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
..."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.
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.