for. You can claim that's not the most accurate way to measure it, but frankly it's the most accurate measure we have.According the information I've seen, for example This graph at wikipedia, it looks like CO2 levels are rising at rather dramatic rate. Of course, the scale looks overly dramatic because the scale on the right doesn't extend all the way down to 0. However, it looks like the CO2 levels have rising by almost 25% over the last 3 decades. That's a significant shift.
Also your claim that we have less than 30 years of atmospheric readings for CO2 seems very suspect, considering the chart I referenced above has over 40 years of atmospheric readings on it. So, are you just repeating verbatim the anti-global warming rhetoric from over a decade ago or what?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Timecube guy and the over-unity energy guys are also in the scientific minority. Being in the minority doesn't mean you're right either. In fact, gallileo wasn't persecuted by the science community (such as it was) for being in the minority, he was persecuted by the church because his theories opposed religious doctrine.
We don't know in detail what climate change will do. Humans have prospered because we adapted our environment to our advantage. Now we're about to find out how well we do as the environment extensively changes beyond our control. Given how well we normally react to big changes, I'm guessing it's not going to be fun.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I for one will strive to honor your real estate investments to the best of my efforts as I flee desperately from my submerged home along with hundreds of thousands of fellow refugees. I'll try not to raid your garden, but I can't promise I won't be hungry form all that travel. Sure it will be rough, but let's face the facts. If Katrina proved anything, it's that we'll be taken care of in case of a disaster.
Vostok ice core data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/ vostok/vostok.html
/ molspec/irspec1.htm
/ warming_earth/scientific_evidence.htm
CO2 concentrations over the last 600000 years: http://www.realclimate.org/epica.jpg
Sadly, I can't find the graph that superposes the temperature record over the CO2 record. I'm sure another 30 minutes of googling for it will yield it.
The spike is over the last 150 years or so, and basic modeling techniques show you that it is abnormal. All your questions can be answered by looking through the two graphs I provided you.
Alright, I exaggerated when I said that our CO2 output dwarfs all natural emissions. You're right, that's probably wrong. However, our emissions are currently not being absorbed as fast as they are generated, and total concentrations are rising quite nicely. That's the key part - we are putting stuff into the regular cycle that doesn't get absorbed.
I know you don't think that it's affecting the earth. You still haven't given a reason why, despite the well known physics of infrared absorption, which are described quite nicely here: http://teaching.shu.ac.uk/hwb/chemistry/tutorials
The data about CO2 affecting infrared radiation from earth can be found here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142, and at the Wikipedia article about greenhouse gases. If you object to the sources, you can always check the referenced literature.
I've got plenty of data. I can pull data for days. Where's yours? Where's your peer reviewed article? All you have is a few people who had to get a BBC documentary made, because people kept laughing at their theories and wouldn't bother publishing their papers. BTW, I've seen the BBC documentary - the data referenced in there, as well as the analysis thereof, has been widely discredited. For something real, read the IPCC reports: start here (http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/pub.htm), and don't stop until the end. Then come back.
Oh, and just for the heck of it, because I like Woods Hole and a friend of mine worked there, here's a little summary they threw together about the CO2 data collected: http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications
Again - where's your data?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It wouldn't even be an issue if Americans like you didn't keep denying reality just so they can carry on feeling good about driving their SUV's.
IMHO, any law that removes peoples 'rights' to be totally ignorant, greedy and self-centred at the cost of the environment (and therefore everyone else) is a good thing.
This study was done by someone in marketing.
Those Katrina victims are better off now -- we've flooded them out of their destitute lifestyles so they can be exposed to new destitute lifestyles in luxurious FEMA trailers.
Global Warming Rocks!
the fact that global warming is causing the gulf stream to change direction which in turn will condemn Scotland and parts of Northern England to dissapear under pack-ice is all OK then is it?
But it quickly became apparent that the horrific tale of a melting South Pole was nothing but fiction. The average temperature in the Antarctic is -30 degrees Celsius. Humanity cannot possibly burn enough oil and coal to melt this giant block of ice.
Hello, Spiegel. Let me introduce my friend, the Larsen B ice shelf, along with Journalistic Integrity. No, you haven't met.
so what exactly is this history you keep talking about yet not specifying?
I'm always amazed by supposed scientists being so confident in predicting future states of chaotic systems so far in advance. I'm even more amazed by claims that certain changes to the present state will lead to a specific changes in future outcome. I believe this is called Hubris.
Now then, "Oy vey" is Yiddish for "Oh woe is me". This is a bit premature. Let's save it for when Nemesis gets his revenge.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
A lengthy article in Spiegel explores the possibility that global warming might make life on Earth better, not just for humans, but all species which haven't disappeared.
What doesn't kill your species makes your life better!
You just got troll'd!
I am not familiar with this perspective as a part of mainstream scientific thought. To my knowledge, Ice core records correlate pretty well with tree ring records and other geologic evidence. Pretty much all of it stands up to scientific scrutiny. Would you mind citing *your* source to support your claims?
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
A damn good beer if I say so myself. After a trip to cananda last year and a startling revelation that beer can only be purchased in hotels (wtf??) and the like, I was presented with a choice of either bud light or moosehead (a very rural area). Knowing that I'd drink a gallon of turpentine and piss on a forest fire than drink bud light, I chose moosehead. Now it's my default beer.
No, it was also bad because the wetlands that act as a natural buffer between the city and the ocean have been severely eroded over the past several decades. What caused them to disappear? The levees.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
As much as I hate to sound like I'm defending the stupid documentary, people who "deny the science on climate change" are not even close to the same boat as creationists or flat-earthers.
Flat-earthers can prove themselves wrong with 2 sextants and a friend, or by using "American Practical Navigator" by Bowditch, among many other possibilities. Things easily accessible to anybody with a calculator and a library or a marine hardware store. Flat-earthers are exceedingly rare and inexcusably stupid. Although maybe not rare enough.
Creationists . . . I don't even know where to start. Creationism is more reasonable than Flat-earth theory, but not much. The only real defense there is it is hard to make your own experiments to test evolution. You could see how you are a combination of your parents and extrapolate from there. I suppose you could take a weak antibiotic once a month until you develop some resistant bacteria or something, but that is a whole different variety of bad idea.
How is any individual supposed to measure global climate change? Assuming they don't have access to a world-wide network of observatories and whatnot. Last I checked, most people don't. Factor in things like urban heat island effect and local weather variations, and things become even more difficult for the amateur scientist. Add in that the sea level is changing both at a slow enough rate that people don't personally notice it (maybe in places with extremely small tide action?) and the fact that sea level charts matched against global temperature charts don't correlate the way you would expect (sea level has been rising at a pretty much constant rate over the last 120 years, while temperature has decreased for 10 years or more at least 4 times).
I believe that there is indeed global warming, and I suspect that people are at the very least part of the cause, but I can't personally convince myself to care about it, one way or the other.
Stop it? Meh.
Slow it down? Meh.
Reverse it? Well, that seems like a bad idea, but still; meh.
Apathy; it does a body good.
Last year's lack of major hurricanes was due to the well documented El Nino effect. It has been published several times, even the media outlets targetted at dullards reported it.
Not that mimimal damage from tropical storms has prevented insurance companies from hitting us in FL with 70+% rate increases again, and them decided not to even offer renewals for a large number of people.
While I agree that we should try to reduce and mitigate CO2 emissions in order to slow the effects of global warming, I don't see how you can reduce emissions substantially in a short period of time without draconian measures. Even with draconian measures, which would have their own dire consequences, most models I have seen would still see some decades of continued warming until things maybe leveled out.
Why shouldn't we just do the best we can using reasonable measures and then deal with the consequences? So far systems of CO2 rationing have not worked and in places where people need to heat their homes in the winter, CO2 rationing isn't likely to work.
Seems that whenever you try to do a cost benefit analysis with the entire world including many variables that you cannot control or predict, then you are going out on a limb especially the farther out you extrapolate. If we perfect fusion for instance, then we don't worry about global warming anymore, sure it might still happen, but with nearly limitless cheap power you could mitigate nearly any effect.
No it isn't prudent to rely on technology we don't have, but if we don't come up with new technology, then civilization will naturally go into decline due to resource exhaustion regardless of global warming. But that same decline will happen if we impose too much rationing on resources, so really either way we are out of luck in the next 100-200 years unless new technology can keep civilization going.
Here in BC, Canada, we're having our forests killed off by the "mountain pine beetle." While this is a recurring pest, it seems that this time around it's a lot worse than previous. One of the main things that can kill the bugs in a big hurry is a sudden cold snap to about -40c for about 3-5 days. Winters have been milder and shorter lived these last few years though, so the beetle is continuing on. I've heard that Eastern Canada is starting to suffer from something similar with "Pine Wasp" (I'll take the beetles, thanks).
Add to that the issue of beehives being killed off by strange bacteria that seems to proliferate better in the warmer weather, the marked increase in allergy issues locally (according my doctor, and he indicated that it was partly due to the warm, dry weather here), and I'd agree that there are a lot of ways that global warming is not making life better in terms of disease, parasites, and pests...
Out of all the possible temperature the world could be in, we're obviously at a temperature that is perfect and any departure from that will cause death and doom?
Let's say we determined the absolute best temperature to be at is cool Earth down by 5 degrees and we can do it. You can stil make the same argument, that people living in cold areas will be dying more due to cold-related deaths even though the rest of the world is better off. Why should you get freezed to death when you don't have to if we maintain the status quo?
Even if global warming really does improve the welfare of the world overall (unlikely), someone somewhere will of course get screwed in the process. This is true even if you can somehow shift the world's temperature to some ideal level. Unless we're already at the ideal temperature, of course, but I've never heard of anyone even making such a claim.
Oooh, random guy on Slashdot called it a hoax. Phew. We can all go back to worrying about American Idol now.
There's a mountain of research showing that you're wrong, but in any case the "truth" about global warming as a lot more nuanced than can be summed up in a couple sentences. You think you can just pop on here, write something stupid like that, and be contributing to the discussion? Moron.
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Look at a map of North America, the sheer landmass that is Canada. They will become the agricultural overlords of the western hemisphere (and possibly beyond). My lettuce will be shipped in, as it is today. I doubt much of my lettuce actually comes from North Carolina, where most farms seem to be growing soybeans or tobacco today.
But if Raleigh becomes zone 9, it becomes feasible for me to grow semitropical fruits in my own yard. It's a tradeoff I can live with.
I do expect some other nasty things, though. Africanized bees gaining more of a stronghold, malaria, other insect-borne diseases. It will be a different world. But not necessarily a bad one (for those who are lucky enough to live in the right places).
Holland may very well become New Atlantis. That would suck. Hard. But Norway and Sweden could enjoy greater tourism throughout the year. The impact all depends on where in the world you are.
The issue seems to be dynamics rather than specifics. My understanding for 20 years or so was that global warming would bring more violent weather, rather than more consistently bad weather.
Also, with respect to the warming is good for life argument, the Earth has most certainly been warmer, and likely more violent weather-wise. Our distinct problem is that we have virtually eliminated the possibility of more life spawning by killing its potential habitat and introducing toxic waste of various forms.
I wrote an article 15 years or so ago arguing that global warming wasn't the biggest issue, but rather that desertification and the elimination of biodiversity was. Whether we can live in a world without a functional ecology is going to be something we quickly find out. If it's warmer doesn't really matter, unless you are in a stressed area. My opinion is that a lot of people are going to perish, but as usual YMMV. As if they already are not perishing! It may simply be more permanent for many regions.
Predicting those regions is like predicting the weather!
Spoken like a well-indoctrinated true believer.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
I'm pleased as punch to see that you haven't cited a single data source. Your lack of knowledge about basic absorption physics and CO2 data (CO2 levels are way below planetary norms - hah!) indicates you're a basic, clueless troll. Shrug. Fortunately, you're in the minority now, and won't be able to significantly mess up my planet for me.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Global warming is responsible for the 'dead' hurricane season in an indirect way. the year after a very active hurricane season has frequently been much quieter. The deeper (cooler) waters are churned up by the hurricanes so the surface isn't as warm and thus won't produce as many strong storms.
Let the waters sit with a dead year and they warm up nicely...producing a more active cycle.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
and repeat after me:
We all like global warming,
The hotter sun is habit forming.
Fossil fuels we need to burn,
There is no worry or concern.
Just get the publisher those slanted papers,
To confuse the issues of oil capers.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Umm, no. Galileo was referred to the Inquisistion by a scientist he had accused (baselessly) of plagiarism. Apparently, Galileo was a bit of a curmudgeon (a rude asshole might be a better description), with no social skills to speak of.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
#1: who benefits? those in northerly latitiudes
#2: ???
(censored contents... #2: canada has a lot of oil shale)
#3: BLAME CANADA! no wait, INVADE CANADA!
you dirty canucks can have my palm trees after i finish napalming them
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
250-300 feet is downtown. We're still in the piedmont of the state so the elevation deltas city wide are actually further apart than that. My own home is around 350-360 feet above sea level (GPS isn't much more precise than that). A large parcel of unimproved land that I own nearby is over 600 feet above sea level on average with about a 25 foot variation.
That graph clearly shows CO2 lagging temperature. Thank you for supporting me in so clear a fashion.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
In the heat it really comes down to hydration. You can (and I have) worked outside in 110 degree heat all day. You just make sure to consume a lot of water. I much prefer staying in doors where it's air conditioned, but you can do the outdoor thing if it comes to it, even strenuous labour.
can global warming make life on Mars better?
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Our local public television network produced a special episode of Exploring North Carolina that dealt specifically with what global warming will mean for my state. The waters will rise up through the Neuse basin, but will not consume Raleigh by any stretch.
Honestly, we all know life will go on. It's only the most radical who predict the end of life as we know it as a result of global warming. That, however, is totally beside the point.
I'm already hating the ninety degree weather as summer picks up. I don't see why we have to ruin places like Canada by melting them...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
For 90 percent of the world's population, global warming, and the connected rising acidity of the seas is an unmitigated disaster, especially for the 40 percent that live in the low elevation coastal areas.
For the 10 percent of the world living in cold mountainous regions in upper temperate zones, where they have sufficient water and will have more arable land, it's great, although the changes in growing seasons and plant and animal life suited for those regions will cause massive change, it's better.
Only someone who thinks only about themselves would regard global warming as a plus.
Please note: I have spent most of my life in the areas that will benefit from these changes, and even I think the disruption effect will be far worse than any beneficial rewards of global warming. Most of the people promoting this are just GW naysayers who don't want to have to deal with the real costs of reality in the 22nd Century.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Galileo's persecution was fundamentally different, even ignore that the heretic accusation didn't come from other scientists. He was introducing a radically new concept. Minority "dissidents" in global warming aren't introducing new concepts. They're just going against a well proven theory.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
This is a temporary shortcoming.
Who cares if trucks can't get through when soon cargo ships, holding hundreds of truckloads of goods at a time, will be able to navigate their way through to currently interior arctic ports (and beyond)?
And where, kind sir, are your references?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Now, the issue about C02 levels not rising seem disingenous, current carbon dioxide levels seem to be significantly higher than historical ones. Higher than the historical maxima, and they're still rising. They've rising about 25% in the last 30 years. That seems like a significant amount.
I'd like to see more specific reasons why Kyoto and greenhouse gas curbing iniative are "bad science" than the vague claims you are giving and a reference to a documentary that's not very well respected even by the people who are in it.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
While I think you were unfairly modded down as flamebait, I don't think you have to worry about things being "too hot" for crop farming. Heat doesn't really cause crop failures with the main cereal crops. Disease, pests, too little rain, or too much rain at the wrong time cause crop failures.
Hotter global temperatures might mean more rainfall for some currently very arid regions (American southwest or the Sahara, for example) which in turn would open up new areas to agricultural exploitation.
Either you're from a blue state or you're from a land that doesn't recognize the natural right to keep and bear arms.
My home would be one of the most foolish homes to try and loot. Hanging a few dead looters from my mighty oak trees out front should be a good way to stave off future attempts.
Denial: What global warming?
:-)
Anger: This could actually be good for us damnit! (where we are now)
Bargaining: Please Mrs. Nature, don't kill us all! We'll give you a toupee for the ozone hole!
Depression: This is so unfair! (while wiping sweat from underarms with paper towel)
Acceptance: People wander the streets naked to escape the heat.
Call me when we get to step five
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
Maybe "interesting" in how he's avoided all the information that's available on the subject that he dismisses as being not available.
t alk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
For example: temperature data extracted from glacial samples date back 600,000 years. That's enough of a "lifetime" for me. We've exceeded all temperature spikes demonstrated by those samples, and drastically exceeded the average temperature that you're interested in.
I know it's asking a lot to have informed opinions in postings to Slashdot, but Global Climate Change is one of the more well documented issues around.
Please read up all the nice things this person has compiled here:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu" Last time I checked the death rate from being born is 100%. So while there may be 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses, there will be 40,000 more deaths attributable to something else.
CO2 is produced by decomposition, volcanic outgassing, respiration, farting, and a number of other processes having zero to do with us. We add a piddling insignifigant amount to that released by nature. On top of this whatever CO2 isn't locked up by biological processes or converted to other things like carbon and O2, and not trapped up in carbonate rocks and such, gets disolved into the ocean which takes it in and puts it back out constantly. If the entire oceanic supply of CO2 were released today it would be extremely noticable and yet NOT cause any greenhouse effect, especially if the sun were headed into quiescence.
Warming and cooling still continue to happen AHEAD of CO2 changes. The very same ice records that we've been beaten over the head with for decades show that clearly and the response to this is usually, "well, that's because it's feedback so the warmer it gets, the more CO2 gets released and the warmer it gets and..."
NO. WRONG. NEVER has worked that way. The majority of non-scientists believe CO2 causes global warming. The majority of true dedicated scientists believe no such thing. Unfortunately, we are being lied to like with the Alar scare. Wouldn't have been so dramatic if the public knew that the amount of DMSO causing cancer in the mice was equivalent to eating a truckload of Alar treated apples every day for your entire life. That doesn't get research dollars and that doesn't get political power.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I think you mean this Mexican wrestler.
Does this sig remind you of Agatha Christie?
I have always heard the same thing, FWIW. That "catching cold" wasn't actually caused by being physiologically cold, but occurred more often in the winter because people tend to be inside, packed together, with the houses/buildings all sealed up, basically creating little petri dishes for bacteria to thrive in.
I can imagine that if you were really cold, for a long time -- like, hypothermic -- that perhaps this would weaken your body's immune system to the point where you would become more susceptible to disease. However, I really don't think that there's much credence to the old adages about "putting your hat on so you don't catch cold!"
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Lots of women in bikinis but the island of Bikini will be gone.
In fact, just the other day there was a forum discussing how to handle all the refugees from islands that won't be around when the ocean level goes up a few meters.
http://news.bahai.org/story/530
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%), I find it so cool that a CO2 Percentage of .01%-.1% can have such an effect. It seems H20 or "water"(for the non scientist) is the biggest contributer to Global Warming at a hefty 7% or ~70x that of CO2.
Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
Hans von Storch is characterized as level headed in the article. He has been involved in a few cortroversies in climate science, but what I like best is that he founded the Donald Duck Club to defend the drake against accusations of indecent behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch.s -selling-solar.html
--
End global warming! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
I sincerely hope that you're kidding around and not ignorant to the fact there's a state that's named the same...
Yes, it was a joke. I lived in Michigan (not ON Michigan) for about 4 years.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
...and Lake Michigan is 579 feet above sea level (this means that the majority of the state of Michigan is even higher in altitude). No predictions, regardless of how absurd, ever mentioned the oceans rising by that much.
And no, melting ice caps will not make the Great Lakes flood. If anything, global warming is more likely to make them continue shrinking in size.
At least 35,000[11] and as many as 50,000[12] people died from the 2003 European heat wave.
a ve#Total_dead
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_w
Article does acknowledge:
Meanwhile, the Kiel Institute for World Economics warns that higher temperatures could mean thousands of heat-related deaths every year. But the extrapolations that lead to this dire prediction are based on the mortality rate in the unusually hot summer of 2003, for which Germans were wholly unprepared. But if hot summer days do become the norm, people will simply adjust by taking siestas and installing air-conditioning.
Invest in A/C and siestas now!
Innovation makes enemies of all those who prospered under the old regime... -- Machiavelli
Soooo..... do you have any data to back up your criticism? Any analysis? Any support? Alternatively, what's wrong with every other link? Or do you just like to judge scientific ideas by whether the proponent is cute and cuddly?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Mighty Taco is looking for some managers.
Email your resume to Guy@MightyTaco.com Or Send it to: Mighty Taco, Attn: Guy 9362 Transit Road East Amherst, NY 14051
"You can kill the revolutionary, but you can't kill the revolution."-- Fred Hampton
You appear to have a short memory.
"It's all about the sun. We've got nothing to do with it."
Or did someone hack your account?
And for someone who exhorts his/her opponents to provide citations, you haven't provided a single one. I'd especially like references to claims like
That said, when you get right down to it, the carbon dioxide we're introducing into the atmosphere right now is NOTHING. Canada's tundra farts more CO2 than this on a semi-regular basis. Every single Russian earthquake scares more CO2 out of the taiga than this.
So the CO2 record should show spikes that are timed with earthquakes? Right?
the current CO2 rate should be a disaster when it's roughly half the level it was just four hundred years ago?
REFERENCE PLEASE! COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT ALERT!!
You can make personal attacks until you're blue in the face.
And your criticism of Wunsch was something more than an ad-hominem attack?
With each post I am increasingly convinced that you are completely moon-bat insane. Crazy factoids without references. Unfounded ad-hominem attacks. Back it up, buddy.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Mutually corroborating data makes for a convincing argument. When multiple investigative conclusions all point to the same thing, it's hard to say the conclusion should be dismissed based in inaccuracy. The ice core itself may or may not be accurate enough (what is enough?) But when considered along with everything else, it is spot on. Suppose we indulge you for a moment. 10 years? The industrial revolution has been going on a lot longer than that. Even with a margin of 10 years, the general trend is *not* due to statistical sampling or measurement errors. The "source" that you cite is nothing more than the polished product of a video production outfit. Professionally speaking, they're no different from "alien autopsy", "moon landing hoax", and other similar embarrassments. Real data, like the type that comes from peer reviewed journals, you seem to be unwilling to produce at the moment. Go ahead - we'll wait.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Earth is the center of the universe. If you just say "center" -- and not "center of mass" or some other more specific defintion -- you really just mean the point where you define the coordinate system to be 0,0,0. And since no one know the shape or mass of the universe there really aren't a lot of other "centers" you could define with any accuracy. If you're traveling outside of Earth orbit Earth is probably a bad reference point, but there's no technical reason you couldn't use it.
