Slashdot Mirror
2008 Is the Coldest Year of the 21st Century
dtjohnson writes "Data from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office suggests that 2008 will
be an unusually cold year due to the La Nina effect in the western
Pacific ocean. Not to worry, though, as the La Nina effect has
faded recently so its effect on next year's temperatures will be
reduced. However, another natural cycle, the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures
steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into
new warmth. If these predictions are correct, there must be
a lot of planetary heat being stored away somewhere ... unless the heat
output from the sun
is decreasing
rather than increasing
or the heat being absorbed by the earth is decreasing due to changes in
the earth's albedo."
Global warming is a misnomer anyway - it should be called, "global climate instability."
No, the heat output from the sun is not changing to reflect the temperature changes.
Global warming doesn't stop or create the normal cycles. It makes them more active.
The particulate matters in the air reflects light.
Not enough to completly offset the global warming.
Look up global dimming.
The melting of the ice sheets is having a cooling effect on Europe.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Oh man, I am going to try and resist checking this thread later on...
Climate change denial has got to be the (second) largest example of cognitive dissonance and self-deception in history. Let's hope reason and logic come back into fashion soon.
Jeremy
C'mon, just say it. All of you climatologists need to Say "We have no fucking clue" in chorus and three part harmony. Global warming, global cooling, impending ice ages, heating sun, cooling sun. I'm tired of it. Tell you what, why don't you just have a big conference, admit to the world that you're totally clueless and are only spouting these opposing theories in a despeate grab for grant money, then have a gigantic clamateological circle-jerk and make Al Gore eat the bagel. Jackasses.
is predicted to hold global temperatures steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into new warmth
Nice religion you have there.
..."global climate instability" says to little.
Awe, and here I was going to propose we officially call it "Earth Does Stuff". Too vague?
Hype the headline a little more, will ya?
No one is denying climate change. No one even denies that human activity (or the sun or various natural cycles) influences the change. The argument is over how big a role each factor plays. (Along with accusations of exaggerating selected factors for political or commercial gain.) As with many scientific questions, teasing apart correlation and cause is exceedingly difficult - especially with multi-factor causes.
Basically, the logic is that every weather event or phenomenon is somehow either proof of global warming, or happened despite it and in no way can be used to refute it. Haven't you figured that out yet?
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
It's not going to just get warmer over short time periods.. It always amazes me that folks don't realize that.
It would be a lot more interesting if 2008 was the coldest year in the last 100 years instead of the coldest year "this century."
2001, or 2000 for those who short-change the first century, set a record as both the coldest and hottest year of the century. The following year broke one of those records.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
> Sounds like thing are pretty much consistent with the currently accepted climate models,
> at least for the time being.
To borrow a phrase I have grown to hate.... citation needed.
Show me one warmer's scare charts that predicted we would COOL DOWN for a decade. Every chart I have ever seen showed ever increasing temps until we all DIE.
And even when the MSM report stories like this one, about a cooling trend, they have to get the "but we are still gonna f**king DIE!" into the second paragraph.
Democrat delenda est
Global Cooling was a big theory in the 70s. It's like clothing, the styles recycle themselves if you wait long enough.
The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.
Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overal there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.
The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.
There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.
This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.
IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
It's not going to just get warmer over short time periods.. It always amazes me that folks don't realize that.
I've been telling people this for a while. I liken it to a spinning top. When it begins to slow down it starts wobbling and becoming very erratic. The difference is that unlike a top, the climate will eventually begin to restabilize. It just might not stabilize in a way that humans are particularly comfortable with.
This guy's the limit!
Global climate instability? Isn't that more like, the status quo?
If you DO buy into human-caused global climate change, you should call it that.
Wow, believe it or not, most people aren't going to care about a theory that A) Doesn't affect them
Rising sea levels are already damaging coast line and harming fresh water life. Maple syrup producing seasons are shortening. This affects industries in an immediate way. States are losing tax revenue due to Maple Syrup production going to Canada and tourism being affected by damaged bodies of fresh water.
B) has many people that reject it
Many people also can't be bothered to learn the facts behind issues when they vote. What's your point?
C) Has no short or medium-term impact and D) has no effects right now.
As I stated, global warming is already affecting many people. If you disagree, then you have your head in the sand.
We need socialism to prevent these common tragedies (externalities of our carbon-based energy infrastructure).
SIG:
while (1)
{
cout *" endl;
}
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's some more context to think about:
14,000 years ago, Michigan was covered by a glacier. I have a hunch that SUVs did not melt this glacier.
More
2008 may be the coldest year of the 21st century, but every other 21st century year sits at the top of the list of warmest years on record.
Seriously? The list you linked to starts in the late 19th centure, at the tail end of a freakin' ice age. Is it any wonder there would be warmer years after that?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Climate change denial
... they have to nail that part down)... well, it's nonsense. You want cognitive disconnect? Check with the people who are convinced that there are no factors involved except for humans, and in particular the people that aren't in their political party.
