Slashdot Mirror
26 Common Climate Myths Debunked
holy_calamity writes to mention that New Scientist is revealing the truth behind the '26 most common climate myths' used to muddy the waters in this ongoing heated debate. "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors. Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
That was the 16th myth on the list.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you read any articles about Global Warming you will see that some local areas will get colder, wetter, more snowfall, and more ice accumuluation because of shifting water currents and atmospheric wind patterns. The issue is GLOBAL WARMING, not is it warmer at my house.
Bobo Mahoney
I'm unsurprised that anti-climate-change folks can find a few PhDs who will agree with them. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all. But unless Morano's "more to come" has another 10,990 scientists on it, his "converts" are still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
You might get the short end of the stick:
= 10148
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid
Did you even read the article?
Sounds like NS neglected to debunk the biggest myth of them all, namely that global warming means a uniform increase in temperature everywhere on the planet.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Those people who talk about ice melting and water logging the cities of the world haven't taken into consideration the increased evaporation in the Oceans. The Indian ocean for example is 30cm lower then what gravity says it should be due to an increased evaporation. The oceans haven't been going up in fact due to such evaporation. Water evaporates from the ocean and gets deposited elsewhere Like in the east antarctic where the ice sheet is actually growing not shrinking. That is the balance of the globe.
Anecdote, meet data.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Instead of listing 26 reasons that global warming is real and caused by humans, wouldn't we all be better served by a list of 26 things that a single person can do to improve our quality of life and the health of the environment (that just so happen to also reduce global warming) that aren't prohibitively expensive or that demand levels of sacrifice that we all know Joe Blow won't make?
Exactly. In fact, if you read the article, you would have noticed a few that specifically are What Can I Do issues.
Let's break it down:
First, Primary, Big Impact: your cars, SUVs, trucks. This accounts for probably 50 percent of your lifestyle choices that impact global warming (or cataclysmic global climate change, since it oscillates like crazy when pushed).
What can you do?
A. Easy - take your vehicle(s) in for regular tuneups. Keep the tires PROPERLY inflated. Amazingly, this can affect 10 percent of your impact from vehicles.
B. Moderate - next vehicle(s) you buy, new or used, just get one that gets 5 mpg BETTER than your last.
C. Real Change - increase transit use, walking, and bicycling instead of car/SUV/truck use. Switch from a low mpg class like an SUV that you use for in-city driving to a passenger car with twice the mpg. Carpool. Move closer to where you work. Have fewer cars in your family (for example, drop the kids off en route and make them take the bus home).
Second. Flying. If you visit Europe, consider only flying to the first destination, and using their high-speed passenger rail system (same time as a jet) to travel from one city to the next, and then using local transit once you arrive. This will save you money, and sometimes time. If travelling to Germany, but wanting to see London, consider flying to London and then taking the train the rest of the way, stopping along the way to see other spots. Or use one of the new Boeing low-fuel plane models on a flight leg if you can (they use 50 percent as much jet fuel, a MAJOR impact on global warming, and it cost YOU the SAME or less to fly on it).
Third. Lightbulbs. Seriously. Just consider replacing lights as they burn out with high-quality inexpensive 4 or 6 packs of Compact Flourescent Lights (CFL) at Home Depot - usually I can get 4 for about $6 or 6 for $9. Worth a trip. This will SAVE YOU MONEY. Each lasts five to seven years, they use 1/8 as much energy. Or consider the slightly expensive LED lights - they use 1/20th the energy - new ones are WHITE light. These should be as cheap as CFLs by 2008, and will be required in most US states and all of Canada, so it's not like you have a choice anyway.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.
This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:
RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of MinnesotaJC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer
There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear campaign). Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.
There is no inconsistency there, at most it was bad phrasing. What article to meant was that "Of all the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans, the great majority was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750." I admit that it was very badly stated, but anyone with the slightest reading comprehension would understand that they were talking about portions of human emissions. Especially when combined with the second half of the sentence which discussed the United States' percent of emissions.
If you have actual evidence, please bring it up. I will promise (to try) to not nit pick at typos or badly phrased sentences.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
How can I debunk your debunking, when you can't even be bothered to read the article?