Likewise the sun does revolve around Earth every bit as much as the moon does, so drawing Earth at the center of the solar system is again just a different frame of reference, not an invalid model. The only part people got wrong was the planets revolving around Earth, and even that belief didn't last for long once observers were able to make accurate measurements to disprove the model.
That withstanding, your point about failing to accept the commonly held beliefs, even if the commonly held beliefs are inaccurate, has traditionally been seen as heresy or the like is perfectly valid.
Global warming = more heat = more energy = a more energetic system (ie weather patterns).
Hurricanes may have slacked off last year but this is attributable to El Nino.
I live in the desert in Arizona. I'm looking forward to a time when CA is under water and I knock an hour or two off the drive to beach! Bring it on the faster the better!
Yes, tomatoes in their native setting are perennial as well we day-neutral, so you could accomplish that with a greenhouse and leave the rest of us out of it.
"I'm sure we'll find a way to thrive through this."
Yeah, it's gonna get pretty crowded in Saskatchewan.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Why do a lot of people equate 'warmer weather' with 'better weather'?
If you can't stand the cold, get out of the refrigerator and move to a warmer climate. Don't 'pray' that global warming will make things nicer for you.
There are those of us who like cooler weather and have moved hundreds of miles to get out of the heat of the 'kitchen'.
Last year was only a "dead" hurricane season in the Atlantic. If you look at it globally, last year was above average for hurricanes, typhoons, and tropical cyclones.
Your arrogance is astounding. If the cycle were natural then so be it. I have no firm opinions as to what the cause of Global Warming truly is, it's all political bullshit as far as I'm concerned. What amazes me about your statement is your inability to see the difference between made-made GW and natural GW. If we're responsible, we owe it to the Inuit (for example) and the other species that will suffer to be proactive and do something about it.
Your self-centered attitude is due to your current locale. It's not going to affect you, so why the fuck should you care? Prick.
I'd like to sum up the most powerful argument against global warming models in the world:
When you can predict next month's weather with scientific accuracy then and only then will you be allowed to predict what it will be like in a 100 or 1000 years.
That's where the "skeptic" comes from. It's common sense to most. Sure you can point at charts showing things measurements changing in an ever changing world, but yet you can point to absolutely nothing predicting with accuracy how things will change and why.
Sure there are theories and models, but why is it wrong to be a skeptic on this topic? It has become so politicized that it's impossible to form an argument of skepticism without being labeled an earth killing pariah and the people that really run the world, the elite, have decided to take over this effort and seek profits.. as always.
Disclaimer: I have a PhD in meteorology. While paleoclimatology and climate change are not my research areas, I am fascinated by climate change and try to keep up on the research.
I naively thought once the IPCC report came out these types of "debates" about climate change would end. I was wrong. If anything, the naysayers are louder than ever.
I have read the Summary for Policymakers (and actually used it as a teaching tool in my numerical weather prediction undergraduate class). Have you? It's written at a relatively non-scientific level (hey, it's for politicians after all) but is very, very clear.
The results of this international (intergovernmental) exhaustive literature review? Humans are very likely (90%) responsible for the bulk of observed global warming.
That's it. Plain and simple.
Yet, no other topic in the world brings out the armchair scientists more than global warming. It's a frustrating phenomenon for me as a scientist. It's sort of like being an oncologist dealing with a chronic smoker who blames his lung cancer on some genetic anomaly, or living 50 miles away from a nuclear power plant, rather than the bloody obvious fact that smoking two packs of cigarettes for 40 years just might have something to do with the cancer.
This is science, not faith. Just about every climate change doubter starts his sentence with "I don't believe humans cause global warming because..." or "I don't believe in global warming." This clearly demonstrates a huge misunderstanding of the scientific process. Belief has nothing to do with it. It's about physics, meteorology, climatology, astronomy, biology, oceanography, chemistry etc., all of which rely on the peer-reviewed scientific process to further our understanding of the physical world.
I challenge any of the naysayers to do a little research of their own, not simply rely on cherry picking viewpoints which align with their own. It's sort of like a game, holding up their "most credible scientist" as a shield, challenging me to do the same. Never mind the fact that my "army" of scientists is about three orders of magnitude greater than their own... but I digress...
The very least anyone should do before arguing against... or for... anthropogenic climate change is to pick up an undergraduate meteorology textbook and opening up to (usually) chapter 3, the chapter on heat transfer. The section on radiation is the most crucial one. Read about blackbody radiation. The solar spectrum and the terrestrial spectrum are a function of their temperatures. Because the Earth is much colder than than the sun, it emits in the infrared (longer wavelength than visible light etc. from the sun).
Then read about greenhouse gases, those by-and-large trace gases which exist in our atmosphere. Understand how they respond to longwave and shortwave radiation. A little light bulb should eventually go on over your head when you realize "oh, so *that's* why the Earth is habitable." You see, without these trace gases (CO2, H20, CH4) the earth would be in a deep freeze - estimated at about 50 degrees F colder global average temperature.
Once you make it that far, you're almost there. Realize that humans are responsible for increasing atmospheric CO2 levels from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm to a modern day value of 380 ppm, an increase of over 30%. It takes very little stretch to realize that this would lead to a shift in the radiative equilibrium temperature of the earth (related to the global average temperature).
You see, this is really easy science. There is NO REASON TO ASSUME that CO2 values increasing the way they have would NOT lead to an increase in global average temperature!! This is exactly what we'd expect! And this doesn't even involve the scary discussion of feedbacks (water vapor feedback, snow/ice albedo feedback) which may accelerate the warming.
And that's just the back of the envelope part. Yes, there are still unknowns. Not, it's not the sun (we've checked into that if you can believe it). No, it's n
A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
I had with a friend who is a *very* fundamentalist Christian who believes in the Rapture. A time when all the "good" Christians (opposed to what?) get taken up to heaven for a thousand years. It went something like this:
Him: And then there will be plagues.
Me: What kind of plagues?
Him: The earth will get hot.
Me: Let me get this straight...all you right wing Christians will be gone and the rest of us can live our lives in peace without your religious dogma and misguided legislative agenda and it will be endless summer here? What's the bad part again?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Must be a great doco when one of your sources is considering legal action, and when 37 of the UK's leading climate scientists tell you that you're deliberately misrepresenting data. A formal complaint has been lodged with Ofcom about the programme.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
...when you said "Further, global warming, whether true or not" - The planet is heating up, its a fact. Getting more water? Baah.
Scientists say it has become increasingly clear that worldwide precipitation is shifting away from the equator and toward the poles. That will nourish crops in warming regions like Canada and Siberia while parching countries -- like Malawi in sub-Saharan Africa -- which are already prone to drought
New York Times:
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
People in this thread keep mentioning the spread of malaria due to a warmer world. For those who don't know: malaria was common in the US and Europe up until just this century. Mosquito control has stopped it.
Your design to a real part online: Big Blue Saw
I heard that same report on BBC news feeds about the hydroelectric power giving off methane. That had to be one of the most blatantly ignorant theories I have ever heard on the news. EVERYTHING on earth is cyclical, including carbon going in and out of a reservior. The way that guy was talking, he was making it sound like carbon was magically appearing out of the ether of the universe destroying the planet. Lucky for us he is wrong, carbon flows in carbon flows out just like the rest of the planet.. In the end the net carbon gain and loss for a region has to equal one another whether sequestered or not. Basically the carbon flowing out (if constant) must equal the carbon flowing in. Reserviors can't magically create carbon. It's amazing what garbage makes it into the news.
Your attitude is fairly typical, but contains a very troubling assumption -- namely that if the global warming phenomenon currently ongoing is not anthropogenic, that somehow we don't need to worry about it.
I think this is completely false, and quite dangerous. Furthermore, I think that the debate over what has caused global warming, has really just become a distraction to the real issue, which is quite simply "what the hell are we going to do about it?"
It doesn't really matter whether the cause of the warming is anthropogenic or not; unless you're going to debate that the planet is not getting warmer -- and it doesn't seem like you are -- we still have a serious problem on our hands. It's a little academic to most people whether it's caused by power production, or automobiles, or cow farts, or energy fluctuations in the Sun, or a lack of pirates.
Telling people in Bangladesh who are up to their knees in seawater that "hey, we're just coming out of a geological cold phase!" isn't particularly useful. Or when the power grid and water supplies in the whole Eastern half of the U.S. fail because the average summer temperature is up in the mid-to-high 90s (or higher), saying "it was a lot worse a few million years ago" isn't getting us any closer to a solution.
The causes of the warming phenomenon are only interesting insofar as they give us possible solutions for dealing with the problem -- because it's not CO2 that's the problem, it's the warming that's the problem. If you don't think it's anthropogenic CO2 that's the cause of the warming, fine, but that doesn't mean that the actual problem just goes away because we didn't cause it, which seems to be the attitude taken by many of the anti-anthropogenic-global-warming side. We still have to deal with the same consequences even if the cause isn't anthropogenic. (And if it's not anthropogenic, then we're probably screwed even further, because it's probably a lot more difficult to reverse the process.)
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Biomatter that was fixed into the groung for millions of years will be release in to the atmosphere. That carbon is once again apart of the life cycle which means that there will be a bloom plant species will send nutrients right up the food chain. That may cause an explosion of species that both good and bad.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
The thing about sience is that eventually all these heretics like Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Darwin, Einstein... made it into the mainstream. The majority of other people who were considered fruitcakes at the time they presented their ideas, are still considered fruitcakes. That's because after a long period of deliberation and initial rejection of their ideas, other scientist were not forced to accept them by the overwhelming evidence. Though obviously the scientific mainstream is always lagging behind the thought leaders, it will eventually move onto the right path. We know that because the result of science - increased knowledge about the workings of the world, is measurable: we can now send vehicles to Mars, we can run computer networks all around the globe, we can travel to far away destinations in jet planes which use GPS navigation systems. None of these things were possible in Galileo's time. At any given time (unless you are personally an expert in the field) it makes more sense to trust the scientific mainstream then the possible genuises who could also be possible fruitcakes. As we know from observation the genius to fruitcake ratio is very low, and the scientific mainstream will identify the geniuses in time - as it has always done.
The best way for a scientist to make a career is to be part of the genius vs fruitcake analysis process. There are no nobel prizes handed out for people who write articles stating that they agree with the already established findings of the mainstream, or that they've repeated what many others before them have already measured. If you want funding, recogition and respect, you need to come up with things others have not thought of. If you can take an established theory and punch holes into it, you've struck gold. It's your own self-interest which is moving forward your field of research.
Spoken like a true self-centred denier.
Ummm, maybe he was talking about slashdot. You know that American website you are on right now where we all linked to the article from?
Of course if he was trying to point out an anti-global warming bias in slashdot I imagine he'll have some trouble making the case.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I will potentially be able to grow stuff in my garden that won't grow there today. My tomatoes may become perennials as they are in their native habitat. And I could do with some citrus trees in my yard.
Yeah, but all the refugies who are setting up camp in your yard will be a bother - when millions start fleeing the desserts and run over the borders. There is a limit to how many people the guards can gun down at once.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
...the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s...
...fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu....
The notion that cold temperatures cause influenza and the common cold also went out in the 80's. Wakey Wakey! It's bacteria and viri!! And if I remember my biology 101 correctly, the little beasties don't much care for sub-zero temperatures.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
I blame George W. Bush ... Oh, wait, it's a good thing ... I thank our new Democrat Congress!
[Insert pithy quote here]
Flunked statistics did you?
Now, ignoring the poor math that leads to that being called a third, let's be clear: this is the freshman philosophy class teaching the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." All you have discovered is that CO2 is going up. That it happened while we were in the industrial growth phase does not mean that we created it.
It's worth actually looking at the CO2 graph. You'll find for example that the vast bulk of those increases occur after Mount Saint Helens, Mount Pinatubo, Cerro Hudson, El Chichon, Ksudach or Novarupta.
Wow, CO2 went up since we invented the internal combustion engine. IT MUST BE OUR FAULT! (sigh)
----
As a side note, I think this is my favorite example of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. That it's about global warming is coincidence; lord knows I dust this off every time someone reveals a basic infamiliarity with logic. But, I've got to admit, that it's topical is icing on the cake.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
it didn't require a serious reponse
if you want to get serious though, most americans don't even know or care about canada
you're just americans living on unincorporated land. too cold, not worth it
the southeastern usa has more unique cultural signifiers than canadians do, in terms of cultural identity as being distinct from the average american
molson and hockey don't make a country, eh?
sorry, but what you apparently seek the most: respect, or even recognition, is forever beyond you. because what "you" are doesn't even really exist
you're just american, and you don't even know it
someone wiser than me said it best: the us canadian border is a one way mirror. canadians look south and see everything they are not. americans look north and see themselves
so, if cultural pride is really that important to you, open an ice cold molson
it's all you got going for you as something distinct and uniquely canadian
all of your actors and athletes come here (and have no adjustment phase: they are peceived as, and get along perfectly well, as if they were always us citizens)... 90% of you live within in 100 miles of the border... what the hell is canada? nothing distinct as far as i can tell, you're surrounded on 2 sides by us, and the rest: ocean
well the quebeckers ARE distinct... but they want to break away from you! they don't like you! your "countrymen" pffft. what is that for a canadian? and i heard if the quebeckers did break free, alberta actually wants to join the usa! or even the maritimes. sorry, but anglophone canada is a f***ing joke
who knows if we'd take alberta though... again, too cold, not worth it
enjoy your wasteland, unincorporated american
sorry, but in the immortal words of rodney dangerfield (american comedian, i know you know who he is, because we exist in the same culture): "i don't get no respect"
canada: the rodney dangerfield of (nonexistent) countries
xoxoxoxoxoxox
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And yet you have not provided a single citation yourself. Fascinating.
I don't have the time to begin to point out all the errors in your post. So I'll stick to 2.
Want a citation for Arrhenius? How about this one:
Svante Arrhenius. "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground". Philosophical Magazine 41, 237 (1896)[1]
Now please explain to me "Arrhenius had nothing to do with this. Don't invoke his name. He was dead thirty years before this idea surfaced, and his work - which is about the temperatures at which a chemical reaction will occur (protiens only work in certain temperature ranges, for example) - had nothing to do with this. If you wanted to name drop a scientist, you chose exceptionally poorly" again? If you can dig yourself out of that whole, I would be most impressed.
As for the CO2 data: Where, oh where, are the signals from volcanoes? And if you look at the chart, you'll see that it's CO2 in terms of ppm by volume in the atmosphere. It's spelled out quite clearly.
And your link (your one reference) doesn't refute anything I said. When I spoke of natural fluxes cancelling out, I was referring to the present day, stuff like this. Note part (c) for example, where the flux in/out of the oceans is of magnitude ~90 PgC/yr, but the net flux is ~2. Human emissions are ~5.3 PgC/yr, which is significant relative to the net fluxes.
Yes, historical CO2 perturbations over millions of years shows some variations in the net fluxes. But please, please explain the causes that bring us to the red arrow in your image. Volcanoes?
Please, please please: Explain your Arrhenius comment, and cite your volcanic emissions data. And "Source: Out of my ass" is not sufficient.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Desertification? Don't you mean Dessertification??
Life sure would be better when tropical fruits abound!
Oh, life is sweet on the beach.
Sometimes, you can, you go to hell for the rest of your life! That's a true thing.
And increased deaths due to:
Warmer weather is not necessarily a panacea.
Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.'"
I don't buy that. Increased heat, means increased kinetic energy in the air, which means more movement. Storms won't necessarily increase in magnitude everywhere, but they will increase in magnitude somewhere.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
This guy is a layman, huh? Or the journalists who write ALL of the articles?
People who complain in knee jerk fashion without reading TFA set off my bullshit alarm. Can't touch the argument, attack the credibility of the researcher - standard procedure.
Truth is, you wish the opposition to your viewpoint would stfu, otherwise you would have had nothing to say. It's not ignorance, its another valid point of view on the phenomenon of climate change - and in the vast sea of apocalyptic points of view being spat at the entire world on a daily basis, I find it a refreshingly more level headed one.
I'm still highly amused that you have not provided a single graph, analysis or paper that supports your position or your claims. This, in spite of a lengthy post that must have taken a good chunk of time to write up. BTW, here's a quick link for you to peruse about volcanic emissions versus human emissions: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg as.html
Oh how wrong you are about volcanoes. Sucks when you have no data to back you up, doesn't it? For someone who harps on data and models, you are amazingly bad at picking your supporting graphs, your supporting models and your supporting papers.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So if Sub-tropical storms have been named only since 2003, then they must be excluded from the count when comparing past storm counts to current storm counts. What are the odds that will happen?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
From the wikipedia:
The clathrate gun hypothesis states that as sea temperatures rise the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in the seabeds will cause a drastic alteration of the ocean enviornment and the atmosphere of earth, as recent analysis concerning the Permian extinction event indicates may have happened in the past.
The Permian-Triassic extinction event, labeled "End P" here, is the most significant extinction event in this plot for marine genera which produce large numbers of fossils.Contents
Mechanism
Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, is a form of water ice that contains a large amount of methane within its crystal structure. Extremely large deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of the Earth. The sudden release of large amounts of natural gas from methane clathrate deposits in a runaway greenhouse effect could be a cause of past and future climate changes. The release of this trapped methane is a potential major outcome of a rise in temperature; it is thought that this might increase the global temperature by an additional 5 in itself, as methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (despite its atmospheric lifetime of around 12 years, it has a global warming potential of 62 over 20 years and 23 over 100 years). The theory also predicts this will greatly affect available oxygen content of the atmosphere.
Recent findings
In 2002, a BBC2 'Horizon' documentary, 'The Day the Earth Nearly Died,' summarized some recent findings and speculation concerning the Permian extinction event. Paul Wignall examined Permian strata in Greenland, where the rock layers devoid of marine life are tens of meters thick. With such an expanded scale, he could judge the timing of deposition more accurately and ascertained that the entire extinction lasted merely 80,000 years and showed three distinctive phases in the plant and animal fossils they contained. The extinction appeared to kill land and marine life selectively at different times. Two periods of extinctions of terrestrial life were separated by a brief, sharp, almost total extinction of marine life. Such a process seemed too long, however, to be accounted for by a meteorite strike. His best clue was the carbon isotope balance in the rock, which showed an increase in carbon-12 over time. The standard explanation for such a spike - rotting vegetation - seemed insufficient.
Geologist Gerry Dickens suggested that the increased carbon-12 could have been rapidly released by up-swellings of frozen methane hydrate from the seabed. Experiments to assess how large a rise in deep sea temperature would be required to sublimate solid methane hydrate suggested that a rise of 5C (10 F) would be sufficient.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The only real loss there is Michigan (which I believe you are wrong about, since most of MI is well above sea level), good riddance to the rest of them.
But then what will the rest of the US do when they can no longer mooch off the cash that California and the east coast provide?
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Whenever I hear people taking about alternative causes of global warming I sometimes wonder how many people realize that there can be multiple actions contributing to a trend.
Sunspots and cosmic rays may contribute X percent to what I would term 'global energy gain'. Human generated greenhouse gases may contribute Y percent. Urbanization, with the loss of greenery AND the increase in asphalt, may contribute Z percent. An unusually active year of volcanic eruptions may contribute a higher percent one year as opposed to another. Other factors, known and unknown, may contribute other percentages.
No matter which side of the debate you are on, if you ignore the possibility that there may be multiple causes for 'global energy gain' then you are not approaching the problem correctly. Saying that 'global energy gain' is hype because of non-human generated causes is just as bad as saying that 'global energy gain' is strictly a human problem.
There's a lot more to "warming" than more sunny skies. Heat evaporates water.
The most simple definition of "weather" is water in the air. The weather is all about water in the air. The force and fury of storms comes from differences in temperature and water in the air. If you have even paid a LITTLE attention to the news during hurricane season, you would have learned that the forces that power a hurricane are differences in temperature and the temperature of the water. (That's why hurricane season is during the months that they are and not during the winter season.)
A global climate change will kill many species and cause others to flourish. This will create an unpredictable change in the global eco-system. We don't have the knowledge or computational power to take into account ALL known factors (let alone all unknown factors) to form a prediction. But one thing is pretty certain when it comes to global events like these. A lot of life is lost and it takes millions upon millions of years to bring the planet back to the level that we know it to be today. We won't see what happens. Our kids... our great great grandchildren will not see what happens. Humans may well be extinct when it happens and not necessarily for reasons we bring on ourselves. (In the grand scheme of things, very few species last THAT long, but given that we have effectively halted human evolution, it's quite possible we'll survive.)
But back to the possibility that global warming might HELP the planet? No way... it will destroy anything close to the oceans, and areas identified as "tornado alley" such as an area close to where I live, will see expansion and intensification of those danger zones.
Again: more heat, more water in the air, more intensely violent weather.
I'm not a climate expert, but I stayed a weekend at some hotel that somehow makes you really smart.
Ok, lets indulge our over-inflated homo-sapien egos here and imagine we are the main cause of global warming. We have destroyed large portions of the planet and caused mass extinctions for the sake of technology and progress only to find out that we are all going to die in a horrible drought....okay, whatever My question is: How is that a bad thing for the planet? Obviously people imagine that a couple extra degrees are going to effectively end civilization and kill off many billions of people. You know what? Problem solved!! We are doing the planet a favor by killing ourselves. We are incapable of equilibrating our own population so it makes sense that we have to be purged every now and then right? I know we have all thought it... I just felt like being captain obvious. You can thank me later
It was a dead hurricane season in 2006? Typhoons in Asia
Sounds to me like you're forgetting the world is a big place, every year one part of the world has a worse season than another part. Weather is crazy, when Katrina hit during a bad year the rest of the world saw less storms. It's been happening for as long as we've been keeping records.
Despite what you seem to think the relationship between heat and the intensity of hurricanes is very well researched and documented. Just because its hot in one place one year doesn't mean that same place is going to be the hot spot the next year. Ocean currents and trade winds take quite a while to round trip the earth.
So yes, global warming contributed to the weather that we are currently enjoying, except for the fact that Florida is in drought and experiencing some mighty bad forest fires along with Georgia. Yep, no affect at all. Oh yeah, all those extremely powerful tornadoes, also not affected by increased temperatures. Climate change is violent, it always has been in the past, I have no idea why people seem to think it would be easy to deal with now.
Do we need to outlaw oil and stop all emissions? Of course not, but we need to do something about the problem at hand, the problem we can see now, projections of the future don't mean jack as we know now that the climate is changing and we're in a position to do something about it.
You're right I didn't get that from your post, but, that isn't the point your post appears to make.
However, the melting glacial ice has volume that correlates directly to rising ocean levels. Rising ocean levels correlates directly to displaced populations.
Warmer earth includes warmer oceans. Warmer oceans mean stronger, more frequent tropical storms. I imagine you're also familiar with the meteorological phenomenon known as El Nino and La Nina. These terms describe the effects on weather caused by variations of surface water temperatures in the Pacific. The changes caused are observable, predictable and bad. Changes include flooding in areas unused to flooding, causing landslides, and drought in areas unused to drought, causing wildfires and failed crops. El Nino is not related to Global Warming. However, Global warming by definition will create surface water conditions similar to El Nino in more places around the globe.