You're confusing "denial" over climate change (of course it changes! the Sahara was green thousands of years ago, we used to be in an ice age, etc) with being very wary about the political motivations of many of the more shrill people on the stage. Those who claim that the only reason we're looking at any climate change is because of human activity, and that ceasing human activity would magically restore the dynamic climate back to some idyllic state (um... maybe with a green Sahara, but without the continent-covering glaciers, etc?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
Is that the science that predicts half of Manhattan underwater? That's like saying your bank account is roughly in line with the bank's accounting when you're overdrawn by $1000.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Ding ding ding! You win a cupie doll!
Couple the debate about anthropogenic climate change with the fact that it appears the climate is cooling, and it becomes apparent we don't know what the heck's going on. Until climatologists can come up with a model that'll accurately predict weather for a given region during a given month, at least six months out, or hell at least come up with a model that when run with past data points yields the same observed weather, then I'm going to continue ignoring the lot of them as little boys yelling "wolf". There might indeed be a wolf there this time, but the danger in believing him and being wrong is greater than the alternative.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Wow...modded insightful.
I think a good rule of thumb is to just use less energy than algore. If he truly believes the planet is in perial, he must be a good barometer to measure one's self against.
--
The Marines: The few, the proud, the not very bright. - Slashdot tagline 04/21/05
Oh give me a break. The ice caps are melting, or haven't you heard?
That's why we use ice in our cooler chests: when they melt they absorb a lot of heat, and the ice cold runoff keeps the things around them cooler than they would otherwise be. But just because the ice is melting but your beer is cold you can't conclude that the sun has cooled off.
What you should conclude is that you'd better drink your beer before the ice melts, 'cause it's going to warm up real fast as soon as the ice is gone.
--MarkusQ
Did you know that , at the time of 9/11 , 2001 was the coldest year of the 21st century.
It was also the hottest year of the 21st century (at that time).
The term 'century' is often used to refer to a period of 100 years. However we have had less than 8 years of the 21st century so far. Wake me up when you have the results from the whole 100 years (ie in 2101)
I've been telling people this for a while. I liken it to a spinning top. When it begins to slow down it starts wobbling and becoming very erratic. The difference is that unlike a top, the climate will eventually begin to restabilize. It just might not stabilize in a way that humans are particularly comfortable with.
Come on....that's a horrible metaphor...the top wobbles because it loses energy and can't sustain the equilibrium between the centrifugal/centripetal force and gravity not because it gets hotter or retains energy. Also, with regards to the parent that you extol, I'm not sure coldest in 8-9 years counts as a record of any note for a geological/climate scale.
I'm not saying you're wrong about climate instability but exactly what are you're qualifications and what is your point other than "trust me it's going to get unstable"? If you have any qualifications or a point then get a better metaphor, poor teaching methods mean you're a liability to your cause.
Speaking of Al Gore (many people mentioned him already), this reminds me of the day he gave a speech about global warming in New York... on the coldest day in that city's recorded history!! Ok, so some will tell you that it's not global warming, it's climate change. I have no proof to either confirm or deny that, so I do not have an opinion. However, let's examine this situation from another vantage point: History indicates that the Earth has had warmer and colder periods (such as the Ice Age) in the past, so it stands to reason that the climate probably has periods of increasing warmth followed by periods of increasing coldness. We have recorded data going back decades or maybe a few centuries at most. Beyond that, we rely on data collected from cores drilled out of ice and whatnot, and we make certain assumptions about how to interpret that data. Let's also take into consideration that although it is possible to fly across an entire continent in a matter of hours (for example, a trip from New York to Los Angeles takes less than six hours in the air), if you try to trek across that same continent by means available to the human race two hundred years ago, you will find that it takes you months; thus, the Earth is a big huge ball. I once worked on a project where the temperature of a giant steel fixture was taken at various points, several feet apart, every hour of the day. Part of this fixture was exposed to sunlight for several hours. We only BEGAN to measure increased temperature AFTER the sun was no longer shining on it, since it took it that long to respond to temperature changes. Applying this to a huge ball like the Earth (which, as I said, is so big that trekking across a continent will take months), any change to the climate will be extremely slow and will only show up after a delay of years or decades. Indeed, I once heard (though I don't remember where) that when the industrial age began and there was incredible pollution (much more than today with all the regulations we have), it took several decades for the climate to respond, and several more decades to respond after changes were introduced. All I'm trying to say is that we should examine the methods used to determine this "climate change" and figure out if all the SUVs and factories are really making as large of a dent as we think they are. I have a feeling that the Earth is so large, and it's part of such an enormous larger system (the solar system) that it is probably heating up more due to effects from the sun and the ever-changing distance between the sun and the Earth than from what we're doing down here. So are we affecting the climate? Or is it something that simply changes and we couldn't possibly control it? If you have any data to back up one viewpoint or the other, please throw it in...