There is, in fact, fairly compelling evidence through geological proxies (over much much broader periods than the instrument-based data) that:
1. The Earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles in the past. The current cycle is not outside this norm.
2. We have been in a warming phase since long before industrialization. In fact, the current warming trend dates back something like 18kyrs.
3. Temperature changes lead CO2 level changes, not the other way around. This strongly supports the idea that higher temperatures somehow cause CO2 levels to rise, not vice versa. (One theory suggests that lower gas solubility in the oceans, a major sink for CO2, as they warm -- far more slowly than the air -- accounts for much of this release.)
Did someone mention Greenland yet again?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you'd like to do some of the experiments discussed in the article yourself, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.
Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Posting anonymously so I can moderate too.
However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.
FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but
perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand it.
We have a history of global warming or cooling alarmists. My fist assumption by looking at just a small history of reporting is that we don't have a friggin clue.
Example:- In 1895 The New York Times wrote "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again."
- In 1924 New York Times ran stories about "A New Ice Age."
- In 1933 the New York Times wrote "The Longest Warming Spell since 1776."
- In 1975 the New York Times wrote, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable. "
Now Time Magazine's turn:I have no idea whether these scientists or climatologists really have a clue or not, but we should be focusing on cleaning up are act regardless. Cleaner energy is a great thing regardless if global warming or cooling is looming. Purely recyclable products should become mandatory. I think we have a moral obligation to have as little impact on the environment as possible. We are clearly intelligent enough to know that most of our byproduct aren't good for the environment and intelligent enough to figure out how to clean it up.
It really shouldn't matter whether you believe global warming/cooling is real or not. It shouldn't matter if your of some political affiliation or not and it shouldn't matter if your an environmentalist or not. What matters is that you do your part and make a statement by doing whatever you can to help reduce pollution and waste.
Here is annual
. ann.trend.pdf
a nn.trend.pdf
temperature plot from the south pole Amundsen-Scott station:
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/amundsen-scott
Vostok:
http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/vostok.
Now, do you see any temperature trend at all there?
I am assuming you wanted a real list of scientists. Now this is only a partial list. Many of these scientists fought to have Canada leave the Kyoto treaty and are firm Global Warming skeptics.
= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad -494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction
Some of these scientists are dyed in the wool environmentalists as well, not a big oil employee.
Let's recap shall we.
New scientist publishes an article that says "polar bear populations are rising" is a myth. They claim that some populations are rising, others falling, and the overall trend is unknown.
A skeptic points to an article about reliable research that found that one particular population of polar bears was rising. (Exactly what the new scientist article states.) The skeptic asks "what gives?"
True believer tries to answer, by pointing out that new scientist was trying to show that some populations are rising, whereas others are falling, and the overall trend is unknown. Hence "polar bear populations are rising" is a myth, or at least incomplete and misleading. Furthermore, there is no contradiction between the New Scientist claims and the data the skeptic linked to.
Then random passerby comes along, mixes up facts, and mis-represents the discussion so far. He ends with a quasi-personal attack and mythological reference.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Actually, a lot of ice is on top of dirt, not water, and so when it melts, it gets added to the ocean, raising the water levels. Glaciers on mountains are an obvious example. The south pole is a land mass, as is much of the northern area which is covered by ice. just because some ice is on top of water does not mean that all ice is floating. So, no, it is not clear to me what the water level will actually do.
wake up and hold your nose
Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.
This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.
Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.
The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.
You can't take the sky from me...
Um, no . . . the point is the second article claims that the humans of the "developed world" contributed to the "great majority of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and the first article claimed that the human contribution was small compared to natural sources.
Pay attention.
The two statements are mutually exclusive.
It's a dynamic equilibrium, with large sources and sinks of CO2. Adding more from human sources will increase the total amount, even if net production is small compared to natural sources.
dominionrd.blogspot.com - Restaurants on
Typical one sided report. Even the "myths" are written out like a bad true or false test you take at the DMV. 1. It is ok if I run through a red light from time to time, but only if I'm in a hurry. I'm not saying their arguments don't hold merit, but there is certainly a counter-argument to these claims.
Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ? Errr.. it's simple really. You're comparing a quantity with the rate of change of a quantity.