So again, you're right, change isn't bad. However, too much change too fast can be bad. In this case, our change seems to indicate bad consequences.
And which historical climate do you propose maintaining? The Little Ice Age? The Medieval Warm Period? With or without human intervention, climate is constantly changing. We need to learn to deal with it.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
So, are you just repeating verbatim the anti-global warming rhetoric from over a decade ago or what?No, though you seem absolutely desperate to paint me with that brush. Funny how everything you refer to is from decades ago, but then you attempt to lambast me for exactly the same. Except, of course, many of the things that I've cited are less than two years old, which you'd know if you'd looked into them.
The word hypocrite comes to mind. I'm done with this discussion; you're obviously not listening.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
The source is obviously paid by Big Oil (ad hominem) The scientific community has reached consensus on the matter (appeal to belief, bandwagon) Al Gore says the worst will happen (appeal to authority) Only an idiot wouldn't believe its true (ridicule) If we don't do something now we'll all be dead (appeal to fear) Its the responsibility of the denyers to prove that the worst won't happen (burden of proof) Either warming isn't happening, or its man's fault; its getting a bit warm therefore we did it (false argument) Come on! Add your own logical fallacies! Its fun!
You're doing it wrong--http://youredoingitwrong.mee.nu
The fact that the debate keeps renaming itself from global warming to climate change underscores the fact that the concept itself is ambiguous. Ice caps and glaciers have been melting since the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. What caused that ice to stop and the massive ice sheet created, to melt and recede? I expect the naturally occuring cycles in the planet's geology and meteorology. Never in the angst and handwringing about this misunderstood thing, does anyone really address the affect of the sun. A several thousand degree thermonuclear reaction in space itself capable of cycles and fluctuations with solar flares, sun spots and other variations in that star's weather. And we're about a half degree rise in tempurature ? Indeed Mars's ice caps melt and freeze with some regularity. So, what is the crisis ? I expect man's inability to adapt to his surroundings is the real crisis. That thousands of people, living in a city between a lake and river, seven feet below see level, in a hurricane zone, with four days warnings of a severe hurricane and did nothing but wait, proves this. Perhaps nature was only trying to cull the human herd ? If there is a sane solution, it will come from the market place and not a bunch of politicians bent on spending billions of dollars not their own to make people feel bad becasue they live a comfortable lifestyle. This is the crisis as the ne'er-do-wells who run the government, being lobbied by the equally wealthy "environmental" lobby see taxpayers as a rich source of money and this contrivance of a crisis as way to influence, or coerce,the way people behave and act.
If you can't predict the outcome of the next coin toss, you can't predict the outcome of the next 1000 coin tosses.
Flunked statistics did you?
Wow, what a wonderful straw man argument you've built, and smug at that. "Flunked social skills didn't you"?
I don't see how your argument holds any weight. I'm certainly not out of line to demand that models are accurate if they are used for life changing events. yet again you prove my point, anyone outside of the mainstream thought pattern regarding climate change and you're labeled an idiot, a shill, or arrogant. In this case that's simply not true though.
Honestly, do all of the advocates of global warming thing that skeptics are skeptics because they are dumb or ignorant? That's not true. I have no reason to be attached to fossile fueled vehicles, or any particular type of energy usage. I'm not an oil industry shill. I'm an educated man that thinks for himself and history tells him that being a skeptic can be useful. It has nothing to do with wanting to keep some status quo or my political alignment. No, it's simply because I'm a skeptic and the data cited was either non-conclusive and needed more study, a model with variables pulled out of thin air based on assumptions, or PR used by people in positions of advantage where climate change is concerned.
See people will cite models used for other things such as building an airplane. But what they don't mention is that in those models they have variables based on factual data, and not just conjecture and "I think it will be so" values that are so often used in climate change models, but yet NONE to date have effectively modeled the climate, whereas the models for example aerospace, have been proven correct through trial and error. I'm sorry the argument that a model is "truth" holds no water. A model is only as good as it's results. And the results to date have been pretty far off considering you can't tell me what it's gonna be like tomorrow let alone 1000 years from now.
So go ahead and throw my opinions to the side as you seem to do with a concise little two-liner. But the fact remains that my argument is solid. If you can dispute the argument I made about climate modeling then please do.
If you sincerely believe that your home will be submerged by an inevitable global warming catastrophe, then you'd have to be a pretty big jerk to insist on living in it anyway, and then invading somebody else's home once yours becomes unlivable.
The responsible thing to do would be to move out of your home now, while there's still time, and take the necessary steps to provide for yourself now, before your own laziness inconveniences others.
The humanitarian thing to do, instead of threatening high-grounders with home invasion, would be to move out of your low-ground home now, and work to set up a refugee center on high ground through legal means, so that your farsightedness and sincere concern for the future of mankind can bear fruit for the greatest number of unfortunates.
However, given your threats and disrespect for those who have already invested in high-ground homes, I conclude that you're just a jerk who doesn't really care about anything except making other people pay for your mistakes.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
It's worth actually looking at the CO2 graph. You'll find for example that the vast bulk of those increases occur after Mount Saint Helens, Mount Pinatubo, Cerro Hudson, El Chichon, Ksudach or Novarupta.
Feh. If volcanoes cause CO2 increases, then they would have been doing so for the past many millions of years, and CO2 levels would be monstrous. If they increased CO2 by 100 ppm over the past 200 years, you would expect a similar pattern over the past 2000 -- except that would imply we had negative CO2 ppm around 1200AD.
Now maybe you could prove that volcanism has been more extreme in the past 200 years, but that's your claim -- and it's up to you to provide some evidence.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
I'd rather catch flu than get malaria.
Counterquestion: Does increasing heat and decreasing precipitation make life better in Africa or Australia?
I think the data on both sides of the global warming argument is the exact same: The world is warming up, and prior cases where the world has warmed up there has been an increase in CO2. I don't think these observations are disputed.
What seems to be disputed is what the data actually means. Global-warming activists seem to say that human output of CO2 is causing global warming. Global-warming skeptics seem to say that high CO2 levels are correlated with global warming (and in fact, that CO2 levels rise because of global warming).
I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.
A theory upon which we found our social, political and economic principles must be subject to the strictest of scrutiny, and yet the evidence for it is not sound. There are a huge number of scientists who are rightly skeptical of this, and their voice is being silenced (just as is the original post in this thread!). However there are a small number of politically interested advocates of this theory, and based upon this hypothetical they intend to change world economic dynamics by marketing this theory to the masses.
The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.
It is the third notion about which I have the most concern. If the CO2-causing-global-warming theory is incorrect, and it is espoused as a "scientific truth", then the massive public failure in this case may undermine confidence in future "scientific truths" that may actually have merit.
That being said, I acknowledge that it is plausible that global warming is caused by CO2. What I am concerned about is that the science has been poorly done, that the voices of consensus are few and loud, that the voices of criticism are silenced, that the truth may as a result be lost, and that the public confidence in scientific truth may be undermined.
I don't think it serves any purpose to use half-baked, unreasearched theories to blame everything short of a supernova on global warming.
I had a good response to you, but I forgot what it was. Damn these global warming related memory lapses.
Yes, the historical data clearly shows that CO2 concentration lags temperature data by 700 to 1000 years. So, in about 2700 we are going to experience additional CO2 raise due to the current temperature rise.
But the data also shows quite clearly that there is a positive feedback there -- CO2 concentration does influence temperature as well. So the rise in CO2 due to human activity is bound to influence rise in the global temperatures NOW.
There might be a possibility that the skeptics are right, and it won't be that bad. But what if they're wrong? Is it worth putting our future in jeopardy just because there's a possiblity things "won't be so bad?"
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
Some might suggest your position is unethical.
If you would benefit from warmer weather or being closer to the beach, move to San Diego. That's a voluntary choice you can make which improves your local climate — by changing localities — and affects no one else. Your proposed alternative is to change everybody's climate and force many of those who like their local climate to move involuntarily just because you don't like your climate.
I don't think you are a shill or dumb. But I reject the weather vs. climate argument, and the coin-flipping analogy is a pretty good one.
Predicting weather is about forecasting the dynamics of a system on time- and distance scales on which the system is chaotic. This is coin flipping. It's possible to predict the distribution of the results, but it's impossible to do much predicting the next flip.
Here's another analogy. Take a cup of coffee. Pour milk in it. Can you predict the precise way in which the milk swirls around? No, that's weather. Can you figure out what the average temperature and milk concentration of that cup will be in five minutes? Yes, depending on your ability to measure the thermal conductivity of the cup, the ambient temperature and humidity, etc.
Modeling climate sure isn't easy or particularly precise. But it is a false premise to reject such activities based on the fundamental constraints of weather prediction. Weather and climate are obviously governed by the same dynamics, but they differ fundamentally in terms of their time and distance scales.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
the discussion of global climate change always reminds me of a terminal patient going through the six stages of death:
d eath.html
http://www.cusd.claremont.edu/safe/epp/stages_of_
we've been through denial and anger and now it seems bargaining has set in.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
dual citizen of the usa and what? japan? mexico? japan and mexico are countries with a distinctive culture. you can easily tell what japanese culture is, or mexican culture
i know you are a citizen of the usa, but what is this other country you speak of? i don't know what you could be referring to
(snicker)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'm not even going into the other effects described in the fourth 5-yearly IPCC climate change report.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Neither of these sentences are even remotely close to true. You have been demanding data sources, so where are your sources for this?
Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times.
After circling many more times, most of the ash settled to the Earth's surface, but some of the smallest fragments and aerosols remained suspended in the upper atmosphere for years.
This article, while written to be more sensational than factual does manage to touch a few important points: The earth is getting warmer. This is inarguably true, anybody who says otherwise is lying or a politician, but warming has been occurring more or less for over 10,000 years. If it were up to Al Gore, he would be telling us how he personally pushed all the glaciers, and all the ice back to the poles and saved humanity. The rates of warming and sea level rising are nothing compared with what were seen near the end of the last ice age. The second point is that anthropogenic green house gases (read CO2) are part of global warming. When a scientist uses the word significant, that rarely means "major". More often it means that the results were able to be detected by current methods. Our atmosphere is very poor in CO2, with a concentration of approximately 0.038%. There is more of the gas Argon in our atmosphere than CO2. When concentrations are that low it does not take a lot to make a measurable change.
... " meaning we have had storms as bad as that before ( the most violent hurricane recorded happened during the American Revolutionary War, can really blame that one on human effects on global warming). I think Mother Earth is a much tougher woman than we give her credit for.
Now from elementary school you probably remember that plants breath in CO2 and through photosynthesis make stuff that the plant can use. Since the atmosphere has only 0.038% CO2 plants are generally suffocating from a lack of CO2. If we look at the history of the earth the most productive plant growth ages had atmospheric CO2 concentration significantly higher than present levels. Very small increases of CO2 make plants more drought resistant (they don't have to breath as much so they lose less water), more productive, and able to grow in a wider range (think of CO2 as plant fertilizer). Many aquarium owners spend lots of money on complex CO2 injection systems to make their water plants grow better. An excellent documentary on this phenomenon is called "The Greening of Planet Earth", it was black listed during the Clinton years so it is hard to find in most libraries. You will probably have to ILL it.
As for sea level rises, super storms etc. Sea levels rise and fall often much faster than they do now, it is always "the worst storm since
When a polygon gets smaller, its perimeter also tends to get smaller(If the underwater topography were right it could get larger...is that smoothness?). So there will be a bunch of new waterfront property, but there will also be a bunch of not-waterfront-property-anymore property to go with it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
In the immortal words of Eric Cartman: "Weeeeeeeeeak!"
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Global warming may be happening and it may not be. Who can say with any absolute certainty that global warming is really happening? Who can say with any certainty that global warming will lead to abrupt climate changes? As Michael Crichton points out, all we have are computer models and theories. A computer model is just that, a prediction that is quite error prone. I think rather than being concerned about global warming, we should be actively conserving our natural resources and engage in environmentally friendly practices. It is my belief that money, time, and energy are better spent in actively reducing air, ground, and water pollution than throwing money into global warming research. Also, conservation of our forests and open spaces should be paramount. I think we can say only one thing with certainty: we are polluting our air and water. Let's deal with the immediate problems that are within our power to solve.
You've got your labels on backwards.
Were that I say, pancakes?
The most likely fashion of death in the 1.001% in, 1% out model is hypothermia. Failing that, you're probably looking at being crushed to death by the increasing pressure in the box, or possibly starvation. Someone would only drown if they were forced to stand up inside the box for air, and fell asleep (which is easy to do in cold water.)
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Log in. I'm getting tired of dealing with your anonymous trolling. Have the balls to have a name.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
> this is the freshman philosophy class teaching the phrase "correlation does not imply causation."
h ange/images/carbon_dioxide.jpg , from http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_ch ange/greenhouse.htm) could reasonably be called a "spike".
Baby steps, stonecypher, baby steps. Your original comment stated:
> That's funny, none of the scientists see said spike. Perhaps you would be so kind as to tell me what year(s) this spike is over [...]
Now you say:
> All you have discovered is that CO2 is going up. That it happened while we were in the industrial growth phase does not mean that we created it.
We're making progress, you've recognized that CO2 levels are in fact rising past pre-industrial levels. Great. I'd also say that a >20% increase in 200 years, past the highest *peak*, not average, in the past few hundred thousand years (NOAA data, see http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_c
Now, moving on to causality. You're right, of course, that correlation is insufficient to prove causation. It would be great to have a complete and accurate model Earth that we could run through its entire history, preventing the industrial revolution, and compare the resulting CO2 levels with real life ones. Failing that, we have to rely on a little reasoning.
We have, during the same time period:
a) A rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration
b) Industrialization, and its concomitant increase in CO2 emissions
In the absence of alternative explanations, it's reasonable to suppose that b) caused a). Of course it's not proof in a mathematical sense, but it's still the best explanation on offer. So, again: *do* you have a better explanation? Or even a reasonable one? Volcanoes? Then you need to show that there has been a sudden increase in volcanic activity, with respect to the past few hundred thousand years, over the same period as the CO2 concentration increase. Can you?
Are you with me so far? I haven't started on temperature or climate at all yet, I'm trying to do this one step at a time.
> As a side note, I think this is my favorite example of Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
Um, that's supposed to be a joke. Did you notice the x axis scale on that? It's completely random; even if it were based on actual data that chart wouldn't show correlation, and therefore says nothing about the lack of relationship between correlation and causation (which I don't dispute, but anwyays. Getting a little pedantic here.)
People talk about Global Warming as if it's going to end the world. The world will go on with or without humanity. Our big problems are overpopulation and that we build most of our cities near the oceans.
Someplace like Chicago, though, will have a great time of this. Mild winters, year-round growing season, and no flooding to worry about. Someplace like New York? Well, nobody said building a city at sea level was terribly bright...
Just about every story is about how the world is ending, mostly because of man-made global warming.
I really don't know what to believe when it comes to global warming, but it does come across right now as a fad to the point where I doubt the legitimacy of the claims. In my experience, serious problems go neglected while politician drone on about the inconsequential stuff. But who knows, this could be a first. It also seems like there are far more important environmental issues that are being brushed aside as a consequence.
I hear what you say about British media. I know they live on a island and all, but they seem completely obsessed with it over there to the point of hysteria. It's working out well for a physicist friend of mine who claims to have developed a free energy technique. Some British billionaire is flying him around all over Europe, wanting to fund him. I suppose if the claim is real, then some good will have come out of the hysteria after all.
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
It's still there. One article said roughly half the people in Australia will get skin cancer. I have a friend in New Zealand who says skin cancer is a major problem there and nobody goes out without covering up when it gets bad. Just use Google and you will find a ton of information. Though this has little to do with global warming.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I agree. That's why when I see the ice record disagreeing with CO2-driven warming, the CO2 sedimentation record disagreeing, weather balloons disagreeing, the atmospheric temperature gradient disagreeing, oceanic outgassing measurements disagreeing, the CO2/temperature correlation disagreeing and basic common sense disagreeing, I start thinking it's hard to say that the conclusion that global warming is driven by this vanishingly rare industrial gas whose primary output is a system that has been in place throughout the entire life of the planet is incorrect can be argued.
Yes, they all agree that CO2-driven global warming is a fundamental impossibility. This is why it is looked down upon to make broad statements like "with everything else" - you should be giving a list, so that you can realize that you're not actually on nearly as solid ground as you believe that you are.
I'd prefer to indulge in the six hundred million years of data provided by the things you're carefully ignoring, but okay.
Luckily, I never said that it was. I was too busy focussing on realistic data that predates animal life, rather than on measurements that go back almost as far as a middle aged man.
I'll be careful to raise my child to be humiliated when they say "your claim X isn't true," only to realize that the person never actually claimed X. That should prevent them from behaving as you do.
By the way, I don't like the way you associated global warming with the wholesale rape of baby seals. (It's not much better when the lies are on topic, either. Funny how what you claim I said isn't actually coming out of my posts.)
What I've never understood is how someone can pretend someone else has only one source, attack that source based on something that isn't a useful observation, and then walk away as anything other than ashamed of themselves.
So, if you ignore everything else I said, and rely only on a professionally edited documentary by a neutral organization featuring dozens of professional climatologists, data which nobody has claimed is false and observations that nobody has claimed to have specific fault with, this is, what, supposed to be inferior to your well thought out opinion or something?
Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?
Reductionism is tiresome. Don't attack 10% of my sources on validity and then claim there are no others. By the way, I don't see you citing a damn thing, which is a hell of a lot less authoratative than the thing you're currently whining about. Indeed, the only things anyone seem to be citing are Wikipedia, bastion of popular belief, and random people's personal web pages. Wow! The Nobody Ever Heard Of It Institute! I'm impressed!
When you can read one of these models, or even argue without putting lies in other people's mouths, lemme know, and I'll take you a little more seriously.
It doesn't actually much surprise me that you ca
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
I would make the argument that significant change in an ecosystem will usually be bad for the dominant species that have adapted to live in that ecosystem. Change can of course give opportunities to other species that have struggled to live in an ecosystem. The obvious examples are the past mass extinctions, especially the one that gave rise to the dinosaurs, as well as the one that destroyed the dinosaurs and gave rise to mammals.
Significant change destroys. It destroys existing systems. It plays havoc on most species. It creates starvation for species that have grown to need the existing systems that are being swept away. Of course, this allows new species to rise and fill the vacuum. Change is the prime driver of evolution. Evolution works at its fastest when there is mass death and destruction.
And today, we are the dominant species on the Earth. The agricultural systems that we rely on are built on our current climatic conditions. Farms are located in certain places that have the perfect combinations of good soil, and good weather. Too much rain, or too little, or rain at the wrong time can destroy crops. If the rain moves from an area with good soil to an area with bad soil, then this will reduce crop yields, even if our farmers follow the rain. Moving the water by canal or pipeline is an option, but it is expensive (how much did the Panama Canal cost to build?).
I can think of no better an example of the problems of climate change than the Australian drought. Australia has already lost 1% of its GDP due to drought conditions. And without significant rain in the coming weeks, the country faces draconian water restrictions: Brisbane is at stage 5 water restrictions right now, which effectively means flushing the toilet every 7 uses and keeping shower water in a bucket for later use. Agriculture along the Murray Darling River (the main agricultural river system) faces a complete cutoff of irrigation. That means the death of the many grape vines that form the basis for Australia's wine industry.
Here is a map that shows how rainfall patterns have changed. The interior (where no one lives) is receiving more rain. The coasts (where almost everyone lives) are receiving less rain. The rainfall patterns have changed, and the Australians are struggling to adapt to the new conditions.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
Would global warming increase the availability of solar energy? My first thought is no, because global warming is just retaining more heat in the atmosphere, and not increasing the amount of energy reaching the earth's surface. Does anyone have a different take on that?
Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
I appreciate the supporting voice. Sometimes just hearing the same thing out of two different mouths is enough to convince people to take a second look. The belief some people take in that a lone dissenting voice must be crazy is unfortunate.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
It would be pointless to direct you to any documentation and data. You obviously are emotionally attached to the issue and would discount any data presented.
You call me a liar? Okay I've got a name your you. Oil Industry Shill. I may or may not be true but it's just as valid as you puffed up statements.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Wow. Not a single reference. Not a single discussion about how CO2 absorption works or how it compares to the absorption of other gases. Not a single discussion of the physics of atmospheric warming, the statistics of ice cores and satellite measurements, or even of the carbon cycle. All I see is massive hand waving, lots of statements, lots of posturing. Apparently, it's ok for you to demand - in bold and italics and all caps, no less - data and support, but when it comes to providing it for your claims, it's ok for you to wave your hand and say "it's all here". All there is is vapid posturing.
None of the data is there. All I have is your word that what you say is accurate - and from the brief googling I've done on some of your claims (like the volcanoes - hah!) they're just patently wrong. You make pompous claims about your knowledge, about how science is supposed to work, about how everyone needs to support their claims with data, and then fail every last one of your own boastful demands and statements.
As for real scientists.... I sure hope you don't consider yourself one of them. I've worked with them, and you are so far out in crackpot land that you don't even qualify as an amateur scientist in the Scientic American sense, nor even as someone who has any idea how to interpret data. All you are is a complete waste of time whose only method of debate is intimidation. Shoo.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You're right: this scare came around during Arrhenius' time too. I didn't know that. Funny how there was a 20 year "scientifically accurate, data-driven" global cooling scare inbetween.It takes an individual of poor character to demand what they themselves refuse to do. Or did you forget that I've been waiting for you to defend your own mistakes?
What's good for the goose, et cetera.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Well, I'll point you to a quick intro on chaotic systems: http://www.physics.upenn.edu/courses/gladney/mathp hys/subsection3_2_5.html
The main point to remember is that while chaotic systems can be stable over one range of values, a very small change outside that range can result in dramatic changes in behavior. I'm not going to argue where that tipping point is, merely that the current indicators that we have seem to show that we are past the tipping point (glacier melts in Antarctica, slowing of gulf stream, etc).
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So, we're on a thread right now that is in response to an article about the effects of Global Warming. That article is accompanied with a picture of two girls in bikinis. The sub-text the picture creates is, "Don't worry, don't worry, there are good changes coming."
A quote in the article says, "we have to take away people's fear of climate change." Okay, take away the fear. Not a bad idea objectively. But in this situation fear is what's motivating people to change their behaviors so we can moderate the effects of climate change. If the news media takes away people's fear, what motivator will they supply to replace it? See, that's not what they're doing. This is stick your head in the sand, "nothing to worry about" type reporting.
Back to your point. If this article was really about pointing out the possibility of beneficial aspects of global climate change, there would have been more discussion along the lines of, "once we get a handle on all the bad things coming, dealing with refugees, figuring out where and when to plant which crops, etc, then think of the good things there will be to get used to!"