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Mod parent up.. The earth's climate is a control system. As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Which, conveniently, lets just about any type of weather be attributed to global warming (or is that climate change?)
the danger in believing him and being wrong is greater than the alternative.
Really? The danger as I see it is a moderate amount of self-regulation to reduce emissions. If you think that if the economy taking a slight hit is just so unbearably bad that it's worth any risk to avoid it, then you are a miserable human being.
You'll forgive me if I refuse to get all in a knot over this whole "global warming" paranoia. You young 'uns may not remember the "global cooling" predictions/concerns of the mid 70's. Heck, they were even suggesting that we blow soot all over the arctic region snow pack to absorb light/heat.
The scientists shrug and tell us that those models were too simplistic and wrong. Now, of course, the new models are spot on and we're all going to fry.
Not buying into the hysteria this time either.
The danger as I see it is a moderate amount of self-regulation to reduce emissions.
Nope. The danger is tossing India and China under the bus. They want to increase their standard of living, and if the climate alarmists get their way, they can't do so.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
Ha.
Still, remember that the Gore stance is roughly (yeah, it's exaggerated, but roughly) in line with the science.
The global warming platform from the Republican party is to shoot into the air and yell "yeeehaww!" a bunch.
Maybe so, but gas prices aren't $4.00 a gallon because rednecks shot their guns. What you are paying at the pump is the direct result of environmentalist's policies fed by the FUD spread by AlGore.
And before anyone tells me that increased production won't bring down price, please review your Jr High school textbooks where it explains supply and demand and tell me what it says happens when supply is limited.
(BTW, insinuating that Republicans are rednecks is no different than insinuating that Democrats are communist hippies. Since race is not involved, I can't call it racism, but I can certainly call it bigotry.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Tacit? Al Gore was all for the PMRC, and if voters were paying attention, that would have ended his political career.
You mean if the mainstream media's democratic fanboyz had bothered to report it, instead of acting as cheerleaders for every left-leaning politician to come down the pike.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Ding ding ding! You win a cupie doll! Couple the debate about anthropogenic climate change with the fact that it appears the climate is cooling, and it becomes apparent we don't know what the heck's going on. Until climatologists can come up with a model that'll accurately predict weather for a given region during a given month, at least six months out, or hell at least come up with a model that when run with past data points yields the same observed weather, then I'm going to continue ignoring the lot of them as little boys yelling "wolf". There might indeed be a wolf there this time, but the danger in believing him and being wrong is greater than the alternative.
And my point is that this planet has a lot of unmarked levers and dials, and they don't seem to behave in any way that makes sense to us.
So we should probably leave them alone before the whole thing explodes around us.
Nope. The danger is tossing India and China under the bus. They want to increase their standard of living, and if the climate alarmists get their way, they can't do so.
That's a false dichotomy. Unsafe levels of pollution aren't a requirement to increase your standard of living, it just means you take a small percentage of that money you're spending on concrete and steel and oil and use it to buy pollution control devices.
You even quoted that part of his statement.
But hey, maybe you're right maybe it's for convenience of political argument that the earth's climate works that way.
meep
The liberal (not necessarily Dem) stance is more nuanced than the conservative idea of "More demand so just drill for more oil."
Liberals recognize that fossil fuels are quickly running out and "drilling for more" won't be possible sometime in the future, and that using the fuel as we have been IS environmentally harmful. Conservatives don't care if we run out later, that will be someone else's problem. When you are about to run out of an important and critical resource about the worst thing you can do is ramp up production and burn through your last remaining drops.
Even if we drilled in ANWR and off the coast we would STILL be importing a vast majority of our oil. My objections to those ideas are not based on environmentalism but simple reason. If we could become energy independent by drilling in ANWR I would be the first to say to hell with the wild life, but there just isn't that much oil there when you compare it to how much we use every day. If anything, doing that would simply delay the inevitable and slow our development and adoption of cleaner, sustainable fuel sources.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
That is exactly how environmentalism is like religion.
Mine is Good
As a practical matter, it's going to be difficult to keep up political momentum in the face of cooler trends. The movement could be essentially dead in a couple years. In ten, we could be looking at films like An Inconvenient Truth, The Day After Tomorrow and Waterworld in the same way we now look at Population Explosion, ZPG and Soylent Green from the sixties and seventies.
Hysteria tends to go in cycles. Buried amongst discredited doomsday theories might be the one that actually does kill us. When that happens, I wonder if we'll all be surprised that it's nothing like the articles running in Time, or if scientists will actually see the prediction-of-the-decade come true, whether by brilliant insight or sheer coincidence.