The "great majority of the carbon dioxide...[which] was put there by the developed world" is referring to the excess of carbon dioxide which is not able to be absorbed by historic processes which are fully capable of absorbing historic (comparatively very large) emissions of carbon dioxide.
Besides, the point is not to make it look "threatening", but to zoom in on the region of interest. Second. this guy is even worse. Where's the calculated effect of terrestrial water vapor, i.e., the stuff near the ground? Water vapor isn't on that chart because it is a feedback, not a forcing. It's wrapped up in a quantity known as "climate sensitivity", which is the key quantity being debated in the literature. "Anthropogenic?" Uh, sorry, but contributing less than half a percent to that CO2 value annually doesn't make all that carbon "anthropogenic." In fact, virtually all of the ~35% increase in total CO2 levels is anthropogenic. I really fail to see how having half the highest CO2 concentrations of the past million years is going to do anything, Why not? Do you dispute that CO2 concentrations have changed the climate in the past? and especially with the relatively minute contribution Homo sapiens, As noted, homo sapiens has not made a "minute" contribution to CO2 levels. would be warming the world more than having an atmosphere in the first place. Humans aren't warming the world more than having an atmosphere does. They're still warming the world. What's your point?
Bullshit.
... not "due in part to," or "exacerbated by," or "accelerated by..." And you know exactly what I mean, and that I'm right.
Hmmm. How about re-reading the summary from this very post?
"...Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."
This is completely typical. Use of phrases like "due to human activity"
From the U.N.'s web site: "Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps now show unequivocally that the world is warming due to human activities, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in new report released today in Paris."
No mention of whether, or the degree to which, other factors play a role. Nope, the earth is "warming due to human activities." What else is one to take away from a that sentence, which introduces the UN's conclusions on the subject?
From a USA today interview: "The element of surprise here is that the picture is becoming so clear that (climate) changes are due to human activity," said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences.
That's the president of the freakin' NAS. Maybe his middle name is "strawman," and that's what you're referring to?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Astonishing -- even people with very low Slashdot IDs don't bother to RTFA.
:) The part about percentage of energy absorbed in various wavelengths by various greenhouse gases was interesting, in the section about CO2 not being the most important greenhouse gas. I'd heard that complaint, but not the response before.
Actually, I did RTFA. I learned a few things, too.
Unfortunately...
Most of what I read was one form or another of "it's complicated and there isn't enough evidence but we believe it" when talking about things that support Anthropomorphic Climate Change, and "it's complicated but there isn't enough evidence so we don't believe it" when talking about things that don't support human-caused climate change.
It was rather sad.
That 800 year lag, incidentally... They don't know where it comes from exactly. In general, sure, you can hand-wave an explanation about it. Quoting from the article:
What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor - most probably orbital changes - caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2
followed by
The source of this extra carbon was the oceans, but why did they release CO2 as the planet began to warm? Many factors played a role and the details are still far from clear.
That's a sciency way of saying "we don't know." Which is what I said before.
The neat thing with me arguing about this is that I don't really object to a lot of the things reasonable people want to do about this, and I actually support a lot of them. Stop building coal power plants, build nuclear power plants instead. Sharply reduce gasoline use in vehicles, use electricity from those nukes to power electric cars for the 80% of people that only need a car to go 100 miles or less in a day. Use some real science to figure out how to do sustainable agriculture and fishing. (We in the US are doing horrible things to our farmland. All countries everywhere in the world are doing awful things to global fish stocks. I like eating fish... and I want to still be able to eat fish 30 years from now.)
These things make sense. But it makes sense on environmental stewardship and sustainable development grounds, much more than it does as a response to some scary global disaster that you can't back up with real defensible data.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Actually, "cabbage palm" is the common name for at least five species. On the US East Coast, it usually refers to Sabal palmetto. In the case of this species, the name comes from the fact that the soft, central part of the bud is harvested and eaten as a vegetable, and has an internal structure much like a cabbage. I'd guess this is true of the other cabbage palms, too.
The potted plants I saw (in a nursery west of Boston) looked like this species, but I didn't examine them closely. I just thought "How about that?" and went on. I think that several of the other cabbage palm species are for sale in the US, too.
Coconut palms would be a lot more fun, but I suppose it's still a few years before they'll survive this far north.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.