Certainly some people will see milder winters. I'm all for milder winters. Except when it means that less snow accumulates in the Himalayas. Cause then the millions of people who rely on Himalayan snow melt for their drinking water will have to find some place else to live.
I guess they'll be room for them in Siberia. If Russia lets them in...
It is more livable in Argentina than Ecuador. It is more livable in South Africa than Nigeria. It is more livable in Japan than Indonesia.
Expanding the tropical zone cannot be a net plus.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
What does that teach you?
Well, for one, you might start reading the damn papers. There's a reason that the two claim an order of magnitude difference in the carbon deposition rate: one counts underwater volcanoes, and the other doesn't. Underwater volcanoes release a hell of a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, because there are so damned many of them (that shouldn't come as a surprise, considering how much more seafloor there is than land shelf, as well as the better proximity to the mantle, the higher thermal stresses and the placement of fault lines.)
For two, one paper counts total human CO2 output, whereas the other counts CO2 outgassing. There's a huge difference. Human CO2 output counts all the CO2 trapped inside plastic, all the CO2 used to treat timber, all the CO2 baked into bricks, all the CO2 captured and sold industrially, all the CO2 bound into salt, all the CO2 used to crack gasoline, all the CO2 used in treating steel, et cetera.
Does it really surprise you that less than one percent of the CO2 we create is lost to the atmosphere? It's an extremely useful industrial gas, and using it typically consumes it by binding it into the material.Not quite.I wouldn't know. If you had been reading what I wrote more closely, maybe you would have found the data I cited, and had the good sense to try to figure out the differences before going into attack mode.
If you want to reply to this, wait until you've calmed down. You seem to think you're an information bully, out to strip people of their childish beliefs by throwing data at them which you briefly googled up. When you learn that a brief glance over data isn't the same thing as an understanding thereof, lemme know.
If you don't wait until you've calmed down and started to behave as an adult before replying, I will simply ignore you. I'm sure you'll claim it's because I'm wrong and flee-ing, but it's actually because I find conversation with agressive people unpleasant. Yes, I know I'm aggressive too. You don't need to mention it. The difference is that I'm not just blindly pasting data I got off of Google. I'm citing things I actually understand.
Settle down, or find someone else to talk to. There's making your case, then there's being a dick about it.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
The DURING & AFTER the last ice age (wherever you actually put it) has arguably seen the greatest rise of humans and their creative efforts ever.
Seas rose approx 50 meters in that time period. Warming of the climate obviously ocurred over that time period on average (or the ice would not have melted).
Arguably we do not have much historical data to show what happens when temperatures go down, what little we do shows millions of people starved each year during the "little ice age" and during heavy volcanism.
So is there really a question at to what is better? Like who wants freezing in July in the upper mid-west again?
The total CO2 output of all the volcanoes in the world in any given year is still less than 2% of annual anthropogenic emissions.
You are probably getting CO2 confused with aerosol precursors. There are more than a dozen things on this planet that regularly put out more CO2 than we do. That's kind of a red herring, just like the wingnuts who like to point out that more of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor than CO2.
As the previous poster pointed out, there are large non-anthropogenic sources of CO2, but until recently they have been essentially balanced by non-anthropogenic sinks of CO2, so that net CO2 concentrations remained pretty much constant on timescales of millennia. We are now sourcing CO2 at a much greater rate than it can be sunk, leading to a rapid rate of accumulation.
Out of curiosity, what do you believe is responsible for the current rapid increase in CO2 concentrations? They were until 1983, and our CO2 output has not increased much since then (sure we're growing, but we're also becoming more efficient.) I challenge you to justify that claim with published data.
Not only is that not true, it's also not as relevant as you would have it appear: even if our CO2 output leveled off (which it most definitely has not), it would still continue accumulate in the atmosphere because we would still be sourcing it faster than it can be sunk. (Unless we go in for sequestration in a big way.)
Incidentally, you say: Most climatologists believe that humanity has a net decrease on global CO2 creation, because industry generates less CO2 per acre than biota do. I challenge you to justify that claim with published data. It certainly disagrees with every land use CO2 estimate I've seen (e.g., Jain, Houghton,
Furthermore, the paleo T/CO2 record does not contradict anthropogenic global warming, nor does it explain the current temperature or CO2 trends.
Way to ignore the vast majority of solid information out there and try to put a rose on a pile of shit.
Way to dismiss all thoughts and opinions that don't agree with you.
I think it is pretty much an agreed-upon fact that earth temperatures are rising, and I think that it is naive to think that human activity can't have an effect on climate. However, this does not mean we all have to have are eyelids glued open and be forced to watch An Inconvenient Truth until we believe the polar ice caps will melt away, the sky will turn to water and fall on out heads and we'll all drown unless we all live like the Amish. Global climate modeling is mind-bogglingly complex and there most certainly is room for debate on the magnitude and nature of human-activity-induced climate change.
Global temperatures are probably slowly rising overall. If we do not adapt to the changes, it will probably be detrimental overall too, but overall does not mean universally. Some places will be cooler, some will be wetter, some will be drier too. It seems to me that where I live, winters have gotten warmer over the years but summers are actually COOLER and a bit wetter. This might improve yields for some types of crops. In other parts of the world, productive land may become deserts. There is NO WAY we can know with certainty HOW bad (or good) how changing climate will affect related issues like food production.
I think dialogue needs to be kept open and opinions of all types must be considered. As far as reducing our CO2 emissions to slow global warming goes, however, I think we've reached a point where even severe reductions will be akin to trying to stop a speeding, fully-loaded freight train using the mass and power of a Smart Car: it'll make a small, essentially meaningless impact immediately and unless we turn off the train engine (akin basically to voluntarily wiping out the human population) the train will just keep rolling along. Whatever good intentions the Kyoto accord was intended to address, it has done something quite dangerous I think--it has shifted the focus on environmental issues very heavily towards one single issue to the detriment of all others (especially as the deadline to meet targets looms). Projects to install scrubbers on smokestacks to remove pollution that endangers our health are being cancelled in order to purchase emissions credits or invest in CO2 capture, but in the meantime we still get smog, acid rain and asthma-inducing particulates belching into the air! Expansion of nuclear power is being seriously discussed as a solution to the Kyoto problem--what is the environmental impact of uranium mining, and what about safety and security around the handling of nuclear fuel and waste?
I am not sure of the motives behind the huge effort to control the nearly uncontrollable (global climate), but it is getting in the way of true environmentalism--an approach based around conservation and sustainability. Reducing oil consumption isn't just needed to keep global warming in check--it just makes common sense to make more judicious use of a resource that is expensive to extract and refine, is non renewable and of finite supply. Thankfully, much of what is done in the name of CO2 reduction does in fact help sustainability, but it is not the whole picture. What is important to keep in mind though is the TOTAL impact of what we do: What'll we do with all the mercury in spent CF bulbs once incandescents are banned? What is the environmental impact of creating the batteries (energy consumption, chemicals and metals used, etc) used in your Prius? What about loss of habitat and damage to wildlife caused by hydroelectric dams and wind power farms (both Kyoto-friendly but they have a large negative impact on the environment nonetheless)?
Anyway, it is always good to give opinions "on the fringe" the benefit of the doubt.
"Or did you just miss the half dozen places where I said I was able to read the models, and was doing so at that time? Or the links, the references to work, et cetera?"
I've just managed to browse through the tedium of your entire body of posts in this thread, and I found only two relevant links: the documentary on google video, and the umich.edu page, which you summarily dismissed as supporting your points anyway.
I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds. I've said it before, I'll say it again - it's nice to know that the opposition to global warming seems to to be comprised almost entirely of paid whores or nutbags off their meds.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
We don't need *more* people on the planet. The lines at movies theaters are already too long.
Seriously, faster population growth is not a good thing.
You heard me, I called it a hoax. Not only has our planet seen amounts of CO2 that make the current amount look silly, but we're coming out of a geological cold phase.
_ 400kyr.png
r bon_Dioxide.png
I'm not really sure the ice age thing is a good explanation, see e.g. this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide
We seem to be on significantly more CO2 now than in past cycles.
However, that's not to say you're wrong on the longer scale variations though, where current CO2 looks "silly":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Ca
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Except we've advanced quite a bit since the days of Galileo, and you'd be laughed at if in an astronomy discussion pulled out something he had written. Not that it would necessarily be wrong, but we do have some more up-to-date predictions and theories.
Same goes for this physicist, he did after all die in 1927 or so, as global warming theories were still just mad men's ramblings.
- These characters were randomly selected.
How the hell is this OT? Is it novel? No, but it ain't OT.
Were that I say, pancakes?
So why doesn't all the water drain out?
Your kidding right?
Besides, why are you even arguing about what's responsible for CO2 levels? I thought It's All the Sun.
Heatwaves...
o ad/ew_heat_wave.en.pdf
1988 5,000 to 10,000 dead in Central and the Eastern U.S.
2003 35,000 dead in Europe (7,000 in Germany).
2006 140 dead in California, 25,000 cattle dead and 700,000 poultry dead due to heat.
And they want it to get hotter?
This also ignores crop related issues. http://www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/downl
By the by, whereas I'm not entirely sure where the page you're pasting gets its data, mankind certainly is not outpacing volcanoes 150:1. The number it cites is appropriate for a small volcano. It seems quite likely to me - though I don't actually know - that the person running that page has mistaken Gerlach's estimate of one volcano for all volcanoes globally.
If you look in the post you replied to - search for the phrase "scare document" - and follow the link, you'll find that document claiming that global volcano activity creates almost exactly one thousand times as much CO2 as the document you cited.
Yes, yours is volcano.und.edu - the machine at the university of North Dakota named "volcano." However, if you look, you'll find that it's actually one guy's personal outreach project to middle schools, that the guy is just hosting on the machines at UND's aerospace department, and that he himself has nothing whatsoever to do with the university (which is why his email address is at space.com
On the other hand, the thing I published is a peer-reviewed document which has been internationally published, and is created by dozens of individuals at the Global Change Institute at the University of Michigan (not only one of the best universities in America, but arguably the strongest climatology program on the continent.)
Believe it or not, just because it's a source doesn't mean it's a good one. Look closer next time. The correct number is 3.4 x 10^15 grams.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
You've stated a number of unsubstantiated "facts", but other than one link to a chart, and your heavy and embarrassing reliance on the Swindle show, no independently verifiable references. A reference means providing a mechanism so I could evaluate your statements. Just throwing out "data" that I know to be wrong is not sufficient.
Or did I miss something?
BTW your chart showed more or less the same data that I had already cited here.
I've known about Arrhenius and CO2 for over a decade; my MS thesis at MIT concerned oceanic carbon cycles, so I read up on him then.
If you can point out the errors in his 1896 paper, that would be a good start.
And I actually have done my homework on this topic, beyond watching a "documentary" that I would be embarrassed if my 5-year-old referenced as a source for anything.
By the way, did you know that Durkin admitted that the volcano argument is wrong?
Here's a poorly worked reference that provides some data about Mt. St. Helens. It contradicts your claims. They screwed up on which numbers are sources and which are sinks (some units should be kg/year), but you get the idea. Volcanism is not the current driver of the spiking CO2 trend. Period. End of story. Find a new talking point.
Your turn- please, please, please provide a scientific reference that demonstrates that humans are not the primary cause behind the current atmospheric CO2 trend. As to why that matters, see: Arrhenius (and yes, I know about the Arrhenius equation; I took high school chemistry too).
You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
The only reason you don't think current CO2 levels are monsterous is because you evolved for this atmosphere.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
You'll note the dead silence at the news that Mars is warming just as fast (or faster), and by just as much, as the Earth is. You'll note that on earth, historically speaking, CO2 rises lag warm periods, not lead them. You'll also note that the evaporative cooling cycle - water vapor, rain, etc . - runs at many times the speed of the CO2 warming cycle and is temperature sensitive so that a warmer environment will make it run even faster. And of course, it is important to observe that the predictions of the climate models have been very, very poor, even completely failing in some regions. And no one can miss the fact that the media pump the idea that GW is anthropocentric without pause.
Here in the USA, it is critically important that the public be kept in the cycle of fuckarosis about terrorists, pedophiles, immgrants, and global warming. It keeps them from realizing their government is 100% in the grip of corporate and wealthy power brokers, that their constitutional rights are being eroded at an ever-faster pace, and that the entire political system is a sham. So don't disturb the rank and file. Shhhh!
We now return you to our normally scheduled, politically correct, hysteria-fest, with special guest, Al Gore.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Actually I was just pointing out the absurdity of anticipating a windfall on property investments as a result of such a large and relatively sudden displacement of people. When in the past has there been a peaceful relocation of large amounts of people? Even something as relatively minor as the Katrina storm put a major strain on the surrounding areas. And I wasn't threatening home invasion. Merely pointing out with some sarcasm that it's quite possibly going to be a hell of a lot more chaotic than something a few rifles and a John Wayne attitude will be able to cope with. But good luck cowboy. I'm pretty sure I'll be fed up with this place before then anyway. Time to start spinning that globe.
Well, I'm no geologist or hydrologist, but maybe because Niagra shield, of which Lake Michigan, Huron, and Erie reside, is made of dolomitic limestone, and constricts its drainage over Niagra Falls?
More speculation on my part (afterall, this _is_ Slashdot): The Michigan-Huron basin, although drained primarily through the St. Clair River, and to a much lesser extent the Chicago River, also loses a significant amount of water through evaporation.
Point made.
Though one could argue in the days of geocentric universe that 'science' had just barely been established.
Besides. The empirical evidence supporting the geocentric concept is quite profound, even though a fair amount of it was based on intuition.
"Yes, I know I'm aggressive too. " The first arguably true and self-aware statement from you all day. Shame that that approach doesn't stick.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The volcanos.und.edu is administered by Department of Geosciences at Oregon State University. At least the guy had half a page of cites in his article. More than I've seen from you.
The reason the cold phase matters is that I take the position that the primary determinant of atmospheric CO2 rates is the temperature of the ocean. Mind you, I'm not claiming the ocean is a source of CO2; rather that it's a storage unit. Insert the well-worn fuel versus battery argument here. The primary source of CO2 is a few billion years of volcanic outgassing (from my perspective, the biota impact - rotting plants and so on - is just another battery, like the ocean, having originally gotten its CO2 from the air.)
The primary determinant, however, is the ocean. Remember that thing they showed us in middle school, where you mix a bunch of salt into hot water, and then cool it off, and the salt starts coming back out? The dissolution of a solute in a solvent is frequently governed by temperature. Salt likes hot water.
CO2 likes cold water. The colder the water (to a point, but the oceans never leave that range, so whatever) the more CO2 it can hold. If the ocean warms up, it starts releasing CO2.
And, do remember, the global warming people have been telling us all how the ocean is warming. They think it's a result, rather than a cause - greenhouse gasses supposedly warm the planet, so why shouldn't that affect the ocean, style of thing. Except, of course, if you ask an oceanologist, they'll tell you that the Earth's oceans have a temperature memory of about 700 years (a small ice cube accepts heat faster than a large ice cube, and the ocean is pretty damn big.)
We haven't been making CO2 that long. If the oceans are warming up, either we all did a whole *lot* of peeing in the ocean around the Renaissance, or something else is going on. If you look at the graphs, solar activity and global temperature are extremely strongly correlated, and CO2 has that same correlation with about a 680 year lag. Funny how close that is to the ocean's temperature memory, no? Look, how many times were you told as a kid that most of the planet's heat comes from the sun? Now, why are you so reluctant to consider that as a possible cause of Global Warming?
The sun's magnetic field is more than twice as strong now as it was at the end of our recent cold spike. It increases at a shockingly close correlation to our temperature.
Also, if you work under the assumption that our current CO2 rates are 700 years delayed, then our current CO2 rates are doing exactly what you'd expect, given temperatures in the 1300s. Just give it a look. You might be surprised how much better some other explanations fit the data than does CO2 Greenhousing.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Yeah, in Soviet Russia, maybe.
I'm curious as too why they never include the theory that the two poles are changing polarity.
,(meaning several hundreds and thousand years apart) that the polarity has shifted more than once since the beginning.
they have discovered, in volcanoes and such that the rock when it solidifies, that it has a pattern to follow earth,s polarity (iron particles) and they have checked at several depth
That shift did not operate itself over night and they are saying that maybe that we are in that declining period where a polarity switch will occur (maybe in a thousand year) and the effects are that the magnetic field that protect us from the sun's deadly rays will completely slowly disappear leaving scorched earth everywhere except maybe near the equator and when that switch is completed the holes, that we are seeing will completely disappear pollution or no pollution, for sure at that point, they will mostly be no one left alive on earth thus leaving our planet pollution free.
Overall, i think that, even though pollution is creating hell of a lot of problems, that maybe it ain't the sole reason for the greenhouse effects and it maybe an infinite percentage of this pollution affecting earth's atmosphere.
For sure we cant deny that smog over cities are a big factor in raising the temperature and it's due to pollution.
"From the other end, another result fo this is that any joker call him/herself a scientist and claim to be providing scientific information, with no penalty if s/he's not."
That's simply not true. The most important thing a research scientist has is his credibility, which will suffer if he continually forwards crackpot ideas.
I've been watching this stuff for a long time, and the part that bothers me the most about this is that we've become so accustomed to giving everyone an equal voice that people become numb to issues. For better or worse, we are starting see intellectual insight and armchair philosophy as equally valuable and perspectives that carry the same weight. While I hate to read comments like Phaedrus' above because it's a position that's ruining our world, I can also empathize with his position. I'm sick of hearing the debate as well, but as long as there are those out there delivering disinformation about climate change, we need to keep up the fight. It's unfortunate. Luckily the corporate world is now onside with climate change. A recent article I read talks about how climate change has become a corporate priority, and describes a "perfect storm" situation where multiple stakeholders are doing the right thing (and not always for the right reasons). To me it's a fascinating development. So while it appears there will always be debate on issues that truly warrant none, there are other issues in the world that may force our hand for the better - even if they are corporate (or greed) driven. There's debate, then there's action - it's interesting to see that the climate's enemy may become it's greatest ally.
I think you mean the newly added states to the expanded United States of America. If you think we'd let Canada stay as they are, think again :)
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
So what do you make of this counter argument?
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
...nuclear radiation was found to be beneficial for certain sports. For example, in the NBA, extra arms may improve ball dribbling and defense; and extra eyes may reduce the chance of somebody sneaking up from behind for a steal. It should be pointed out the extra limbs and eyes in a large percentage of irradiated individuals tend not to fully function. But for those who do have full-functioning extra limbs and organs, the NBA welcomes them with open arms (all 3 of them).
Table-ized A.I.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Just about every argument I've heard about global warming can be summarized by a few talking points:
Liberal talking points
* Because of over a century of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, the average temperature in Earth is increasing.
* This has foreseeable negative impacts.
* The scariest impacts are from subtle effects that we can't even predict.
* Models say we are approaching a tipping point where the changes become self-sustaining and self-feeding.
* We can slow or stop this, but we're running out of time, and must act now.
Conservative talking points
* Global warming is not happening. It's a liberal myth.
* It's a normal cycle, not caused by man.
* It's pointless for us to try to slow global warming because India and China are putting much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than the United States is, and they won't stop.
* What's the big deal? It's only a few degrees change, and will make life better on Earth. Don't you like nicer weather?
* It's too late to stop the major effects of global warming. Better for the the government to encourage and subsidize business to adapt to and profit from the major changes that will inevitably occur.
I just verified, and the link I provided does include submarine volcanoes. Here's your bad luck: I know more about physics and the climate than you, and my ego is as large as yours. I'm not intimidated by dicks, and I have no problem calling you on being one. It's ok if you simply ignore me - I've given up hope of getting some actual (and accurate) information from you. A shame, really.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Ummm, maybe he was talking about slashdot. You know that American website you are on right now where we all linked to the article from?
That might've been the case, but I suspect the likely answer is he had a reflexive pavlonian response and just assumed that the article and the publisher were American and posted his quick, not-so-witty retort.
if (disaster.deny() == "fails") {
disaster.emphasize_upsides();
disaster.profit_from();
} else {
declare_success();
secretly_build_ark_for_buddies();
}
Table-ized A.I.
Less flu, more heatstroke. Great....
~Vexed and loving it!
But fuck it, it's a Friday afternoon and I don't feel like digging up all the necessary smackdown data. Looks like I'm going with the goatse link anyway.
Goatse.cx
Or, at least, its functional equivalents to someone like stonecypher.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'm not sure how idiots can even speculate about what the earth will be like in 2050. Obviously, the point about saving 40,000 germans is stupidity. I mean, by 2050, I hope nobody is dying from the flu, let alone cold people. Computer simulations can't consistently predict the weather the next day, let alone 40 years from now.
Yes, CO2 (and other gases) lag natural temperatures variations but the key point here is that temperatures will also react to a sudden influx / removal of same gas concentration. The current increase in gases is driving the temperature increase. As the temperature increase, so will additional concentration of those gases will be released until some other equilibrium is reached.
Have a look
here
"The avalanche has already started. It's too late for the pebbles to vote." - Kosh
It's not from the BBC, it's from Channel 4. The Great Global Warming Swindle, as one could understand from its title, is not exactly a balanced documentary, and has received threats of legal action by at least one of the people appearing in the film, Carl Wunsch, who claimed to have been grossly misquoted.
For the sake of open-mindedness, I tried watching this piece of corporate propaganda. I concluded this is crap when I heard the argument that "CO2 in atmosphere is not important because it is only 0.054% of the atmosphere" (at 13 minutes and 20 seconds into the movie). No, they did not say that: they knew it was a lie. So they just "implied" it, selectively and carefully quoting a scientist who is simply stating the obvious ("there is little CO2 in the atmosphere") but without the as obvious consequences ("Since it's so little humans can have a sensible effect in terms of percentage"). They also conveniently mentioned that 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapour, and as conveniently forgot to mention that that is a factor humans cannot influence, because of the enormous buffer represented by the oceans.
Finally, the documentary's author, Martin Durkin, a man with no scientific credentials by the way, handled criticism with class, calling one researcher who pointed out that his CO2/solar radiation correlation data were known to be flawed "a big daft cock" (that was actually all his answer), and telling to "go to fuck [him]self" to another one who urged him to be civilised.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
It's funny, the scientists in the program make the claim that they were grossly misrepresented by the other side. I'd love to know who in that program feels they were misrepresented, and how. Carl Wunsch is doubtless one of them, but then, he always says that.
Thank you for the update in the difference between channels. As an American, I thought all British national TV was BBC. Someone else made a very similar comment, with the extension that it being channel 4 rather than the BBC made, and I quote, "all the difference." In America, there are several channels which Must Not Be Taken Seriously. Am I to understand that in Britain, channel 4 is one of those?