What worries me is that with the best of intentions we do something profoundly stupid and damaging like, I dunno, dumping old tires in the sea in the insane (in hindsight) belief that they would serve as artificial reefs. In the seventies there were plans to coat the ice caps with soot to combat the global cooling that never came about. Now we're talking about dumping iron oxide in the sea as a solution to global warming, something that would be called "polluting our environment" if it didn't have the Climate Change seal of approval. Confidentially, it's unintended consequences from plans like this that scares me more than the fear that the seas will rise and drown us all.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Actually, the conservative stance is a lot more comprehensive than the liberal one of "don't drill no matter what" since conservatives support BOTH the development of alternatives AND attempting to make sure we have the steadiest supply possible until alternatives are viable.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc. It's not going to just get warmer over short time periods.. It always amazes me that folks don't realize that.
I've been telling people this for a while.
The you've been misleading them. You may see some variability on a local level, but fluctuating extremes on a mean global level are not something that the IPCC predicts as result of global warming. There will be fluctuations because, aside from the anthropogenic effects causing warming, there are plenty of other factors that make the climate variable; some years are colder than others, and that's still going to be true even with global warming. In this case there are a number of natural factors that have aligned to make 2008 colder than previous years. According to the IPCC global warming is simply dampening how cold this year is, not causing it to be cold through some instability. Compared to the 20th century 2008 will still be rather warm, and that can potentially be attributed to global warming.
Can we lay this tired meme about increased variability due to global warming to rest though. A cold spell is merely not necessarily strong evidence against global warming*, it is not evidence for global warming.
* At this point, given the historical temperature record, a significant (mid 20th century temperatures) sustained (5 or more years) cold spell would be required to count as strong evidence against global warming.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Well, first off, don't think of climate as something that can really be measured on a scale of less than about 20 years. For climate, 20 years is planck time. Solar sunspot cycles take about that much time, so fluctuations shorter than that are just "in the noise" for climate. That's the difference between climate and weather. Weatherman says it'll be a rainy afternoon. Climateman says it'll be a rainy century. Having a solid ten year stretch without a single drop of rain can still bear out a rainy climate on the avergage over a century.
Second, whenever your hear "warming," substitute "climate change." As you trap more of the sun's energy, you do see an overall increase in temperature, so global warming is literally correct in a big view. But, the big picture can be very subtle and the local view can be very different. Warming isn't so much about each and every day being slightly warmer - it's about adding energy to a system. Think in terms of nuclear bombs, for example. Imagine an underwater test of a fusion device. It'd be a fucking huge amount of energy dumped into the ocean. But, how much would the temperature of the whole Pacific ocean rise from a single multimegaton fusion powered death device? Only a teeny, tiny, probably immeasurable fraction of a piece of a part of a degree.
So, when scientists say, "the average temperature will rise by one degree in the next century," don't think of it in terms of every day will be one degree warmer. Think of it in terms of a lot of nuclear bombs worth of energy being added into the potentially unstable systems that result in weather, and probably knocking some processes out of whack compared to what we are used to. Some places may see a many degree rise in temperature, but the overall average is much smaller. That means some places, and some years, you see a many degree drop in temperature to even out the slightly high average.
So, don't look at a day, don't look at a place, don't look at a year. Try to think in terms of subtler changes over much longer periods. Then, it'll start to make more sense. The controversy over global climate change isn't a result of failure of science. It's a result of failure of science to effectively communicate.
No, it lets records be consistent with the theory.
You even quoted that part of his statement.
Yeah - and what records would they actually be?
It seems the word "record" gets used rather loosely... even this "coldest year in 21st century" is over-hyped (why not say this millennium? - sounds even more significant, even if it is still only 8 years)
So - the coldest year in 8 years is a "record" consistent with climate change? The warmest year in 20 is no doubt a significant record as well... worst storm in 50 years? Another record.
14,000 years ago, Michigan was covered by a glacier. I have a hunch that SUVs did not melt this glacier.
No, as far as we can tell a combination of orbital variation to kick start things and various feedbacks (including warmer oceans releasing CO2) managed that quite nicely. Currently we are not at the point where those orbital effects are in play. In fact, the next stage of the orbital cycle should see us getting signficantly colder (though the time frame for that happening is at least a millenia or two away). Despite this we are seeing significant warming that, while attributable to a number of factors, is not currently explainable without putting a large chunk of the blame on anthropogenic CO2. So yes, there are natural effects that cause climate to change, but apparently current changes are not purely natural. 14,000 years ago the mean global temperature was only a few degrees cooler; current models (that is, to the best of our knowledge) suggest we can expect mean global temperature to increase by at least a degree or two in the next century. Given the change from 14,000 years ago to now, an extra degree or two ibn mean global temperature could hacve very significant effects.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
IANA climatologist, but perhaps that heat is going into melting ice, or warming of the oceans. Indeed, according to TFA, the La Nina cycle behind this cooling is caused increased sea temperatures in the western Pacific.