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Usable energy for driving weather comes from heat differential. Global warming heats the poles more, so the heat differential goes down.
Global warming = less heat differential = less energy = a less energetic system (ie weather patterns).
Wait, did I just prove global warming doesn't cause more hurricanes? Not at all. Weather is too complex for my simple argument, or yours. We need to rely on the best models available and observational data. Hurricanes are too small to be a natural part of the global models, but the conditions they show look favorable to hurricane production. Observations have not shown a significant increase in hurricanes, but intensity of Atlantic storms seems to have gone up.
It looks probable that global warming will increase hurricane danger, at least in the Atlantic, but there is still significant doubt.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
The reason Americans have this attitude is because of space and population density. Those that live in areas with a great deal of open space and are more sparsely populated tend to think that the world has infinite resources and nothing we do can blemish it. People who live in more densely populated environments are more painfully aware of how we affect the environment and also care more about preserving that shared environment. Thats why we see most liberals in the west and the north-east. http://ite.pubs.informs.org/submissions/example/im ages/la1.gifo n/population_density/maps/europe.html
The population density of europe is much higher than that of the US so people care more about how they affect others as well.
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/Basic_Informati
On top of that, a more dense population usally also means a better education infrastructure. Historically, the conservative areas of the US have had very poor schools as compared to the liberal areas. In other words, many are just ignorant.
Sure, because Exxon is penniless, right? Stop with this bullshit already. If climatology had these margins (and being "the Video" by Channel 4 your source I doubt they have), money would be their last concern.
People in universities are not greedy, for the simple reason that if they actually were they would go to the industry and make a career there. It's perfectly normal. People who work in academia simply value freedom to research what they are interested in more than higher pay.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
"best food producing." I like to qualify my blanket statements. Generally, I meant arable land, though. Wouldn't it, say, make sense to build cities somewhere OTHER than the most fertile areas?
My little site.
Well, theanks for the considered opinion. Much nicer than the normal knee-jerk "You're a poo-head" bit.
That said, have read this: "...as long as there are those out there delivering disinformation about climate change, we need to keep up the fight...", I found muyself womdering whose disinformation, and whose fight.
My wife's a marketer, and clueless about science. She's completely influenced by the loudest voice that spoke last. This is generally another marketer selling man-made global warming. She just doesn't get it when I refuse to accept that marketing hype is actual reality.
I remember when Mount Pinatubo blew back in 1991. We had red skies *every night* for a year after. That's what 10 billion metric tons of magma, and 20 million tons of SO2 will do for your atmosphere. The red skies eventually faded. The point? One volcano was able to change the look of the atmosphere for a year before things went back to normal. I don't see those same dramatic effects from human activity.
I am willing to invest in technology that saves me money. Fluorescent bulbs, for example. If environmentalists could give me a P&L statement showing me how to make money by consuming less energy, I'd be all over it. Oh, and as for making money by consuming less energy, please don't quote the Prius. The cost differential between it and. say, a Ford Explorer is such that it'd take a decade to break even in gasoline saved. I want technologies that pay me this quarter, this year.
Instead, all I get is the "We're all gonna die!" dirge, and a call for hairshits, oh, and shit all over the US - the world's economic dynamo - for consuming so much energy. And as I sadi, I'm no longer up for it.
Sorry if this is a bit disconnected. My build's failing, so I'm switching back and forth.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Actually, human population is crashing. Countries like Greece and Italy have average female fertility rates of around 1, meaning the population's shrinking by 50% each generation.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
if not, i'm sure they'll be happy to throw it on the ticker...
Uh. Are you seriously claiming volcanoes don't outgas CO2?
No.
What I'm saying is that volcanoes have been outgassing CO2 for billions of years. Living things and other processes have absorbed this CO2, as well as some being lost to space. So over that billion years, it's been a relatively steady state situation, or least to the point that volcanoes do not, in general, increase CO2 levels by more than 25% over the course of 150 years or so. For your hypothesis to be correct, there would (a) need to be evidence that volcanic activity was dramatically higher over the last 150 years, and (b) that these volcanoes are putting out enough CO2 to explain the rise.
The problem is, it just ain't so. As another person's link said:
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
Stick a fork in it, the volcano theory is dead.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Actually, I'm an Irish guy who escaped to the US.
After I got out of university, all it took was a couple of years of confiscatory PAYE taxation to convince me to leave.
I still retain a lot of the vocabulary, however.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
"I always found it unconvincing ... we're more likely to be outside in the winter than the summer!)"
Doesn't matter. So long as a higher percentage than normal of the US population has colds it'll spread to Miami thanks to all the visitors who go there to get away from the cold.
Bottom line: Cold/flu is a virus. It doesn't spontaneously generate out of nothing.
No sig today...
Sorry, I didn't think I was responsible for what other people said. Shall I lambast you because of what other people said, too?
I suppose the phrase "nobody said" when defending one's own arguments could be misconstrued to mean "the entirety of humanity agrees with me." I mean, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that, and it's honestly fairly clear I meant myself, but I guess when talking to you I need to be more careful. In the future, I will be certain to be more specific, when pointing out that you are attempting to hold me to claims I never made.
Not by me.
Yawn. Not by or for me. Exxon isn't paying me any money, and the data I'm reading comes from thermometers. It's kind of hard to bribe a thermometer. Or, didn't you know that weather balloons broadcast their data by radio, and thus couldn't be tainted? Or, has your paranoia gotten so bad that you actually believe the USGS is making faulty hardware to support corporate interests?
I get very tired of you argueing what I'm saying based on what other people are saying. I don't give a shit what other people are saying and it has no impact on what I'm saying. If you are unable to discuss honestly, find someone else to talk to.
They're not giving me my data, which you would know if you had bothered to follow any of my citations. Please stop arguing based on expectation. Your expectations in this matter have been almost universally wrong. I get sick of you calling me wrong because of guesses you made about me.
Again, this is only true if you ignore everything other than the last two hundred years. In the Holocene period we were well over 3500 PPM. In the Mesozoic we generally fluctuated between 1400 and 2100 PPM. You're freaking out over the difference between 295 and 380. Jesus god, man, get a sense of perspective. How many times do I have to tell you we're at the bottom of a valley before you quit screaming about how we're going to suffocate a hundred feet up the hill?
Doesn't it embarrass you to spout falsehoods like this? I realize you're just going on images like this, or maybe slightly wider images like this, but if you can't see the problem just between those two, then I suspect an image like this would be completely lost on you.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Your link says:
"Human Activity: Humans are changing the CO2 cycle by burning fossil fuels and biomass (e.g., forests). These increases in CO2 are linked to increased warming in our atmosphere, as discussed above; for example, the CO2 level in our atmosphere was only about 280 ppm before human-induced changes began occurring about 150 years ago. Since humans started to pump CO2 into the atmosphere there has been a large increase in atmospheric CO2, and this increase will undoubtedly continue in the future as indicated by the following graph (Figure 8). The CO2 concentration in our atmosphere will likely double with only a modest 1% growth over the next 100 years (note that global population growth is much greater than that at the present). This rise in CO2 will increase the Earth's temperature as shown in Figure 9, and will impact the climate that we actually "feel" in the future (Figure 10)."
Bizarre. You give a link that actually supports your opponent.
Well, for one, you might start reading the damn papers.
Pot, meet kettle.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Here's one for you: biota do not drill to several kilometers underground and pump carbon out. Industry does. Biota get CO2 from air, and, since atoms are conserved, they give back the same carbon they got. The balance is unchanged, and the generation of CO2 from biota is a net zero. That's why no one takes it into account.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Hey, the global warming has already started and there is no way to stop it (short of wrapping the planet in reflective foil), so we might as well relax and enjoy. Yeah, life is going to suck for a large portion of Earth population, but it's not like it's going to get any worse than it already is (wars, famine etc.). All the gloom and doom is created by people looking to profit either politically or financially and it's based on studies that are questionable at best. The current atmospheric models that are used to predict this sort of stuff are very inadequate and they are not even able to predict what is going to happen in 6 months, let alone in 2050 (just look at the Arctic ice melting rates). So we might be in deep or we might be fine, noone really knows. So chill and pass the beer.
- Results from the middle Miocene, a warm period about 10 million years ago, failed to show high CO2 levels. The researchers suggest that the warming may have occurred due to "episodic methane outbursts."
- There has been a lot of hand wringing over increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. The increase is relatively small when compared to historic levels. Preindustrial concentrations were about 280 parts per million. Currently concentrations are about 370 ppm. A study in the May 17 issue of Nature shows that CO2 levels were much higher in the past.
I've never seen anyone say that when they themselves were doing something other than desperately scraping to uphold a completely untenable position. Doesn't it embarrass you to act this way, or do you just not have the good sense to realize that nobody is fooled?Yes, I remember when someone said that exact same sentence to me about Global Cooling. To use your own rhetoric, fortunately you're not a policy maker, and fortunately the policy wonks are starting to look past people like you, and to people who use actual numbers.Oh right, I forgot, you're pretending I didn't cite evidence. And forgetting that all you've cited is Wikipedia, written by people like you. I tire of you, hypocrite. Find someone else to troll. I get it, you're going to post after everything I say, telling the same lies and making the same tired insults.
Shoo. The adults are talking.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
"The problem is that this is akin to talking about the positive effects of smoking: weightloss, fewer old people to draw down retirement benefits, etc. It's disingenuous and generally only used to mask the drawbacks."
This is nothing like that at all. In the case of smoking we have years of data that directly speaks to the negative effects of smoking. We have seen them. As yet, we have nothing but speculation as to them long term negative effects of global climate change.
Observing vs. Inferring is a big difference, so no, they're nothing alike.
"The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century." Please stop saying things like "massive amounts of blah blah." Either cite it or it doesn't exist. No, I am not going to cite every climate paper that exists. I already referred you to the most comprehensive review on the subject, which does NOT agree with you. Furthermore, the RealClimate links have plenty of references as well that you are welcome to read. and it becomes clear from your reference to RealClimate that you confuse the personal blogs of individuals with actual science. It is quite clear that you would like to forget that the RealClimate authors are scientists and, if you bother to read them, back up their claims with the citations you so desperately crave.
I note, of course, that you have not cited any evidence of YOUR claims.
Funny. I'll just pick the low-hanging fruit and ask you: where did I cite wikipedia? I'll be here laughing while you go and try to backup that claim. I'm not going to even try and put forth an honest debate anymore, since you're clearly off in your own fantasy land.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I just went through all the post you have made on this topic up to the point you posted this. You have linked to a video on Google, and a link from UMich. Check the UMich link again, its title is "The Global Carbon Cycle" and the page header identifies it as lecture notes. It does not include volcanic contributions to the carbon cycle, apparently they are not even second tier in importance.
You are claiming to have posted peer reviewed papers. Unfortunately for your credibility in this discussion, that claim is easily falsifiable. I just went through that exercise, just to make sure.
From here, it looks like you are just making stuff up. And accusing others of doing the very thing.
I bag mine up, feed it to my chickens (so far a lot of really good eggs, pretty soon some freezer meat) or use it for mulch around my little trees or grapevines, etc. The chickens *love* grass clippings, scarf em down quick. A lot of folks in suburbia could do the same thing, they just don't feel like it or somehow think it's "weird" or something, even though caring for a small kitchen flock has been something humans have done for the bulk of our civilized existence.. A small flock is remarkably easy to care for too, and doesn't have to be any sort of huge mess or "eyesore", kinda fun really. And they can be housed in a sharp looking and relatively inexpensive to build (plans galore on the net) coop, then allowed a little walk around the lawn "free range" time during the day.
I too get pissed of by over zealous environmentalists. Many have a view of what is right, but this is not backed up by any real evidence. *cough... Greenpeace... cough*
I'm a bit critical of your argument though. I don't see that anyone would benefit from creating an unjustified fear of climate change. Perhaps you mean to say that you think scientists simply have it wrong.
There are a few major holes if what you've said.
Volcanoes do not contribute a significant source of carbon. Human activities emit ~130 times the CO2 as do volcanoes.
from: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/vol
Ocean CO2 levels have risen 30% over the last 150 years. This seems to agree that there is a large influx of CO2 coming from SOMEWHERE. It also seems to disagree with your point saying that the source of atmospheric CO2 is from the oceans. It would be nice to have a graph of ocean CO2 levels as a function of time to compare against atmospheric levels. If your hypothesis is correct, then we should see a large decrease in ocean CO2 levels beginning in the 1980s. If the hypothesis of human carbon sources is correct, then we should see a level or increasing trend throughout this time.
You also proposed animal exhalation as a source of carbon. I don't think I've ever heard of this before. Though I would presume that replacing trees and animals with cars and people (or factories and people) would tend to produce more CO2 than it removed.
You also make an interesting point that human carbon emissions began in the 50s, while we don't see any change in global temperature until the mid 70s or early 80s. I don't see the smoking gun against the case that global warming is caused by humans though. Have you ever taken an ecology course? (I haven't, and was strongly warned by a biology professor to avoid them) Apparently one thing you are taught in such courses is that the reacting system (say... local carrot population) lags about 90 degrees from the affecting system (increase in rabbit population eating the carrots)
It's reasonable to believe the earth's surface as a heated body has a fair amount of 'inertia' and would lag behind the cause of its warming by a few decades.
Can anyone find a CO2 concentration vs. time graph for the oceans? It would be very telling.
Well, not even the attribution to the BBC is true. It was broadcast on channel4. The director does not exactly have a sterling reputation either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(televi sion_director) .
The conservative says "We like the status quo and don't want to rock the boat, especially since that would involve changing how we live."
The liberal says "We better start doing something because I think I hear some rapids ahead."
The average Joe says "Let's party for we're all going to die anyway. (Pass me another beer and watch how fast this boat can go.)"
The intelligent activist says "While the status quo is nice, we better scout ahead and be prepared to change our course."
Europe is warmed by a steady current that carries warm water from the 'West Indies' (i.e. the Caribbean) to the coasts of Europe. Extant climate predictions indicate that said current will be disrupted by global warming meaning that Europe might actually get colder on average than it has been up until now. The last time this occurred (the 'Mini Ice Age') coincided with the Dark Ages in Europe which was marked by widespread crop shortages.
If I were Der Speigel I would keep in mind that "Global Warming" still allows for "local cooling". And even if Europe gets warmer I would think that coming off of their disastrously hot previous summers that an increase in temperature might not be ideal.
It should really be titled "Could Global Warming Make Life in Germany Better?". It even acknowledged problems for countries in mediterranean latitudes; the implication is that they deserve it. It is amazing what sort of article you can come up with when you combine parochialism with selective research results.
Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
Office buildings work just as well on Arid infertile land as they do on prime farmland.
In fact I read a book once that recommended building your house on Rock.
Growing crops for food on the other hand is picky in the opposite direction. Here is a similar scenario which might make more seance to Slashdot users.
2 rooms in a building. room A) has a constant temperature of 90 degrees and very high humidity. Room B) is 30 degrees with extremely low humidity.
You need a Sauna and a server room. Choose.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Really?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adapt
If you're saying that nature will adapt, you're correct. Species and ecosystems will evolve from earth changes when they occur.
Whether life in the sense of a species or life forms will adapt is a whole other matter. These earth changes are significant. Entire species will die off. The questions for humans is if we will be one of those species. Not likely? Perhaps. There is still the damage that we would experience from loss of biodiversity. After all, what if a species unlocks the cure for some human ailment... That's one possibility and I could go on and on. For me this is clear, the burning of fossil fuels produces by products that are not offset by any natural or mechanical process at the same rate they are being produced. So we are changing the equilibrium and we can and should correct this. So long as we make a contribution to the problem we should do something about it. There is so much at stake and yet people still want to say "Everything's fine"; it's beyond me.
Oops, how did this get here?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Sarah Silverman has already covered this angle of global warming. Here's the promo for her hard hitting documentary on the subject.
90 to 100 degree summers are plenty enough thank you.
[update: Damn you, NeutronCowboy, for beating me to the punch. But really, thank you. You have been a lot more elequent than I in this thread.]
0 2/1686
You do *not* get to have the last word. Everyone here is mostly trying to have a civil discussion with you. But so far, all you've done is insult and intimidate your critics. You say I don't provide any references or resources. I need to cite only one:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57
Oreskes has sampled almost a thousand seperate scholastic studies across multiple disciplines. and there was *NO* direct dissent. This is a far cry from the "gobal warming hoax" you claim. These researchers are serious scientists. They only responsibility they have is to their own designated area of research.
What have you done? Aside from providing a link to that god-awful documentary and a reference to "the global carbon cycle" at the Umich website cited by one of your critics, you have produced absolutely squat. I have gone through all your comments and as of 2 PM PDT, everything you've expressed so far in reply to those in this discussion thread has been a whole bunch of hand waving, groundless assertions, or evasive facts. You're quick to dismiss the references provided by others but other than just those two citations, I can't find any other sources despite your repeated assertion that you have indeed provided references. In reply to my earier comment, you mention:
ice record
CO2 sedimentation
weather balloons
atmospheric temperature gradient
oceanic outgassing measurements
the CO2/temperature correlation
(basic common sense)
saying doesn't make it so. where is the reference to back up your position? Where are the figures and charts from studies that use these methods to disagree with the conclusions of our current understanding of global warming? I think your engaged in this exchange just for the sake of arguing without any genuine intention to enlighten or be enlightened. Some of what you say just makes absolutely no sense. "realistic data that predates animal life"????? "wholesale rape of baby seals."??????
In light of such bizarre comments, I am left with no alternative but to urge you to stop bothering the nice folks at slashdot and don't skip out on your medications.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
I guess so, except for all those decaying bodies lying around.
That is all.
only be... scantily clad norse women! Yes!
That's a silly comment. Do you seriously believe that Slashdot is the forum for cutting edge research on climate? It's nice that you've read some articles on global warming. This does not qualify you to engage in a debate with climate scientists anymore than having used Excel qualifies you to engage in a debate about running large-scale software projects. To get to the forefront of research in a scientific field requires years of study and hard work. Any comments before you complete these tasks only reflects who you chose to place your trust in. So you have a diagram somewhere? Who the fuck cares, there is no way you or anyone responding to you would be able to prove or disprove this diagram, merely by writing a slashdot post or by linking to some website or another.
I chose to believe the scientific mainstream on climate, because the scientific mainstream works in every other field. If our knowledge about the world wasn't constantly increasing, we wouldn't have semiconductors, jet engines and GPS. So the scientific method has been shown to work, the scientific mainstream is converging on the correct positions and progress is made. Why wouldn't that work with climate research? What's different in that field that's different from all the others?
Irrelevant to the argument of warming, the use of the 'C' word is disingenuous. We all know that there are plenty of conspiracies, and anyone who doesn't believe conspiracies exist is not very bright. That being said, it becomes an issue of how big a conspiracy can get, and still keep hold. Historically, we have seen plenty of conspiracies that have involved millions of people. Just take religion as a single undeniable example. We have Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and various other groups. Now, these groups each have millions of followers, yet their statements of 'fact' are mutually exclusive of each other. This requires millions of people to support each other in the furthering of a lie. I am not going to take sides on which one is right, which ones are wrong, or even if they are all wrong, but it is only possible for one to be right.
I can't count the number of times I have heard people use 'An Inconvenient Truth' as a reference for their pro warming arguments. That particular movie is loaded with outright lies and half-truths. Huge numbers of numbers of people believe it though. The biggest problem with the whole global warming debate is that there is so much money to be made, by so many people that it is almost impossible to get the real facts.
A beauty is the line from an 'An Inconvenient Truth' that says "You can reduce your carbon output to 0." Yet, on the other side, we regularly see the crap that the oil industry pulls on us.
I'm just trying to burn a little karma to stay warm since my region of the planet obviously isn't warming anytime soon (according to the massive blocks of evidence the grandparent has posted. Oh, wait, he's only cited a crappy BBC show).
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Funny, I just rebutted an oil drum article using rabbits and goats: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/05/scrooge.html. Goats can do the job quite well, but you've got to have time to take care of them. I grew up partly on goat's milk and consider it superior to cow's milk. The deer here don't seem to be a systematic as goats, so I still mow.s -selling-solar.html
--
Get solar power to control global warming: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Yes... eg, i, for one, really do not enjoy the New York City skyline .. it's an afront to nature .. Far better that NYC be under 10 or more meters of Atlantic Ocean .. .. enventually those tall spires will crumble, water-logged, to the bottom, and once again, voila' !! a new vista!
"There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
Fair enough, good post.
My main concern with the models is that the variables are so "immense" that the system can only be modeled using data provided by the scientist to reach a certain conclusion. For instance, if I was modeling an airplane wing I could rely on data provided to be accurate because it's been tested and in those tests you can see the same results. Now when you model climate the problem becomes the lack of present data to use for variables and some variables are so hard to predict that it would be impossible to simulate with much accuracy. We can predict it will be between 50-75 degrees F tomorrow but we can't predict if it will be 55 F tomorrow at 1 pm EST. There are simply too many variables that we can't predict values for because the system is so complex.
That's the current state of climate models simply because we need more data. We need to know everything about how climate is affected by different weather patterns, humans, solar activity, etc. But we don't really know those things today, instead plopping in our models variable values we "think" are as accurate as they can be. Which is fair, we simply know what we know and we use that in our science. This is not a problem. The problem comes when these same models, which scientists understand are pretty much educated guesses, comes into the publics hands via PR machines such as Al Gore or large Eco Non Profits who need the doom and gloom to fund their "machines" of profit. Then the model becomes "fact" and is used in policy making. This is dangerous. My "demand" is simply for more accurate models when we need to make such important decisions. I think that's fair.
Be better off, because we can finally get rid of all the social bloat crap that those "blue" states ram down our throats!
Nope.
What will happen is that "blue" states will invade "red" states, and the politics will simply change. It happened in the 100 years after the civil war, and it will happen again. And again. And again.
(And remember: "Red" states, on average, get more federal dollars just thrown at them. Conversely, "blue" states tend to have a net loss from their federal taxes.)
Basically, the most reasonable creationists will argue that mutation can explain variations within a species, but cannot produce new species. So white moths can turn black, but you won't get a fish developing new organs or limbs, or turning into a frog. You can get variation, but not new species. God, with His intelligence, created all the various species in the six days of Creation account for in Genesis.
So what we would have to show is the arising of a new species. Here's the experiment:
- Start with a species that is well-described both morphologically and whose entire genome is mapped. I think fruit flies would be a good example, since they have short life spans, are easy to care for, and are probably well understood.
- Put the species in a dual-part environment. One part is like their natural environment, where they can survive. The other half of the area is a place where they can't survive very well, but there might be an opportunity to exploit. For fruit flies, this might be a 'flying zone' where they can fly about, and also have a place to land, lay their eggs, whatever they do on land. Also they have food here. The second part would be maybe a water area, that has food. Hopefully, they don't drown in water, but could make it back to shore after treading water a bit.
- See if they develop mutations that allow them to exploit the other environment -- i.e., they start eating the food in the water.
- If there are no beneficial, selective mutations, put pressure on the 'safe' environment. For fruit flies, take away some space, or limit the amount of food in the safe environment. Or add some radiation to increase mutation rates.
- Repeat ad naseum over a few thousand generations.
- Document every dead organism that you take out of the environment. Describe it physiologically, map its genome, create an evolutionary tree of the entire population. Put each dead organism on ice you can study it in the future. This data will demonstrate each and every mutation that eventually led to a new species.
- If you start to see beneficial mutations that allow it to adapt to the hostile environment, put more pressure on the safe environment. Less space, less food, more radiation, etc.
- If need be, branch a population that has adapted to the new environment that only has the hostile conditions. Create another dual-condition space where they must evolve even more to exploit the conditions of the new hostile environment.
If mutation does drive evolution, after several thousand generations, we should see new proteins, tissues, organs, and macro-scale morphological changes. Eventually you will get an organism that cannot reproduce with descendants of the friendly-environment descendants. If it looks different enough, nobody would seriously claim that this is not a new species, a new organism.Although, some stubborn creationists will argue that this would only be evidence of intelligence design. The intelligent human experimenters, who Genesis tells us are like a God and has the intelligence of God, created the new species, so it can't ( not doesn't, but can't ) happen naturally, without intelligent intervention). There people will never be convinced by any amount of evidence. Whatever natural event that might look like evolution was actually driven by an intelligence, either God or God-like man. But a reasonable interpreter would have to concede that these stressful environments *can* happen in nature, and that new species can evolve without intelligent intervention.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Wow. From your own article:
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
What I learned from "The Great Global Warming Swindle":
It is now my mission to stop keeping an eye on people in power. This movie has assured me they have earned a free pass.
You just hit all the standard talking points, don't you? Show me that this theory was anything other than a footnote (as opposed to a broadly held consensus view).
Well here is a newsweek article from 1975 which states that global cooling is(was) coming:http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf
Does it matter what the scientific consensus was in 1975 if the public was made to believe a certain view based on "scientific evidence"? No, the only thing that matters is that global cooling was credited as legit in the mainstream press, albeit it's not the wide spread panic / money making machine that global warming is today.
So that's where the skepticism comes from. It's not baseless or a simple talking point, it's real history. Shocker, science has been wrong before and the public was made to believe the wrong thing. So that's where you get the skeptics from.
Honestly I don't understand why people so involved in science are outright angry at global warming skeptics. If anything they should embrace skepticism within their own work and prove with testable evidence that it actually is man made, instead of just calling someone a idiot in so many words because they don't believe.
I'll repeat myself: I'm not answering any more of your questions until you learn to answer mine. I have no intent of humoring you in your tirade of obviously false nonsense, under the mechanism of "I'm not wrong if I haven't admitted it."
StoneCypher is Full of BS
Start citing sources for data, because on this case, you're dead wrong.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
The ordinary understanding is that man causes global warming. If you want to refute this claim, you'll need to do more than stomp your feet and shout "no it's not!"
Come up with a link or a cite. your argument is worthless without it.
Thanks for the comment! Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud. Junk science is infesting the media, the Internet and public schools, affecting public health, squandering your tax dollars, poisoning sick people and miseducating our children. Pseudoscientific claptrap abounds. Quackery is now found everywhere. Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class. Additional information http://www.inteliorg.com/co2_climate_change.html Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest. Unfortunately, we can no longer trust most of the media for information, as they no longer assign "Reporters" that investigate then report on a subject, most just parrot or reinterpret the information to fit their bias, thusly we have a world of disinformation and junk science. Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.
I suggest that it is you who should look again at the details of the Kyoto protocol. Specifically, at the definitions of "Annex I" countries. The Kyoto protocol would actually benefit under-developed countries, by giving them carbon credits to sell.
The "documentary" you refer to was, as others have pointed out, not from the BBC, and has been comprehensively debunked since. It was certainly very well made, but misleading in the extreme.
If you were to check what the BBC actually has to say about Kyoto, you'd get a much more accurate picture - the US pulled out, at least in part because poor countries weren't being restricted enough - they thought it was unfair competition. Now who's holding back international development?
Incidentally, as for wars in Africa, I don't recall Rwanda being about food. Or Darfur. And Zimbabwe, funnily enough, started off with an excess of food before descending into its current state.
Anytime. As a matter of human psychology and persuasiveness, it can look defensive to reply directly to counterarguments. In other words, if an idea has merits, it looks better to write them out, and leave it to others to defend it. And if it has merits, generally someone will. Even on Slashdot. :)
One appropriate one would do. One which you don't get confused in citing a single paragraph of the exerpt and ignore the rest of what it says. Also, it'd be nice if you'd defend the claims you're being asked to defend, instead of the ones you feel comfortable hiding behind.
And before you waste your time ranting, please remember that what I was talking about was the Sun's magnetic field, not its luminosity. The magnetic field determines the solar wind, which in turn governs cloud cover through the suppression of cosmic rays. Cloud cover comes into solar heating a hell of a long time beore greenhouse gasses do.
Please stop arguing with half-assed guesses about what I meant. Not every impact the sun has on our temperature is about its brightness.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
You said most. That is because it is not everyone. When your talking about that many people, "some" becomes a very vary large number. Besides, I don't think that you will find a global warming skeptic that thinks EVERYONE that promotes the idea of global warming is in on the 'lie'. I think most people would agree that most people who defend the global warming theory, do in fact believe it. The problem is that most people, just like with religion, are getting their information from a comparatively small set of sources that have other agendas.
I would say that hoax might be a poor term for a lie that is intended to consolidate money and power, but it doesn't change the fact that millions of people being involved does not prove something isn't a lie.
I found a nice spoof on an advertisment for the Flemish socialist party (sp.a).
I don't think you need a translation, but you might not know that Spa is *the* best known mineral water in Belgium !
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Haven't enough people linked to the IPCC report already in this thread? If you seriously believe that global warming is a "natural cycle" caused by the sun, well, you simply haven't done your homework.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
"warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu."
That's so blatantly made up right there. Flu isn't cold related, someone seems to be confusing a pedestrian cold with an actual flu.
In fact it's worse: cold weather helps kill the flu virus so it doesn't spread wide or survive for extended period of time on the outside. With higher temperatures, flu outbreaks will be worse.
The fact flu spreads in the autumn and early winter isn't directly related to a flu outbreak. The timing is, let's say, a happy coincidence. You can research more about why flu comes every year for more info.
hmm, isn't the debate about climate change/global warming all about trying to maintain the status quo: expensive beach front property, building cities/entire nations on land that is at less than 5 m above sea level, preventing the developing world from doing just that, inhibiting progress, etc.
The Gish Bar Times - Blog covering Jupiter's moon Io
Since you've decided to reply after all... did I provide you with a link to Wikipedia? Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to keep answering your changing assertions, incorrect citations and challenge data that you keep pulling out of your ass. Snicker. Nice try. It's amazing - I'm not even asking you to provide any serious research paper, just to back up one easily verified claim. And you can't even manage that.
I'm still laughing. I've also noticed you went to the trouble of adding me to your list of foes... Since that means you get a +1, I now get to be entertained by you anytime you post. Nice.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
partisan politics will suppress what it doesn't want to hear under any premise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Galileo was considered a heretic (in a literal sense!) by the Church rather than his fellow scientists.
Ahh, history repeats itself! Global Warming is the new "religion" and Al Gore is its prophet among the followers. Let's just hope we don't get submitted to another Inquisition in the future.
Life is not for the lazy.
I'm trying to form an opinion on this subject, and its hard becasue its not my area. The question I have about the ice cores is why does the ice core data not go right up to the present day.
There. Fixed that for you. No need to thank me.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
One big problem from global warming will be insect populations. Already, in far northern areas the shorter winters are allowing some bugs to survive and thus attack the arboreal forests.
In time, more bugs will survive in more areas. Bugs can dramatically alter the populations of local flora. They also carry diseases. Combined with the destruction of many animal species, we may not enjoy living with all insects.
I think you'll find that over the past few years the average number of hurricanes may be unusual, but it isn't unusually high. 5 not 0. That's in the Atlantic. 11 in the Pacific. And that's just the ones near the USA.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
But now that you bring it up, there is no evidence for any "planetary cycle" involving the Sun's magnetic field which has been occurring for million/billions of years. At best, there is the 11-year solar cycle, which not even contrarians claim is what is responsible for global warming.
I challenge you to produce published data supporting the existence of such a cycle. The magnetic field determines the solar wind, which in turn governs cloud cover through the suppression of cosmic rays. Cloud cover comes into solar heating a hell of a long time beore greenhouse gasses do. I challenge you to produce published data supporting the existence of any declining trend in cosmic ray incidence that corresponds in timing, rate, and magnitude with the trend of global temperatures over the last 40 years.
There is no evidence that cosmic rays have any significant influence on cloud cover, let alone on climate. If you're tempted to cite a certain author featured in the Global Warming Swindle documentary you seem to take on faith, please note that (a) he did not actually show a correlation between cosmic rays and climate, and (b) then read Damon and Laut (2004). I could point you to many other criticisms on RealClimate, but since you seem to feel that publication is more important than the actual scientific arguments involved, I won't bother.
You'll note the dead silence at the news that Mars is warming just as fast (or faster), and by just as much, as the Earth is.
Which of course has nothing to do with the fact that Mars' atmosphere is >95% CO2.Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
So, exactly when was Spiegel bought out by ExxonMorris and/or PhilipMobil?
Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
It is true that there is deception in the "debate." Calling it a debate is the deception.
Many mistake global warming correlating with higher CO2 with a global warming caused by CO2. Having perused material on the matter, and discussed it with colleagues who track this, there is no evidence to suggest that higher CO2 causes the global warming we are seeing today.
Correlation does not imply causation. Correlation does, however, suggest that something is going on, and offers a good place to start looking. Correlation combined with a good hypothesis backed up by experimentation, does give you a reason to suspect causation.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that is *not* debatable, simple physics tells you that (water vapor is to, but we aren't anthropormorphically changing its level like we are with CO2).
Worse is that the lack of balanced scientific debate on the topic, and the number of lemmings who blindingly need to point a finger without any actual evidence, is undermining the ability to observe and make rational opinions.
I have an idea, why don't we let the scientists work on it, and come to a consensus? That way we don't have ignorant (in the non pedantic connotation) slashdotters bitching about a lack of "balance." Oh, right, that's been done.
However, it's Slashdot. It's a populous opinion. Don't take it personal when the lemmings come and mod you down for, God forbid, positing something contrary to the convenience of their finger-pointing!
Not sure what that wonderful game has to do with this, but I'm all for early 90's references. Posting contrary ideas is all fine and good, but when the topic is a scientifically determinable question, and you are on the incorrect side, you're gonna catch shit. Arguing that evolution is wrong, or that gravity is only a 'theory' will do the same thing.
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
That "guy" is Shan de Silva, who's like, ya know, a volcanologist. He was chair of the Space Studies department at UND up until, um, 2006 IIRC. The email address you saw with space in it was probably space.edu - the Space Studies department domain.
Unlike you, not only has he read peer-reviewed literature, he has contributed to the greater body of work on the subject of volcanoes.
Oh, just so you know - UND Space Studies is an interdisciplinary program, covering Earth and space science and law/policy/economics of space exploration (warning, not a complete list of subjects).
Now, I guess I'd better get back to my paper on Space Situational Awareness since it's due on Sunday.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
You *do* realize just how fragmentary the fossil record is, don't you?
My personal opinion (without studying the matter) is that we probably don't have enough evidence to guess whether there were more or fewer species. (Well, except that clearly there were fewer, e.g., right after the asteroid hit. And right after whatever caused the Permian Catastrophe. Etc.) Most species never leave any discovered and recognized fossil record, and we don't know what percentage "most" means, just that it's large relative to 50%. (There may, of course, people who have reasons to believe some particular number is "about right", but I'm not one of them.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
One problem with the idea that global warming is all extra solar output is the 'ol "Faint Young Sun" paradox.
How about we spend less time arguing about fault/causation, and more time on mitigation. Or at least some time discussing that?
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
my girlfriend gets that catalog. I suppose they could sell more shorts and t-shirts if the weather just cooperated. That would truly make life better.
Why do we waste our breath on these trolls?
If you'd like to discuss mitigation, feel free to start a thread on that. In the meantime, the fact that such obviously wrong arguments such as stonecypher's keep getting modded up shows that there is much more work to be done educating people on attribution/causation. You can't get people to the table on solutions when they won't even admit there's a problem.
You can't refute the science, so you resort to trying to tar it as ideology. Pathetic.
Now I know you're just trolling.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Apparently, you couldn't be bothered to go read the rest of the Wikipedia entry on the documentary you found so very convincing. I strongly urge that you do so now, because it's damning in a hundred ways.
If you can't be bothered to do so, then allow me to quote the considered, measured response of the "neutral" creator of The Great Global Warming Swindle, Martin Durkin: "Don't be a daft cock."
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I can't believe that global warming will make life on earth better, at least that you think that if there's less people in the planet then life gets better. This will kill people, and I know that people dies everyday but no because of the global warming!
It's stupid to believe that see people dying around you will make your life better, weather will change and will kill more people that already does... I don't believe that's a better life...
ghostbar page.
There hasn't been "dead silence" about Mars. I've heard about it a lot. A whole lot.
We don't have to rely on Mars to get data about solar energy flux over the last >25 years. We have direct satellite measurements of solar output. Check it out.
If we didn't have satellite data, we would want to check our natural satellite for solar-induced temperature changes. Unlike Mars, the moon doesn't have abedo changes like Mars does.
>the predictions of the climate models have been very, very poor
They've underestimated the amount of rise in sea level, true.
>CO2 rises lag warm periods
It's a positive feedback system, warmth brings out more CO2. The effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases is simple physics, not climatology. Apply thermodynamics to the earth without the effect of a warming atmosphere and you would get a global average temperature about 30 Celsius lower than we've actually got. CO2, methane, and (here's where things get so complicated you need supercomputers) water vapor are the reasons the oceans aren't frozen over.
There are still big uncertainties about a system with multiple coupled feedback loops on different time scales, but the remaining uncertainties are how much, how fast, and how serious the effects will be.
From the article you quoted,
>>the global cooling hysteria of the 1970s.
This claim is like a Terminator, it just keeps coming back no matter how many times someone posts the bibliography of climate articles from the 1970s.
Don't blame them. We don't place enough value in real science. Who dedicates up to a decade of sweat and study to make less than a taxi driver? They have bills to pay. Oil companies buy whores; film at 11. I just can't figure out who is paying the 'pro global warming ones'. Terrorists?
Global warming on Mars? No.
A few points that the simplistic "orb o' fire" theory overlooks:
1) Total solar irradiation hasn't increased noticeably since we started taking satellite measurements.
2) Mars is not Earth.
2a) We don't understand Martial climate nearly as well as Earth climate.
2b) We don't have global temperature measurements or global CO2 measurements for Mars.
2c) Martian atmosphere is much thinner than Earth atmosphere, leading to lower thermal inertia.
3) Regional changes (in this case at the poles) do not necessarily reflect global changes.
This is not a good talking point to be flinging about.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
1) Solar intensity does fluctuate noticeably, and in a known pattern http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/17jan_solc on.htm
2) Correct, Mars isn't Earth. It is free of human influence and yet still experiences drastic climate changes.
3) Correct, and yet a majority of the proponents of global warming on Earth point to Regional changes (in this case at the poles). Why is this ok for showing global warming here, but not there?
Those were not good talking points to be flinging about.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
rapture is only about 100,000 people.
Also note, most Chritians are not good people, but blow hards with self inflicted ignorance that don't even know there own theology..at all.
So, we'll still have those people around.
Most of them don't even know the bible contradicts itself in regards to Rapture.
F'n morons.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
there where many in the pacific and the atlantic.
Insightfull my ass. More like F'n stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
True, but there is no rule that says change has to be good for the human race.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
chicken wire fences do a good job of keeping the little guys where they belong. Added bonus, less lawn to actually have to mow, they'll keep it scratched up good.
I think it is more cultural. In other places around the world having your own small flock is considered quite normal and practical. In rural US it is still quite common. In suburbia much less so, I was just pointing out a small flock is still quite doable, merely a step from having your own vegetable garden for instance. A lot of folks in suburbia don't have a garden, a lot do. A little coop can be built on the back of the garage for instance, and a small run enclosed. And by "suburbia" I guess I would have to quantify, a house with a yard big enough so that projects like this are at least theoretically possible. And by small flock I guess that would be say less than a dozen birds.
It is clear to me that you and I have a very, very different idea of what being civil is.And from that, I also know that you're not actually reading what I wrote. Good day. I really don't care what nasty comments you have to make about getting the last word; you can reply to this with any further perspicuous nonsense you like. You don't seem embattled by fact or information here. I see no reason the future should be any different.
A word of advice: don't assume that someone isn't citing things just because the person you're listening to says they aren't. Yes, I saw him claim I only cited two things, just like you did. If you take the time to check the discussion tree, you'll find that isn't true.
It's quite common for people to miss links in long discussions when they aren't actually reading. Given that you aren't, I suggest you look at the page source, move the lead cursor to the beginning of something I say, and search for "<a". It's quite likely you'll find my (currently) eleven citations more quickly that way.
I'm sure you'll insist I'm not re-citing them again because they don't exist. I also really don't care if that's what you believe. The reason I'm not re-citing them again is because people like you who find it more convenient to believe what someone else says instead of to just look for references yourself have also asked me to repeat myself, over and over.
I indulged them half a dozen times, and now I can't make helpful responses to people asking for more information in a different thread.
I'd forgotten why as a policy I don't reply to posts like these. Thank you for reminding me. All I've done is make you angry; if there was merit to what I said it was lost, and if there wasn't it shouldn't have been said at all. It was a waste of your time, a waste of my time, and it cost me the ability to have pleasant, productive conversations with other people.
Yes, I gather your idea of me. I really also don't care. I won't be responding anymore, because until SlashDot gets rid of its asinine post rate filter, the price is just too high.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
A complex system like the earth's climate cannot be modelled by simple extrapolation, since it has both negative *and positive* feedbacks. This means that--without knowing anything else about the earth itself--we should expect that the climate will exhibit a hysteris effect, whereby we have to cross a higher-than-predicted threshold of CO2 levels before we trigger a change, but once we do, the new climate state will be stable and nothing will bring it back to the way it was before.
What would one such state look like? Well, if it includes the greening of the Sahara and the world's deserts, along with glaciers over Europe or something, then that would not be the extinction of the human race, just a political and cultural nightmare.
Once this new state is obtained, the old state of climate would not return even if we reduced CO2 levels in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels. There would have to be a major shock to the system to reverse the effects. The whole climate debate is centered around linear or exponential projections of average temperature based on CO2 levels, but they fail to take the self-regulating nature of the earth as a complex system into account. All we have to do is figure out what the High energy state of the planet looks like is, and where the new deserts will be, and what the habital zones will look like without getting into the boundary conditions (which may include flooding, droughts and what not.) There is almost a sadistic tendency in the popular press to assume that warming will be uniform all over the world: so Africa will get hotter and drier, while Europe will become balmier and wetter. One thing they don't acknowledge is that if the average temperature rises, the energy in the atmosphere rises, and temperature variances will increase--both extremes of cold and heat, with the overall average facing only a minor adjustment.
Hasan
The filling of the container will constrict the space for air in the container. While the water may release enough oxygen, that oxygen would have to compete with the ever-thickening carbon dioxide from his own exhalations. I haven't run the math, and I honestly am not sure I could. I don't have the background in chemistry and medicine to figure all the rates properly from my head, and I refuse to work all weekend doing research for this post. I do know there's oxygen release of the water (unless it's depleted), carbon dioxide uptake of the water (unless it's saturated), rate of oxygen intake through respiration, and rate of carbon dioxide release through respiration. Then there's the increasing pressure of the water forcing the gases into the lungs, the mixture of oxygen to carbon dioxide that the body can stand, and the fact that if the water's colder, oxygen reliance actually drops a bit. :-)
Intuitively, I'd think that at some point the air space left at the top of the container would be primarily carbon dioxide, unless the water takes up enough of that at the same time. Still, drowning at a slow trickle seems an impossibility in this case whether the actual death be by hypothermia, crushing asphyxiation (which should happen well before structural damage to the organs, right?), or asphyxiation from poor gas mixture.
Gee, this is fun, but I'm out of my league on this one. Still, drowning seems unlikely. Hell, stroke or heart attack from the stress of knowing what was coming seems more likely than actual drowning at that kind of rate.
Thanks for playing along with my thought experiment.
Exactly - it is an isolated system, except it has the sun in common. That's your "diddly." Mars CO2 atmosphere is not a new thing - unlike our current surplus. So you can't attribute the warming to mars CO2 (and of course, that's not what is causing it - the sun is.) Nothing else has changed. That's your "squat." The only varying input is solar energy.
It has a great deal to do with it. It means that using historical CO2 increases as flags for impending warming is an intellectually bankrupt technique. The assertion that CO2 is forcing our current very, very minor temperature change may or may not be true to some unknown extent, however, we know that CO2 hasn't done any such thing in the past despite being quite high in post-warming periods, and that, by the way, is one of the factors that implicates the evaporative cycle in ameliorating any effect that CO2 might have.
I'll outline it for you. The water vapor cycle - rain, evaporation, etc, ad infinitum - works like this. Water at the surface warms. This process creates water vapor. This vapor rises into the upper atmosphere, where it cools, giving up its heat as radiation - whereby a lot of said heat leaves the planet. This water vapor, now considerably cooler, condenses out, falls as rain, and this cycle continues apace. Now - as the surface temperature rises, inevitably, the rate at which the water at the surface warms increases, just as it does when you increase the heat applied to a kettle. This in turn boosts the rate of evaporation, which in turn boosts the rate of cooling, etc. In other words, as the surface warms for any reason, the water vapor cycle increases the amount of cooling. This establishes a negative feedback, countering warming trends.
Those seem like interesting charts. What is the source study? The page doesn't say, and going to the containing directory produces a 404.
My assertion was in predicting climate; not in simply predicting global temperature, by the way. Most climate predictions I have seen have failed miserably at any edge cases, such as in the arctic and with regard to predicting sea level rise, melt in Greenland, and so on.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"I realize it's traditional for people defending global warming to do so without actual data"
Debunk this fucktard.
"You guys need a history lesson."
Since I grew up in the 60's and actually remeber the global cooling thing it's much more likely that you suffer from poor comprehension skills.
"Mount Saint Helens released more CO2 than humanity has in its entire existence"
Oh please, very few people here are that stupid. I can only assume that either you are an exception, or you are deliberately trolling.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Here's the root cause of the hysteria, right here. The reason the claim keeps coming back isn't because it was science; it is because of the pot-stirring done by the popular media. Your average person doesn't read scientific journals. They read Newsweek.