"Warmest year of the 21st century" (still the 10th warmest since 1850, according to TFA - your assertation of "an unusually cold year" is highly bogus) only applies to measured temperatures on land, not to the total average temperature of the atmosphere, lithosphere, and hydrosphere.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I don't give a crap about climate change. I drive a prius so I can send less money to countries who send people here to kill me. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia.
As it becomes unstable, you will start seeing more records: cold, hot, rain, drought, record single day temperature differentials, etc.
Even if climate is unchanging records will still increase. Citing increasing records as evidence of global warming is an example of a classic fallacy.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
It's not less than 1%. And if it is that does not bode well for the field.
Actually, there was an article in Science that there was not a single peer-reviewed paper that claimed global warming isn't happening. The author reviewed all the papers in the appropriate journals and while many made no claims about why it was happening, they all agreed it is happening. So it is less than 1%. I'm curious why this doesn't that bode well for the field?
Because if we're warming up, why is 1938 was the hotest year on record? Why is it after WW2 we entered the coldest non-ice age period, ever recorded?
This isn't true. You might be thinking 1934, which was the 2nd or 3rd, depending on how you interpret the data. However, more telling, is that the last 9 years are all in the top 25 warmest years.
I don't think CO2 production is bad. I know it is. But for the right reasons. It causes acidic water. But that's where it ends. It does not warm. It probably does not cool.
I would like an autographed copy of your book - the one where you rewrite physics and chemistry. The visible light from the sun can travel through CO2 quite well, the infrared radiation from the Earth cooling at night can't. As CO2 increases, less energy can radiate off the planet into space, resulting in more energy in the system. More energy = higher temperature. It's the same idea as an x-ray, visible light can't go through your body, but a higher frequency wave can.
Face it, you started off like idiots, you're going to end like idiots. Stupid blunts like the hockey stick projection by a UN official cannot be forgiven.
But march right out if you think we'll keep buying your peddled crap when you change the meaning a bit to keep in line with what's happening.
Actually, forgiveness has no place in science. That's why we have peer review and independent confirmation of results. You can have wrong theories and wrong projections as much as you want. The only "unforgiveable" is false data and isn't forgiven. However, being wrong is OK because that's how science is supposed to work. You create a theory, test it, and try to prove/disprove your theory. Based on your results, you come up with a new theory, or modify your old one, and try again. We have more climate data, so we alter our models to reflect this new information.
Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
Those who just want to believe that man is ruining this planet had to change the name of the phenomenon to fit the facts.
I'm sorry, but if greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the planet, there is no logical way that cools the planet.
Unless you change the name.
The irony is that same people who ridicule Christians as believing in a spaghetti monster believe in man-made climate disaster as a matter of faith, regardless of the temperature evidence. How nice, the temp goes up, you win, the temp goes down, you win. Nice theory.
Mod troll all you want, but this is what I really believe.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
It's also nice how you construct a straw man argument
and then base it off a faulty assertion (that forcasts for "it will do this at this time in this location" are equally accurate to "on average in this area it will be like this")
hint: the latter is a LOT more accurate
PS: the 7 day forcast is a lot more accurate than a lot of smartass morons like realize, because they recall when it was wrong, but not when it was right
PPS: the 3 day forcast is 90% accurate for temperature last time i saw statistics... 3 or 4 years ago
PPPS: leave climatology to *Gasp* actual climatologists!
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
First, the only way to bring the changes Al Gore wanted to pass is through either totalitarian restrictions on energy usage, or higher prices on energy (for instance, the high cost of gas right now has actually reduced the amount of gas consumed in the US). The other option to reduce energy usage without directly effecting costs is to have huge government subsidies for alternative energy sources. However this increases the prices indirectly (as we all have to pay for them), and actually doesn't do as much to reduce usage, as the price of the energy (that is directly seen) doesn't increase.
The other issue is that even if we had cut our energy consumption by 5-10%, it wouldn't drastically reduce the cost of energy. The reason is that there has been a huge increase in demand for energy from the developing world (primarily india and china).
I will say most republican policies would have done little to help. Drilling in the arctic would help a little for a few years, and encourage more oil exploration, but overall, the high cost of oil isn't so horrible for the economy. It will push change to using more efficient cars, and use more "green" energy sources.
Phil
The liberal (not necessarily Dem) stance is more nuanced than the conservative idea of "More demand so just drill for more oil."