Scientists today aren't generally predicting these horrific consequences; they're a lot more likely to snort and laugh and tell you it's entirely overblown. But when you come here, that is, interface with the public, there is post after post explaining how the human race is going to drown, and "we have to do something", and so on and so forth. This is also hysteria, and it is no more scientifically based than the nonsense from the 70's (and yes, absolutely it was nonsense, that's the entire point.) And of course the government uses it as a means to keep the citizens focused on anything but the reaming they're getting from the legislature, along with the other big three scare tactics, terrorism, pedophilia, and immigration. The popular media follows suit, and Joe Average jumps up and down, drools and shakes his fists in response.
As for the rest, I've made several other posts; please see them for more. I'm willing to discuss, but not to discuss the same things in several directions.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'd hate to be accused of not FTFA'ing, but I'd hate to read an article that starts off with a picture of german chicks in bikini's and speculates that germany could experience a tourist boom because of global warming.
People are sure taking their time wising up to global warming. The responses, like this article, tend to sidestep the issue by either suggesting that "it might not be that bad in some places," or suggesting that scientists might have gotten this whole "global warming" thing wrong, after all "climate change happens."
The problem is that there's a ton of evidence for global warming, and the natural progression of climate change *is* taken into account. Furthermore the effects are going to be more significant than the temperature increasing in a few places... There is a significant risk of a *massive* rise in sea level if the west antartic ice sheet melts http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6962
When is it going to be La Nina so we get rain in Australia? El Nino and La Nina are Pacific issues, I thought American Hurricanes came from the Atlantic side of things? But anyway, El Nino and La Nina patterns take years to swap, they can't explain the difference between one year and the next.
There are two types of people in the world: 1) those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.
....then turn around and claim that everyone else is trying to be civil, when the person you're thanking used the words "I now officially think that you're batshit fucking crazy, and just forgot to take your meds"Because it is the only reasonable response to your crazy beligerant rants. Seriously, what choice do you give us? The two of us are not the only ones who think you're nuts. You've given EVERYONE on this thread reason to think so. Maybe you're just a bad communicator or maybe you just broke up with your girlfriend or maybe you have some other good reason for being an absolute ass to everyone who disagrees with you. But in the end, it is your actions and attitude that makes it hard to discuss the science involved here.
And from that, I also know that you're not actually reading what I wrote....NeutronCowboy and I did the same check and came to the same conclusion. I don't think you understand what it means to cite your source. Other than these two instances where others can examine the same things you're talking about to judge for themselves how to interperate the information provided, YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY INFORMATION WHICH CAN BE INDEPENDENTLY CHECKED. I gave a list of tools and methods you mentioned that you claim provide information to support your claims. To be fair, you've made the same assertions to others elsewhere in this post. But you have NEGLECTED TO PROVIDE ANY ACTUAL DATA from any studies using these methods that support your position. Saying doesn't make it so. You can tell us repeatedly there is data that shows you're right until you're blue in the face. But unless we can check the same data, you have demonstrated nothing. Maybe you actually do believe you've cited 11 sources, but you have not done it in any way that allows anyone else to follow up on them. Maybe you actually do believe the poorly thought out conclusions from your myopic understanding of the issues. I've read through some of your response to the data cited by other folks. I'd urge you to take a closer look at their responses which easily debunks your claims. Pay attention to them - they're trying to educate you.
You say you keep repeating yourself and no one listens. Have you stopped to consider that there might be something wrong with what you're say? Or perhaps something wrong with they way you're trying to communicate your ideas? If you're going to insult anyone who tells you that you have not gotten your own ideas straight, what incentive do other have to pay any attention to you? You don't make me angry, you make me sad. Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate. But the way you've gone about on this thread discredits the whole legitimacy of being curious about the other side. Who in their right mind would be willing to explore an idea advocated by an abrasive nut who is insulting everyone trying to talk to him? You start of by calling the scientific consensus a hoax, with nothing to back up this outrageous claim other than a single documentary riddled with breaches of good journalistic ethics. Your assertion that no one has challanged the science in the program is just not true: According to Houghton(former co-chair of IPCC) the program was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming".
http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
I suggest you take the time to seriously examine the ideas and opinions presented here in oposition to yours. enlightening yourself would *not* be time wasted. And I believe I speak for all of slashdot when I say that *my*(our) time has not been wasted if I(we) have succeeded in teaching you something and compelled you to think critically and scientifically about the issue of global warming.
Stay sentient. Don't drink bad milk.
Oh please let it be so and I'll have a clean conscience when I buy a sports car I will almost exclusively use to drive around the countryside just to enjoy myself. Bad conscience is an enjoyment pooper.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
I debated a bit whether I should reply to you. What the heck, what's one more reply. You claim eleven citations, yet in your post history that I have access to, there are 4 unique outside references, only two of which are relevant to the topic. A more complete check shows a total of 6 unique topical references. I'll be generous and keep the ones in there that flat out contradict you in the body of the text, and also leave the one in there that can be summarized by "climate was different 600 million years ago, models have uncertainties, news at 11". Eleven references, my ass.
There is no point in debating Global Climate Change with you if you can't even pretend to be semi-accurate in the stupid small stuff.
My beef with you is quite simple really: when I look at the very basic stuff, the stuff I can check in 2 minutes and which involves only basic addition (single digit, even), you consistently get it massively wrong in your favor. When called on it, you resort to hand waving and insults, and don't even do a little song and dance like "oh, I got you confused with someone else". Then, when I check the somewhat more complex stuff, I get the same mode of operation. You know you made shit up, and can't even come clean about it. From what I can tell, you have the intellectual honesty of a scheister, the debate technique of a grade school bully, and are enough in love with yourself that I suspect you'd propose to yourself if you could. In short, batshit fucking crazy.
I know you're too wrapped up in your own world to get out, but don't think that people don't understand what you're trying to pull. It only works on people who don't know what you're talking about, are confused by big words and intimidated by your attitude. Everyone else just wants you to stop taking up valuable space.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
"Personally, I believe there is much to be explored from the other side of the global warming debate."
Thank you for spelling that out. I believe it's something important to keep in mind any time someone manages to completely discredit an entire position.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You are right. Allow me to rephrase my statement: There were zero continental U.S. hurricane landfalls in the 2006 season.
I was assuming that the "more active than usual" hurricane seasons comment was indicating a correlation to global warming, despite the lack of a long term trend in that direction, because of media sensationalism regarding Katrina, and I wrote my response based on that assumption.
I was also under the impression that in the pacific they were typhoons or something, not hurricanes, and looking into it I see that near the US they are indeed still hurricanes.
The point still stands; there is little justification to a link between global warming and increased hurricane activity.
Apathy; it does a body good.
I am always amused by those who post URLs and say (paraphrased), "you must be a moron for not having read this: _________", as if anyone is going to actually read the link. In a "science" as vague and vast as monitoring earth's climate there are always going to be those that over exaggerate their own importance if it seems to lead to continued employment.
In my opinion, the doomers rely on the fact that most people have no sense of scale ("wow, a million of anything must be a lot") and manipulate popular attitudes by using emotional triggers. This is inherently dishonest as a tactic to gain more mindspace.
The End of Human Existence is what they predict, if you don't do what they say. Conveniently, the answer to all the problems is big government intervention.
Okay, let's move on to the north pole: It's a different story in the warmer regions surrounding the North Pole. According to an American study published last week, the Arctic could be melting even faster than previously assumed. But because the Arctic sea ice already floats in the water, its melting will have virtually no effect on sea levels. Ah, good point. And of course, when all that white ice reflecting sunlight turns to black water, that won't affect anything... you know... temperature-wise. I mean, the problem here is sea level, not temperature.
It's definitely striking how they focus far more on the effects on Germany and northern Europe (we'll have more chicks in bikinis here ! And Greenland will be a pleasant place!). Yes, some other places may be affected... negatively. They cover that in a serious tone: "While the bulk of summer vacationers will eventually lose interest in roasting on Spain's Costa del Sol, Mediterranean conditions could prevail between the German North Sea island of Sylt and Bavaria's Lake Starnberg."
Oh, wait -- by "serious tone" I meant "in humorous asides". Better get back to talking about the summers in Hamburg!
And (like you mentioned) they completely ignore the fact that people will have to *move*. It's not just "those people may get roasted a bit, but we'll be happier up here!". For example, countries like Canada and Russia can look forward to better harvests and a blossoming tourism industry, and the only distress the Scandinavians will face is the guilty conscience that could come with benefiting from global warming. Yes, just that guilty conscience... because I imagine they'll be pleased to see the entirety of Bangladesh's population camping in their lush green backyards.
Well here is a newsweek article from 1975 which states that global cooling is(was) coming:http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf
Oh well, that's it, then. Because everyone knows Newsweek is the world's definitive science journal . . .
The warming on Mars does not correlate with any change in solar intensity. In fact, Mars has warmed while solar intensity dropped. If that weren't enough, the change in intensity of the Sun is nowhere near large enough to produce the observed temperature changes on Mars.
The links I gave describe theories of Martian warming that are actually plausible.
Furthermore, the change in intensity of the Sun has not corresponded in either timing, rate, or magnitude with the warming on Earth. (See here.) Even if solar output were responsible for the warming on Mars, it's not responsible for the warming on Earth.
The idea that Martian warming tells us something about the Earth's climate is, in short, completely retarded and only promulgated by people who don't know anything about either planet. Seriously, if you want to argue against anthropogenic global warming, you can use arguments that are much less embarrassing to your side. Heck, I could argue your side better than you have. It means that using historical CO2 increases as flags for impending warming is an intellectually bankrupt technique. Of course it means no such thing. Historical CO2 increases did cause substantial warming. The assertion that CO2 is forcing our current very, very minor temperature change The current temperature change is not "minor" when compared to the last thousand years, its rate is much greater than anything we have seen in the past, and it will continue to accelerate over this century. may or may not be true to some unknown extent, It is true to a rather known extent, your denial notwithstanding. however, we know that CO2 hasn't done any such thing in the past despite being quite high in post-warming periods, On the contrary, CO2 is responsible for most of the warming in the ice age cycle; the deglaciation persists for far longer than the Sun's forcing in the Milankovitch cycles, due to the increased CO2 liberated by the initial deglaciation. Which was also explained in the references you didn't bother to read. In other words, as the surface warms for any reason, the water vapor cycle increases the amount of cooling. This establishes a negative feedback, countering warming trends. Actually, the net effect of water vapor feedback does to climate is exactly the opposite, because you have neglected the greenhouse effect of the water vapor, which is quite large and in fact at least doubles the amount of warming due to CO2's greenhouse effect alone.
Perhaps if you read a basic undergraduate textbook on climate science, you would understand this. I recommend David Archer's book. Those seem like interesting charts. What is the source study? The page doesn't say, See section 9.4 of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (Working Group 1). Most climate predictions I have seen have failed miserably at any edge cases, such as in the arctic and with regard to predicting sea level rise, melt in Greenland, and so on. The Arctic is ok with temperature, but so-so with precipitation, and the current GCMs don't have fully dynamical ice sheet models integrated into them yet. Dynamical ice and aerosol/cloud feedbacks are the big frontiers right now. Sea level rise is not bad but has been somewhat underestimated so far.
Coral reefs only occur in cold climates so they'll obviously be a lower benefit (or a negative one).
Of course the GW theories and models are highly skewed to the upper end so if warming occurs in excess of what co2 is capable of providing, it's an instant out for the doom and gloom crowd. And, if there is an increase going, there is reason to think it's not being generated by the increase in co2 as that tends to follow climate changes on the historical record.
However, the pop. press seem to have exagerated this excess by a yet more of an extreme amount. That it is a political agenda should not be in doubt by anyone paying attention. The most recent example of this is the use of the subtropical storm occuring several weeks before hurricane season.
It seems that subtropical storms are caused by cold air over normal temperature ocean, not warm air or unusually warm ocean - which would, if anything, be an argument for a coming ice age and global cooling. However, being one of 17 named storms over the previous 50 yrs doesn't exactly put it as being a first or even being unusual in the realm of weather. But, the real kicker is that the rules of the game were changed within the last 5 years because that is when they started naming subtropical storms. Hence, there were never any named subtropical storms prior to that.
Are they nuts? Until HIV/AIDS overtook it, Malaria was the number one identifiable cause of death in the world.
Even modest increases in temperatures can have non-linear effects in transmission of vector borne diseases. For example Mexico City, while in a latitude where Malaria is endemic, is free of it because its altitude makes it too cool for the Anopheles mosquito to establish itself; that is to say the range of the disease vector is limited by latitude and altitude. Once conditions at its 2240m elevation become inhabitable, the tenth most populous city in the world becomes vulnerable.
In the US,there have been serious outbreaks of Yellow Fever as far north as Boston. The 1793 Philadelphia epidemic killed 10% of the population and was only checked by cold weather in November. Philadelphia was an interesting case because it epidemic came in with slave trading ships; international trade is now a major transporter of disease vectors such as the asian tiger mosquito.
Infectious agents are now thought to play a role in both maintaining and disrupting ecological stability. New organisms who move into an already occupied are immunologically naive to pathogens present in the habitat, which forms a kind of natural defense. Likewise they may bring new pathogens in; the European settlement of the Americas would have gone differently were it not for smallpox.
The disruptions caused by both climate change and the human response to it are likely to spill a number of novel tropical infectious agents (such as Ebola) from their currently limited geographic ranges. International trade will transport them around the world. In particular vector borne diseases that have a capacity to establish themselves in wild animal populations have the potential to become endemic in temperate regions (as West Nile did, although WNV is relatively benign as such things go).
That's not to say global warming won't have some health benefits. But we can expect a number of novel diseases to emerge, many well known diseases to become more of a problem.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
2) But as I pointed out in #1, the most obvious shared influence between the two planets (the intensity of the sun) isn't changing, and can't explain any warming trend we may be seeing on either planet. In short, if global warming is occurring on Mars, it has absolutely nothing to do with global warming on Earth.
3) Now, certainly there are regional variations in the amount of global warming we're seeing on Earth. But that's tangential to my point. For Earth, we have an excellent record of the global temperature, and we know that the average is going up. For Mars, the evidence of the local change is all we've got.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
You assume we'll let them in.
This is so cool, all that boring ice in Antartica will melt and now we'll all be able to find those fabulous temples hidden for thousands of years that only Lara Croft and those dudes from AVP were able to find.
Can't wait!
And I don't care what anyone says, when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were running the planet - the summers were much warmer and we were all just so much leaner and fitter.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You're welcome! Eat your veggies and wash your hands! And those dastardly trees, brought us allergies and sneezing from pollen, and forest fires! Get rid of them! And fish! Dang sharks bite surfboarders! Out! Stupid nature, always being there and all, not clean and pure like a nice video game console and virtual reality!
You can go back to downloading your food off the intartubes now, must be really tasty!
How about because you can put a chart showing hurricane activity (decrease, hold, then increase) on top of a chart showing mean global temperature (steady increase) and there is no correlation over the past 60 years. Would that do it?
How about because global warming is supposed to tend to increase temperatures more in the places that are currently cold, and less in places that are warm, which would tend to lower the difference in temperature extremes, and hurricanes/storms are caused by temperature (/pressure) differences, not just temperature. Would that do it?
How about the increased number of climate events like "El Niño," which seem to reduce the number of hurricanes. The same news I have heard say "more hurricanes, OH NOES!" also say "more El Niño's, OH NOES!"
Maybe because I just feel like playing devil's advocate. How about that, do you think that would do it?
Apathy; it does a body good.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
I have one simple question about this whole 'Global Warming will kill us all and is the work of the devil' debate.
/ vostok/vostok_data.htmlc o2.gif
What's the right temperature?
Was it when we had sheets of ice covering 50% of the earth's surface? Was it when Vikings were setting up farming communities on Iceland?
The Vostok ice core seems to show a cyclical C02 level, with spikes at approximately 400 thousand years ago, 325 thousand years ago, 225 thousand years ago, 125 thousand years ago, and one that we're in the middle of. When compared with these time scales, looking at levels in times we can directly measure is as useless as picking a random 1 minute period to watch the stock market, and using that to predict market trends for the next 20 years. We cannot demonstrate that industry is causing this 'problem' because, not only do we have no direct readings from before industry, we don't actually know that there's a problem. This could easily be all natural.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
The "right" temperature is the one around which we've built about 200 years of rapid industrial expansion.
The problem is really not that the temperature changes, it's that it's changing more quickly than we can easily adapt to it.
The rest of your argument is addressed in the various reports at www.ipcc.ch.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
A fast scan of the articles shows nothing to dispute the validity of the Vostok ice core, or the conclusion I drew from it.
As far as difficulty adapting to the temperature changes goes, I'm going to say "Good." People innovate to increase luxury, but nearly so well as they innovate to prevent discomfort. Besides, nature's going to keep adjusting to changing conditions. All the other crap environmentalists worry about global warming for is a non-issue. The only real issue is how it will affect people, and people are really good at keeping the status quo from dropping. We'll figure out whatever we need to.
I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
The increased heat won't just cause ice to melt and the oceans to rise, it also increases evaporation and the ability of the air to retain water. The ocean's may rise, but not as much as everyone will think. How could there be more precipitaion in many area's without increased evaporation and humidity? Water is in a constant cycle and it can't just come from nowhere; it's the Law of Conservation of Matter.
Yeah. That's what I mean, because the "Global Cooling" thing was media sensationalism just as much as the "Global Warming is the End of the World" thing is now. Of course, the media is never wrong about these things, which is why SARS killed everybody.
e mperature_Record.png _ 1950-2004_RGB.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:NOAA_ACE_index
I know that only indicates atlantic hurricanes, but it was easy to find. If you have something that shows world-wide hurricane activity, I would be happy to modify my opinion.
What I see in the ACE index is a roughly downward trend from 1950 to 1970, things level off, then in 95 a significant increase, without a trend leading into it. I assume you will tell me if you see something different.
Breaking the global temperatures into the same sections, from 1950 to 1970 is either level or barely increasing temperature, from 1970 to 1995 is pronounced and near constant increase, and this trend continues from 1995 to now.
From this I can conclude that if temperatures stay the same, Hurricanes are above average. If temperatures increase, hurricanes are below average. And finally, if temperatures increase, hurricanes are above average.
What a stunningly significant correlation. I mean, clearly Hurricanes are caused by global warming. How could I ever have doubted.
Apathy; it does a body good.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Shell chairman Sir Philip Watts risks stirring up a controversy in America today when he calls for global warming sceptics to get off the fence and accept that action needs to be taken "before it is too late". - see http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,912530,00.html
In a Stanford University address, BP's chief executive John Browne said the United States together with Britain, China and other heavily industrialized nations need to create an "international climate agency" to reduce pollution linked to global climate change. (Look it up on google, and select the cache, there is registration involved otherwise)
Shell CEO John Hofmeister "It's a waste of time to debate it," he said. "Policymakers have a responsibility to address it. The nation needs a public policy. We'll adjust." - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14733060/
Bush would outline steps the government will take to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/artic les/2007/01/22/bush_set_to_tackle_global_warming/
Just the typical people you'd expect to be convinced by hippies. Stupid oil executives want us to believe in global warming so that they look good to their hippie friends. And that Bush guy just wants to court support from his hippie constituency.
A quick look says that your post count in this topic is higher than mine. So either you can't add, subtract or compare, or you made shit up, or just flat out lied. Again.
I always find it amusing to read a reply that says "I stopped replying to you". I find it equally amusing that me replying to you somehow causes you to waste time. All in all, your insanity has been a nice source of entertainment.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
The concept is interesting (I have had two of them before), it is called the "chicken tractor" (googleable), or lightweight movable coop. You drag it over new areas of pasture/lawn every other day or so. As to their litter on the ground-a sprinker takes care of that easily, that and the ground insects-but in your case, sounds like none of the above is a much better idea. Other folks can do it though. There is no one size fits everyone urban or suburban "homesteading" scheme. A friend of mine really wanted a garden once, all he has was a second story tiny apartment with no authorized access to any of the grounds. The solution he did was a few small tomatoes and peppers in pots out on the roof!
It amazes me that some people can ignore the huge volume of scientific data concerning global warming. I can't help but wonder what motivates these people. I have found that many have some vested interest or relationship with the oil industry and others have religious beliefs that won't allow them to consider that man could destroy the planet.
I had one guy tell me that the world was made for man and we would never run out of oil because God had created the world to serve man's needs forever.
This guy, however, really is something. I replied to one of his rants where he discounted the ice core science without showing any references of course. I simply said "You're dead wrong on that." and got modded down into oblivion. Probably rightfully so as I should have posted various cites but I didn't feel it would do any good as he was ignoring all other cites that were posted by various people.
He responded in a very rude and obnoxious way. I believe you are correct. There is something not right with this dude. He actually insinuated that believing in global warming could cause irreparable damage. I didn't quite understand how pushing the world to clean up the environment could be dangerous but it made as much sense as the other dribble he was severing.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It has been argued that the world's temperature has a history of fluctuation. This is true. However, the real problem is not that the Earth temperature fluctuates but that we are causing it to change at a much greater rate than creatures can evolve.
It's one thing for the average temperature to change a few degrees over the course of a million years it's very much more dangerous to our ecosystem to have that same change over a few hundred years.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Okay Mr. Wizard, what is your basis for saying global warming has anything to do with hurricanes? Just because? All I'm looking for is some sort of data to verify the position, and I don't see any.
Could some form of global warming contribute meaningfully to the formation of hurricanes? Certainly; it isn't impossible. That doesn't mean I see any evidence that it is actually happening. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that it has? I don't see it. Honestly, I didn't have an opinion on this 3 days ago, and I don't have a lot of emotion invested in the opinion I have formed up to this point. Enlighten me, I'm happy to change my mind when confronted with new information.
While you're at it, you can explain my strawman to me, too. Unless you're saying that my arguement is faulty because I used sarcasm and hyperbole to paraphrase it at the end? How about this then: "I mean, clearly Hurricanes are affected by global warming." Better?
Apathy; it does a body good.
Could some form of global warming contribute meaningfully to the formation of hurricanes? Certainly; it isn't impossible. That doesn't mean I see any evidence that it is actually happening. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe that it has? I don't see it. Honestly, I didn't have an opinion on this 3 days ago, and I don't have a lot of emotion invested in the opinion I have formed up to this point. Enlighten me, I'm happy to change my mind when confronted with new information.
While you're at it, you can explain my strawman to me, too. Unless you're saying that my arguement is faulty because I used sarcasm and hyperbole to paraphrase it at the end? How about this then: "I mean, clearly Hurricanes are affected by global warming." Better? Just look at the second image you linked to, note that of the last 11 years, more than half have an ACE of 200+, more than twice the number of years than in the 40+ years before. But even that doesn't prove much. But once we have "proof" it will be too late already.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060316_hurr icane_sst.html
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
>If you're implying that the GW models have fudge factors in them to accomodate more warming than CO2 can provide, that's false.