That's not true. Conservatives are not at all opposed to the idea of more efficiency and even love the idea of alternative fuels. We have no problems making sure our tires are inflated, driving less or driving more efficient autos. BUT, we want more production as well. Conservatives are used to the idea of guns AND butter, in other words, why can't we do both? As we run out of oil, prices will rise naturally as supplies dwindle. This will make alternatives more attractive and the free market will answer. No government intervention is necessary, except to rescend all those laws that put government in the way! (Bans on drilling off shore, shale, and ANWR)
Liberals recognize that fossil fuels are quickly running out and "drilling for more" won't be possible sometime in the future, and that using the fuel as we have been IS environmentally harmful. Conservatives don't care if we run out later, that will be someone else's problem. When you are about to run out of an important and critical resource about the worst thing you can do is ramp up production and burn through your last remaining drops.
Liberals, on the other hand, want NO increase in production. They have done whatever it takes to limit supply, even though demand continues to rise (US demand has been flat, btw. It's the increased demand for growing economies around the world when not met with an increase in supply that is causing the increase in prices). The answer for liberals is to decrease demand. This is done by increasing price. Increasing price is done by limiting supply... and around we go! Unfortunately, we have no control over demand outside our borders. Liberals are dependent on the idea that some alternative fuel will replace fossil fuels in the far future (30+ years).
Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now. Seems like we just keep finding more. We have discovered enough oil in Oil Shale and Tar Sands in the US to last us for about 100 years while we import nothing! Currently, it's just cheaper to import.
Even if we drilled in ANWR and off the coast we would STILL be importing a vast majority of our oil. My objections to those ideas are not based on environmentalism but simple reason. If we could become energy independent by drilling in ANWR I would be the first to say to hell with the wild life, but there just isn't that much oil there when you compare it to how much we use every day. If anything, doing that would simply delay the inevitable and slow our development and adoption of cleaner, sustainable fuel sources.
So! If we all inflate our tires and drive hybrids, we would still import a vast majority of our oil. Why not do both and be happy with importing LESS of our oil. We could even use the money that is made from selling offshore and ANWR oil to fund alternative research to speed it along. That should provide a solution long before we run out. Unfortunately, since there is a minute chance that it may scare a caribou, the Sierra club is against it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You are correct that there is a debate about anthropogenic climate change. From the most recent reports, there's about a 90% chance the warming we've seen is mostly due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels and forests.
But the climate does not appear to be cooling. The climate is getting warmer. Just because 2008 is cooler than the past seven years doesn't mean that global warming has stopped. There will always be variability in climate. You can't expect every year to be strictly warmer than the years before. It would be like expecting the stock market to reach new highs every year. It doesn't work like that -- you need to look at the long-term trend, not just the most recent years.
Now when you confuse weather with climate, you're going way off track. We can't predict the weather in a given region for a given month. Again, it would be like predicting the price of a given stock in a given month. It can't be done. Would you pass up a buddy's stock tips if he's correct 90% of the time when he says a stock will go up, even if he can't tell you what the price will be six months out? Whether it goes up 20% in three months or 30% in eight months, you'd be passing up easy money!
Scientists keep saying that with increased carbon dioxide emissions temperature will increase. In addition, we can expect rising sea levels, more intense tropical storms, and increased droughts. Sounds bad enough to me to think about cutting back on emissions. The chief scientist of a major oil company agrees (you can fast-forward to 13:00 in the video if you want to see only the part on global warming).
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
I like to liken it to a game of craps. You don't know what the next roll, or even the next ten rolls are going to be, but you can be certain that after a thousand rolls there will be more seven's than any other number.
Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
That's a straw person and you know it - no scientist of any repute is saying that we're the ONLY cause of climate change.
And most of the world isn't tied up in your silly american bipartisanship, where any cause on the left has an equal and opposite anti-cause on the right. Not coincidentally, most of the world accepts this science as well.
Jeremy
Obviously, you're not watching the same news as I am in the US.
You've got Fox as the only one with a right slant...CNN and the majors...all left leaning. I mean, look at the Obama world tour...seriously, it was newsworthy enough for the anchor of every one of the 3 major networks to travel with him? If McCain goes on world tour, think they'll all 3 travel with him?
I mean c'mon...no matter who you are voting for, it is pretty obvious who most of the networks seem to be favoring in coverage...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You fail as a skeptic. Please stop claiming to represent us.
You can't predict whether a sample of cobalt-60 will emit a photon in any specific short time interval. But you can certainly make statements about how many will be released over a long enough time period, and you can also predict how many will be released over an equal time period at an arbitrary point in the future to a reasonable accuracy (which you can also predict).
Not knowing whether it will rain tomorrow in Albuquerque doesn't mean that total rainfall can't be predicted with much better accuracy.
Climate is the same. Please, object GW chicken heading on grounds that aren't stupid.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
no scientist of any repute is saying that we're the ONLY cause of climate change
No, but politicians do. Just listen to Al Gore blather on sometime. Every bit of the spin he spouts points to humans causing climate change, and only human action stopping it. Totally over-the-top rhetoric. Then listen to what most school kids take away from what they hear in school. Really, ask one. It's horrific in its total confusion over correlation/causation, and the assurance that only Evil Old People are responsible for unhappy baby polar bears.
most of the world isn't tied up in your silly american bipartisanship
Actually, most of the world is far, far worse.