What I'm implying is that co2 is being assumed to be the total cause of the warming when it is not, creating a built in fudge factor right off the bat. Considering that co2 is well into its logrithmic range and that it's total contribution amounts to only 3-4 deg C out of the 30-35 deg C total contributions of all GHGs, it's pretty well run it's course because it really doesn't matter that much whether most of the radiated energy within the absorption bands is absorbed in 30 feet or 15 feet. On the other hand, methane levels have increased by 150% rather than the almost 50% of co2 and it is a vastly far more potent GHG when talking levels and is still substantially more potent over the lifespan of the co2 in the atmosphere despite despite the much shorter time spent there (but that doesn't matter when talking of current concentrations). Also, the few tenths of a percent of solar luminance variability has an effect and so does the variability of the magnetic field as it indirectly affects cloud cover which is far more potent than co2 and methane combined. And, we haven't even gotten to the part about atmospheric mixing (which is the reason why you don't see the atmospheric temperatures rising as predicted) nor the precipitation which is also quite a serious factor.
If you haven't noticed, el nino and la nina are large scale regional ocean temperature variations first discovered several hundred years ago and hence, are known to be natural occurances - predating the industrial age. This is a variation of ocean temperature, one of which is a warmer ocean over a rather large region, implying a huge natural release of co2. However, the direct variation of co2 concentrations in ocean water are dependent both on temperature and on co2 concentrations in the atmosphere above the water (as well as pH).
>>That's because the temperature increase decreases the ocean's ability to sink CO2 on long time scales. On long time scales, we will see an increase of natural CO2 as well due to our current warming, for the same reason. However, that has nothing to do with the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 we are emitting is causing the current warming.
As I provided information above indicating other potential causes, it turns out that anthropogenic co2 warming being the cause is not something that is proven and there are other factors contributing which are not being properly considered. Consequently, it's not a proven fact, it is an assumption, substantially based upon a supposed lack of other alternatives. Since all are contributing factors to some extent or another, to lump them all into the co2 category means that co2 has been skewed and is being attributed to having more influence than it actually does. There are questions as to whether it even has a significantly measureable effect, much less a dominant effect on the temperature rise seen so far.
>>If you're implying that scientists have claimed that there is an increase in tropical storms merely by adding subtropical storms into the list, that's also false.
It's also not what I said. Scientists do research. They don't do the newscasts and they don't make decisions concerning naming storms. That was a decision made by politicians and bureaucrats, regardless of any prior training they might have had.
I guess the question should have been, "Whatever happened to the all the media coverage about the hole in the ozone?" The way the media covers global warming used to be the way they covered the hole in ozone 10-15 years ago. And before that, how they covered the cold war nuclear proliferation. To the point: the media tries to increase people's fear of these issues in order to increase ratings.
I also note that your article was responsible enough to point out that there is no overwhelming scientific consensus in this matter, which means we can persue our different opinions without either of us being unreasonable.
Regardless, I am not trying to form public policy, and I don't care enough about my fellow man to tell them to stop driving SUV's so they don't get washed into the atlantic by hurricanes, or drowned by rising sea levels, or what ever else global warming is supposed to kill us with. What I'm saying is, "too late" isn't really a concept that bothers me here. If the only way to get proof that global warming is affecting hurricanes, or otherwise going to kill us all, is to have some global warming and see what happens, I propose that this is a necessity for the sake of science. Think of what we could learn, all for the low price of people paying for thier mistakes.
Apathy; it does a body good.
Psst. This the United States of America. You don't have a choice as to if other American Citizens come into your town.
And that's not even paying attention to how many of us are already there. Even Utah, the most consistently "red" state of them all, has a substantial population of "blue."
We're obviously so good at it right now. There wouldn't be global warming if we could plan ahead well. What does that really mean anyway? We can't see the future and our estimates and whatnot are constantly changing. The best thing to do would be to try to prevent it getting worse since we know how we're screwing it up.
Given that I have personal access to two of the other people contained
I don't believe you.
and given that they're not reacting at all in the fashion Wikipedia claims,
Why should anyone believe the ramblings of some anonymous disturbed poster on slashdot over the people's public pronouncements?
Carl Wunsch is well known for being excitable.
Incredible that you should call ad hominem on someone else on this thread.
(snip some very naive confused ramblings based on misinformation)
can you point to any actual science that shows any good reason for the CO2 to have that lag
There are some papers referenced here.
Cite data or stop feigning familiarity.
I'm not feigning familiarity. I am not much more familiar with the science than you are, but the conclusions of the experts in the field who have studied the data are clear.
What I'm implying is that co2 is being assumed to be the total cause of the warming when it is not, creating a built in fudge factor right off the bat.
Of course that is a ridiculous strawman position. CO2 is not in any way assumed to be the total cause of the warming. This is easy to see right in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, where they show model predictions with natural, anthropogenic, and natural+anthropogenic forcings. Both manmade CO2 and natural effects are needed to explain the observed climate trends.
Considering that co2 is well into its logrithmic range and that it's total contribution amounts to only 3-4 deg C out of the 30-35 deg C total contributions of all GHGs, it's pretty well run it's course because it really doesn't matter that much whether most of the radiated energy within the absorption bands is absorbed in 30 feet or 15 feet.
That makes no sense whatsoever. CO2 has not in any way "run its course", and the amount of CO2 increase over pre-industrial levels is easily capable of producing the observed warming trend, according to the aforementioned logarithmic relation. Furthermore, the total contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, relative to other GHGs, is irrelevant when considering the amount of warming: what matters to the change in temperature is the change in GHGs, and the change in CO2 has overwhelmed the change in any other greenhouse gas as far as global warming potential is concerned, including methane.
On the other hand, methane levels have increased by 150% rather than the almost 50% of co2 and it is a vastly far more potent GHG when talking levels and is still substantially more potent over the lifespan of the co2 in the atmosphere despite despite the much shorter time spent there (but that doesn't matter when talking of current concentrations).
Methane levels, despite their rate, are still far too low to dominate CO2 in terms of total warming, and are not predicted to overtake CO2 any time in the near future. (In fact, there is some evidence that they have recently stabilized for unknown reasons, although that in no way implies that they will not continue to increase.)
Also, the few tenths of a percent of solar luminance variability has an effect
Yes, it has an effect, but it has been dominated by CO2 since the latter half of the 20th century, and considering our still-accelerating emissions rates, will continue to do so barring some really unusual solar behavior.
and so does the variability of the magnetic field as it indirectly affects cloud cover which is far more potent than co2 and methane combined.
There is no evidence that any variability in the Sun's magnetic field has affected climate.
And, we haven't even gotten to the part about atmospheric mixing (which is the reason why you don't see the atmospheric temperatures rising as predicted) nor the precipitation which is also quite a serious factor.
If those arguments are as weak as your others, perhaps it's best for you if we don't get to them.
If you haven't noticed, el nino and la nina are large scale regional ocean temperature variations first discovered several hundred years ago and hence, are known to be natural occurances - predating the industrial age.
Duh. They are also known to not produce long-scale climate trends.
But since I'm better at arguing your own position than you are, let me help you out and note that there are also longer, multidecadal trends in ocean behavior. (However, like the solar variations, they are not large enough to account for the observed warming.)
This is a variation of ocean temperature, one of which is a warmer ocean over a rather large region, implying a huge natural release of co2.
There has not actually been a huge natural release of CO2 from the oceans. For the ocean to source CO2 would require much, much larger warming over much, much longer time periods.
Thank you for persisting in spite of the ideologues.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
How can you be both at the same time?
I mean, many things that would be good for the environment are expensive and not financially viable (profit, profit, profit). Business, on the other hand, doesn't care much about the environment so, once again, how can you be an environmental economist? Short of being schizophrenic, that is!
>>Of course that is a ridiculous strawman position. CO2 is not in any way assumed to be the total cause of the warming. This is easy to see right in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers, where they show model predictions with natural, anthropogenic, and natural+anthropogenic forcings. Both manmade CO2 and natural effects are needed to explain the observed climate trends.
Did the summary include the decade long massive peat/coal fire in indonesia outputting about as much co2 as mankind?
Models that don't include factors properly or fully are just another form of video games. Without perfect understanding, they cannot be made or verified. Were there perfect understanding, a modeling program might provide some assistance in analysis but not so much in understanding. There, one would only have to worry about truncations and roundoff errors cropping into the calculations or approximations losing their validities. In other words, at best, models are a limited value tool.
>>Yes, it has an effect, but it has been dominated by CO2 since the latter half of the 20th century, and considering our still-accelerating emissions rates, will continue to do so barring some really unusual solar behavior.
The long term magnetic field strength is up starting in the latter half of the 20th century by about 40%. This is the value or baseline that the 11 (22) yr sunspot cycle 'sits' on. Note too that there are other cycles of solar activity which are even longer and are known (and named). It is thought to have cratered significantly back in the maunder minimum at the last mini ice age or cooling period just before the industrial age - when no sunspots were recorded for about 50 yrs (in a time when daily records of sunspots were being recorded).
>>There has not actually been a huge natural release of CO2 from the oceans. For the ocean to source CO2 would require much, much larger warming over much, much longer time periods. What warming does is simply decrease the rate at which the oceans sink CO2, and even that occurs on much longer time scales (multicentury) than what are relevant to the current warming. Eventually we will see the a big ocean response if the current warming proceeds unabated, but not any time soon.
>>>>Duh. They are also known to not produce long-scale climate trends.
A) it indicates cycles of ocean temperature.
B) warmer oceans release some co2 even in fairly short times even if it takes much longer time frames to release large amounts of it
C) nothing was said about it producing or being caused by climate trends.
>>That makes no sense whatsoever. CO2 has not in any way "run its course", and the amount of CO2 increase over pre-industrial levels is easily capable of producing the observed warming trend, according to the aforementioned logarithmic relation. Furthermore, the total contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect, relative to other GHGs, is irrelevant when considering the amount of warming: what matters to the change in temperature is the change in GHGs, and the change in CO2 has overwhelmed the change in any other greenhouse gas as far as global warming potential is concerned, including methane.
Methane is attributed to 20% of ghg effects with under 2ppm and is estimated to have increased by 150% since the 1700s (wikipedia article on methane). Since methane is far more potent than Co2, this effect has been greater than the equivalent of about 63ppm of co2 which would be above and beyond the actual co2 increases. Thats 2/3 again as much as the estimated Co2 increase since the 1700s. Co2 has 383ppm and is estimated to have increases under 38% since the 1700s. Due to overlaps in IR bands with methane and h2o vapor, contributions of co2 amounts to about 10%-12% of the 33 deg C or so of actual ghg contribution to earth's estimated temperature. Of course with no water vapor or methane in the atmosphere, it would contribute more, but then there is water vapor and methane in the atmosphere so it doesn't contribute mor
I don't see those same dramatic effects from human activity.
Oh, I see. You need, dramatic, visible effects to believe in them. Okay, well how about I gradually poison your drinking water with mercury. You can't see it, and it's happening slowly, so there's no evidence, right? Perfectly safe!
I want technologies that pay me this quarter, this year.
Wow... that's incredibly assinine. So I take it you don't believe in any kind of long term investment? Sounds like you fit right into American corporate and consumer culture. "I need IMMEDIATE GRATIFICATION!"
On the flipside, it is true that using economics to force change is a good thing (fuel efficient cars and CF bulbs are increasing in popularity for a reason). The problem is, such changes create inflation that disproportionately affects the lower and middle class, while the greatest consumers just keep on keeping on.
shit all over the US - the world's economic dynamo - for consuming so much energy.
Uhuh... well, they do consume a disproportionately large amount of energy, and produce a disproportionately large amount of CO2 as a consequence, all while downplaying the effects of such behaviour on climate. How can one *not* criticise?
Oh, and BTW, the economies of the EU and soon China are both comparable to the US... calling the states the "world's economic dynamo" is, I think, a bit of an overstatement.
Sorry, I didn't think I was responsible for what other people said. Shall I lambast you because of what other people said, too?
I suppose the phrase "nobody said" when defending one's own arguments could be misconstrued to mean "the entirety of humanity agrees with me." I mean, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think that, and it's honestly fairly clear I meant myself.
Actually, no it's not. If you mean "I never said that" then you should write "I never said that". Using "Nobody said that" is at best a transparent attempt to use deceptive language to imply there are a lot of other people who share your exact same beliefs. It's a dishonest argument tactic and one which does play much better than your being a fool who doesn't understand that people may legitimately disagree with you.
Yawn. Not by or for me. Exxon isn't paying me any money, and the data I'm reading comes from thermometers. It's kind of hard to bribe a thermometer. Or, didn't you know that weather balloons broadcast their data by radio, and thus couldn't be tainted? Or, has your paranoia gotten so bad that you actually believe the USGS is making faulty hardware to support corporate interests?
Ah, so anyone who disagrees with you must be paranoid and delusional? As far as I can tell you've only ever provided one source for your data. And that's one movie which was incorrectly sourced as "from the BBC" (a well respected organization) when it was from Channel 4 (a much less respected organization). You claim your information comes from thermometers and weather balloons, and we seem to agree on what both sources report. However, your interpretation of the data seems to be very, very different from the consensus opinion.
Again, this is only true if you ignore everything other than the last two hundred years. In the Holocene period we were well over 3500 PPM. In the Mesozoic we generally fluctuated between 1400 and 2100 PPM. You're freaking out over the difference between 295 and 380.
To be clear the Holocene period extends from 10,000 years ago to now. And according to what I've read "This record clearly shows that an atmospheric CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv was the rule during the preindustrial Holocene, including the early Holocene." http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/286/544 6/1815a
The information you might be looking at to get your information might include some ice core samples that were accidentally tainted during collection. Of course, those core samples report a level over 300 PPM not 3000 PPM. Of course, I don't know if you "obviously" meant 350 PPM and were just careless yet again with your arguments. It would certainly help if you ever bothered to link the sources for your outlandish claims.
Jesus god, man, get a sense of perspective. How many times do I have to tell you we're at the bottom of a valley before you quit screaming about how we're going to suffocate a hundred feet up the hill?
I see while you certainly complain loudly about being held to the truth of your own words, you're certainly not above shoving words down other people's throats. According to the charts I linked above, on the wikipedia climate page, we're are at a 140,000 year high, not a low.
The Mesozoic period is, of course, about 140 million to 240 million years ago. More commonly known as "the time of the dinosaurs". We didn't even exist as a species that long ago. Interesting enough there is some research, like this article that indicates high carbon dioxide levels may have ended the Mesozoic with a mass species extinction caused by global warming and CO2 levels. Additionally, there ar
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Did the summary include the decade long massive peat/coal fire in indonesia outputting about as much co2 as mankind?
(13-40% of the CO2 as mankind, actually, according to the 2002 Nature study.)
I have not had time to dig back through all the references, but I suspect that it probably does include that, since it was based on 2006 attribution studies which were performed well after the 2002 Indonesian study.
Models that don't include factors properly or fully are just another form of video games.
That's a nice weaselly statement. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the current models are so errnoneous that they are incapable of performing attribution at all, disagreeing with the vast majority of validation studies in print, it's just empty rhetoric.
The long term magnetic field strength is up starting in the latter half of the 20th century by about 40%. This is the value or baseline that the 11 (22) yr sunspot cycle 'sits' on. Note too that there are other cycles of solar activity which are even longer and are known (and named).
Magnetic field strength is not the same thing as solar intensity. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the climate is significantly influenced by the Sun's magnetic field (as opposed to solar intensity), this is a red herring.
It is thought to have cratered significantly back in the maunder minimum at the last mini ice age or cooling period just before the industrial age - when no sunspots were recorded for about 50 yrs (in a time when daily records of sunspots were being recorded).
Reconstructions of solar intensity for that time do indeed implicate solar variations in climate change (through changes in solar intensity). A repeat of such behavior would indeed slow down future global warming, but as I said before, would not come close to halting it, at least under business as usual scenarios.
A) it indicates cycles of ocean temperature.
Again, duh. Cycles of ocean temperature are known and not ignored.
B) warmer oceans release some co2 even in fairly short times even if it takes much longer time frames to release large amounts of it
Yes, they release some, but not an amount that has been significant compared to direct anthropogenic emissions into the atmosphere. (This may change in the future.)
I also don't know what your point is. Climate models do take into account the temperature-mediated diffusion of CO2 into and out of the oceans.
C) nothing was said about it producing or being caused by climate trends.
Well, then it's irrelevant to this discussion.
Methane is attributed to 20% of ghg effects with under 2ppm and is estimated to have increased by 150% since the 1700s (wikipedia article on methane). Since methane is far more potent than Co2, this effect has been greater than the equivalent of about 63ppm of co2 which would be above and beyond the actual co2 increases. Thats 2/3 again as much as the estimated Co2 increase since the 1700s.
Actually, the total radiative forcing of methane since pre-industrial times is estimated to be only 30% that of CO2 (IPCC SPM again).
ue to overlaps in IR bands with methane and h2o vapor, contributions of co2 amounts to about 10%-12% of the 33 deg C or so of actual ghg contribution to earth's estimated temperature.
The fractional contribution is not what is relevant to global warming. What is relevant is the fractional change. Most of the change in radiative forcing due to GHGs has been due to the change in CO2 concentrations.
Co2 is logrithmic now in concentrations anywhere within values experienced on earth, ever. [...] At 10% contribution to the 33 deg C of all ghgs, that puts us at about 3.3 deg C total contribution of Co2 with around 380 ppm.
I'm still trying to imagine wha
>>That's a nice weaselly statement. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the current models are so errnoneous that they are incapable of performing attribution at all, disagreeing with the vast majority of validation studies in print, it's just empty rhetoric.
You'll find 2 camps on models in general. I fit into one of those camps. Hint, that's the camp that doesn't think models produce anything beyond what is put into them. They beat doing calculations by slide rule, but then so does using a pocket calculator.
>> Magnetic field strength is not the same thing as solar intensity. Unless you are prepared to present evidence that the climate is significantly influenced by the Sun's magnetic field (as opposed to solar intensity), this is a red herring.
Different? Ya think? Gee maybe that's why I specifically mentioned it rather than leaving it lumped in with radiance. Ever hear of the wilson cloud chamber experiments? It was early research attempting to determine factors associated with cloud formation. It's best known for the discovery of cosmic rays. It seems that while creating the basic conditions for cloud formation, wilson noticed all these freaky little streaks of condensation occurring in his experimental apparatus. Suffice to say the field is being referred to as cosmoclimatology.
>> Actually, the total radiative forcing of methane since pre-industrial times is estimated to be only 30% that of CO2 (IPCC SPM again).
Curious, isn't it. Well, I guess if you want to consider that whole total amount of methane is the equivalent effect of a little over 30% of the total effect of co2, then it's probably right. That's starting with the 1.7 or 1.9ppm of methane concentration and multiplying by how effective it is compared to co2 - about 63 times as I recall the number over about a dozen years (which is not that relevent as it's the current amount and not how much is entering the atmosphere). For shorter times that number should be a bit more. If one multiplies 1.9 by 63 to get the equivalent of co2 ppm, that comes out a bit higher than 30% of the total amount of co2. So yes, the little 'reasonableness check' I just did jives with the IPCC number.
However, the 30% of co2 appears to refer to total contributions, not to the delta contributions since the industrial revolution. It would seem that the methane contribution for the increased temperature since the industrial revolution would be equivalent to at least an equivalent of 63 ppm of co2. Note again that since the lifespan of methane in the atmosphere is about a dozen years which is about the same length of time used to compare the methane vs co2 effects are that are used to create the 63x ratio, you can expect that it is somewhat higher. Again, since we're dealing with levels rather than releases, we need the instantaneous ratio not one that permits methane to substantially decay. This 63ppm co2 equivalent increase in methane corresponds to something like the 87ppm of actual co2 increase over the same period. That's about 42% of the total of those two combined and so the methane should contribute at least 42% of increases in GHG warming contributions caused by both of these increasing molecules. As such, any increase in temperature we've experienced from ghg increases should have 42 % being the methane contribution.
Now, how much warmer has it gotten since the beginning of the industrial revolution and 1998, the point where those concentrations and increases were determined and how much did IPCC attribute in increase in temperature to the increase in methane?
>>>I'm still trying to imagine what your point is. Yes, CO2 is in its logarithmic forcing regime. This is well known. Doubling CO2 from current concentrations would add about 1 C extra warming by the end of this century, which will likely be amplified by a further 1-3 degrees due to positive feedbacks (the climate sensitivity). Your "attribution" calculations ap
...with my cows as well. Been kicking this around now for awhile. Have some huge movable corral, encompassing a few acres or so.(ya, you need some good number of cows and big pastures for this to work) All the fence pieces on wheels. The whole thing is solar powered and crawls really slow, using GPS navigation to change areas they can really munch over. Well, ideally, initially I'd just use a diesel tractor once a day, drive up with a water tank on a trailer -a buffalo they are called-, refill the reservoir/watering thing that is attached on the inside, then attach the movable corral with another hitch on the back of the buffalo trailer, and drag it over another few acres. Instead of fencing the whole property, just use that, then all you need is just a little Y chute action to move out what ones you wanted to sell. Added bonus, you could run them over fresh mown hayfields and corn plots, let them eat the stubble. (I *hate* fencing and repairs and keeping them clean, seems a huge waste of time and resources when all you want to do is keep cows from escaping. I'd much rather just mow the perimeter than try and keep the fences from getting overgrown, and corral sections are better than fences anyway, sorta giant lincoln log deals made out of steel, go together easy) I guess you could have the chickens bring up the rear with an additional section, so they get dragged over the previous area. I know I could build a small one here to do that, but it wouldn't be practical size for me. I have enough spare corral sections and old junk axles and wheels etc to do one maybe-gee, not big, 1/4 acre maybe. I think it would be a neat project to do with a lot of solar panels and an electric motors and GPS and whatnot, get it as automated as possible. The only catch is watering, haven't worked that out yet on a big scale other than underground taps that automatically "dock" each day.
ZOMG, How are you SO stupid?
"I challenge you to justify that claim with published data."
Fine. Here is it.
"As the previous poster pointed out, there are large non-anthropogenic sources of CO2, but until recently they have been essentially balanced by non-anthropogenic sinks of CO2, so that net CO2 concentrations remained pretty much constant on timescales of millennia. We are now sourcing CO2 at a much greater rate than it can be sunk, leading to a rapid rate of accumulation."
Put down the thesaurus and learn some science. It might help you in discussions like this.
It's not narcissicism if it's true!
I don't buy it, since it has melted in the past at 4 degrees warmer than now.
_ Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:65_Myr_Climate