Not coincidentally, most of the world accepts this science as well.
So that's why little countries like China, with a billion-plus people, fall back on the "well, we're just a developing nation - our polution isn't as evil as Germany's" line of regulation-dodging? That's why that giant swath of humanity that is India doesn't think it needs to act, entities like the EU don't want to be mean and push them on it?
International agreements that let huge, booming economies off the hook are absurd.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Queue in 10 million "global warming is a scam", "don't look at me, people didna doit" and "Al Gore is a weenie" comments.
But all of these comments on the legitimacy of global warming/cooling/climate change all ignore one very simple, inescapable fact: Most "carbon-neutral" energy forms can be generated locally. Windmills use the wind in your area. Solar panels use the sunlight from your roof. This is also true for geothermal, ocean-wave, and bio-fueled energy. All can be generated locally, with local resources.
Only oil and nuclear have limited supply.
So if, for example, you were a wealthy, North-American country with a severe foreign-debt problem, you might consider the actual costs of oil in lost lives, civil liberties, currency devaluation, and raw wealth shipped oversees to fund a petroleum addiction. This cost is so huge and multi-faceted it baffles the mind. Average people just cannot even begin to understand wealth drain and cost of this magnitude.
But if we were to generate our energy locally, with renewable resources, not only would we leave a nicer place for our kids, grandkids, and their offspring, we'd also improve our national sovereignty. Rather than fund deadly radicals, we'd fund the nice guy down the street. Rather than ship our cash to entities who threaten us at every turn, we'd fund your next-door neighbors. No matter where you live, no matter who you are, no matter how wealthy you happen to be, this is a good idea.
Ignore the matter of global warming, because there's a much more immediate reason to "go green". And it has nothing to do with carbon footprint, it has to do with the green bits of paper in your back pocket. It will be expensive in the short term. It will pay and pay and pay for generations thereafter.
Which would you rather be remembered as: the generation that ignored the problem until it was too late, or the generation that set your state/country/civilization on a long-term course of prosperity?
I choose the latter, thank you.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Err....there is a TON of oil, untapped off our extremely large coastline, and we are quite adept at drilling offshore and bringing it in. We currently only drill really off the coast of LA, TX and part of MS. If you were to just upon the coast to drilling from there to FL in the gulf...we could see a pretty large increase in just a couple years, since the infrastructure to transport and get it inland is already in place in the current areas. That would buy time till the shores off the east and west coast could be tapped.
Do this in the meantime...while we can also do as you said to invest in oil on land....all of this along with building nuke plants (starting NOW) would keep us going while we invent and transition over to alternative fuel sources. Those new sources won't be up and viable for 20+ years really..so, we need to get our oil out of the ground, and start NOW...to support our strategic needs till we can get off the oil 'teet'. If nothing else, it should cut our dependence somewhat significantly from foreign sources.
At the very least...starting now...would suck some of the life out of oil speculation and help prices to drop too...which we saw happen immediately after Bush lifted the presidential sanctions against expanded off shore drilling...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't think there is any "serious debate" over whether GW is caused by humans, whether it's a problem, or whether we should do something about it - the answers to all those questions are 'yes'. I'd venture that the debate is over how bad the resulting changes will be - bad, really bad, or omgwtf.
nah .. he already burnt most of it by throwing it at http://www.wecansolveit.org/ .. they spent it all on a crappy website, some annoying commercials, and a couple of giant fake switches that don't do anything
...perhaps the fact that 2008 virtually wiped out any direct evidence for global warming should give us pause to reflect that we really don't understand how global climate works and that a multi-trillion dollar plan to combat it might help, hurt, or, most likely, do nothing but eat up so much tax money that if and when we finally do know what to do we will no longer be able to afford it.
And that is a very inconvenient truth.
Thank you for this post. I am no scientist, but I am an undergrad in a dual major in Engineering/Science (mathematics), there are certain things that really trouble me about contemporary climate science. For one, there appears to be an over reliance on climate models based on broad sweeping assumptions, and an extreme exaggeration of the capacity of any given model to produce accurate results. Increasingly, the GW science seems to be violating Poppers fundamental philosophy of scientific hypothesis: The only theory worth considering is that which can be disproven. Or rather, science is not about proving as such, it is about disproving. I want to see the falsifiability of climate change theory thoroughly discussed, but it never is, nobody can challenge the models, nobody is allowed to question the methods, nobody is allowed to offer alternative to the mainstream narrative. Its a dangerous place for science to be. More and more I see GW predictions failing the falsifiability test: hot year? Earth is warming, cold year? Earth is unstable due to warming, flood: GW, everything, everything under the sun is being attributed to GW.
The 'consensus' worries me also, moreso in fact. There is rarely consensus in science, especially when dealing with fundamentally complex, non-linear dynamical systems which are proven to be inherently chaotic. Even when a theory is sound and mature, the most important consideration is that you are making predictions by using a model, an inherently and unavoidably flawed model. It is always, always important to cite assumptions and errors when making predictions with any model. But if you question the validity of current climate modelling, you are branded a heretic, a denier, and the worst of all: a skeptic. As if being a skeptic in science is suddenly the wrong thing to do? What happened?
All scientists are skeptics, a scientist without skepticism is no scientist, he is a fool. Worse still believing that computer models are completely trustworthy is like believing your lego starship enterprise will fly you to the moon.
I am not a denier, but I am certainly skeptical. I am certainly open to hypotheses, theories, models and all manner of explanations for given data sets, observations etc. But I am deeply troubled by the way discussion and debate about something as highly chaotic and poorly understood as the climate is shut down so vigorously these days. Worse still, the politicians and economists are on board. I can't help but be just a tad aware that politicians will leap on any populist position and economists are always hungry for new derivatives markets.
A Global warming disaster is always 10 years away. Next year it will still be 10 years away and so on. Eventually the majority of people will catch on.
Unsafe levels of pollution aren't a requirement to increase your standard of living unless you want the standard of living to increase in this, or the decade, it just means you take an appalling percentage of that money that the populace would have spent on concrete and steel and oil and use it to buy mostly ineffective pollution control devices from whoever gives the politician the most bribes.
Fixed that for ya.
Would be true if we could determine all variables affecting the climate to a very precise degree. This isn't the case and therefore any model based predictions are worth nothing exactly because of the chaotic nature of the system.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
What the IPCC calls "global warming" was just a short trend that ended in 2001.
Climate has changed in the past. Climate is changing. Climate will change in the future.
If we can't accurately predict the weather for the next week, how can we predict for the next decades ?
Will it warm ? Will it cool ? Perhaps we should prepare for the cold, since it kills a whole lot more than the heat.
Climate changes are all normal, all natural. It's beyond our reach to interfere. Compared to the planetary/cosmological forces involved any human (re)actions will be futile, a waste of resources and money.
It has never been proved that CO2 increase leads to an increase in temperature. It has been observed that the opposite is most likely (i.e.: increasing temperatures eventually lead to an increase of the CO2, since as the oceans warm up, they lose their capability of storing CO2).
Any sanctions on CO2 emissions will stifle the economies and progress... for nothing. It's time to end this madness.
Yea I know there is a difference between climate and weather.
But can we honestly respect climate predictions ranging in the 10+ years when the same scientists can't predict whether it's going to rain tomorrow with more than a 10% success?
No offense, but shut the fuck up already. All I hear about is global warming ... and for the last month it's been both COLD and WET in Ottawa. During August ... where for most of my life has been hot and dry.
The truth of the matter is this. Pollution is bad and MUST be curbed, but also that scientists have no FUCKING CLUE what makes weather tick. It's too large a system to predict [and chaotic at best].
So stop the circle jerk, you're not gods. You don't know as much as you think you do.
Here's the example of negative coverage of Obama from that report:
Negative: âoeYou raised a lot of eyebrows on this trip saying, even knowing what you know now, you still would not have supported the surge. People may be scratching their heads and saying, âwhyâ(TM)?â â" Katie Couric, CBS
To me, if you believe that is an example of negative coverage then you have a liberal bias. I see it as a pretty soft-ball question. Oh, gee, people "may be" scratching their heads? And they're asking "why?" That implies that they are not being judgmental and are simply curious about the Senator's position. It implies that the Senator's actions are not unreasonable, and in fact the detraction can be chalked up to Obama's stance as being a little too cerebral, requiring just a few more IQ points than the average Obama detractor has.
So from my conservatively biased view, that question can almost be seen as positive coverage. They took a potentially damaging issue for Obama and spun it into "Oh this is just a little confusing for people! Let's give Obama a chance to explain!" which is relatively positive. A lot would also depend on the interviewer's tone of voice, which I don't see mentioned in this report.
I guess the problem is they divide everything into positive and negative and exclude neutral, which is probably where much of the coverage belongs.
Oh, here's another tidbit from the report, on their methodology:
We report on all on-air evaluations of the candidates by sources and reporters, after excluding comments by the campaigns about each other.
So... hypothetically, a news channel could air 50 hours of criticism of McCain that comes from various Obama campaign spokespeople... then ask one soft-ball question as above... and they count as a negative-coverage news channel. Brilliant!
I'm curious why they didn't at least give the breakdown of coverage given to campaign spokespeople.