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."
But what will I do with all my "Gore 2012" buttons?
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
Here comes a raging global warming debate... haven't seen this on the Internet in 5 seconds.
Hopefully for this one we'll get some cashiers, makeup artists and puppeteers to weigh in with their expert environmental opinion, just to mix things up.
I'm a big tall mofo.
It's La Niña.... not some chick called Nina.
Oh arse
Score one fer bloody pirates, mate!
we're seeing the best ski season since 1992. There are now around 4.5 metres of base snow at Mt Ruapehu http://www.mtruapehu.com/winter/turoa-report/
Those of us who are paranoid about the sun have got some justification for our beliefs. First off, the new solar cycle is somewhat late, depending on who you believe. Secondly, there have been very few sunspots this year. In fact, right now, we have gone 30 days without a single sunspot.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Fire up those SUVs and coal plants, little ice age, here we come.
This is my sig.
How about "Simple Global Carbontosis?
I'm a big tall mofo.
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
due to changes in the earth's albedo.
Guess Venus is starting to show her age.
Uranus looks kinda cute though.
Short answer, yes.
Long answer, even a warmer climate has stretches of cold years. Sounds like thing are pretty much consistent with the currently accepted climate models, at least for the time being.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The greatest trick global warming ever pulled was convincing the world it didn't exist.
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?
... 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.
TFA missed one: ... or the current sunspot shortage continues, as it did in the "little ice age", causing another one.
Given that, by at least one model, we only have maybe 8 or so centuries until the fossil carbon runs out and we plunge back onto the orbital-mechanics driven end of the current interglacial and dive into a BIG ice age (whose steepening slope we may have been holding off with greenhouse gases since about the dawn of agriculture) we might not see any significant "global warming" at all.
All of this is assuming that we don't establish enough space industrialization to let us tune the insolation and just FIX the issue. (Which seems likely. The current government prescriptions for patching "global warming" would destroy the wealth and technology bases needed to drive a space program.)
And also assuming that polywell, POPS (Periodically Oscillating Plasma Sphere), and other fusion power approaches ALL don't work out. (Cheap aneutronic hydrogen fusion power would drive fossil-carbon based fuels out of the market for most uses and provide the energy needed to drive several technologies that could tune the Earth's temperature.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.
I hate to point out the obvious, but global warming models do not predict a year over year increase in temperature. Again, from the article:
"The principal thing is to look at the long-term trend," said Dr Kennedy. "2008 will still be significantly above the long-term average. There's been a strong upward trend in the last few decades, and that's the thing to focus on."
I came here for a good argument
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.
When record breaking cold temperatures are touted as evidence of "global warming", what do you think?
And I thought the flat earthers were persistent in their beliefs!
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
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;
}
This picture says it all - is it global warming or global cooling?
slashdot rocks
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The climate does nothing but change. The debate is always about which direction it is going. Long-term ice records indicate it should be cooling. CO2 theorists say it should be warming. ! Could we be heading into a period of climate stability as trends cancel???
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
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)
Perhaps you should cite your images.
The graphs I've seen generally seem to be full of local maxima and minima. A hot period, followed by a cool period but with the overall trend continuing being upwards (ie each hot/cold cycle is warmer than the previous hot/cold cycle).
The El Nino and La Nina temperature fluctuations seem to be fairly well understood.
Ten years is not that long a time in terms of geographical-scale phenomena. It's pointless to look at the last ten years outside the context of the last 100.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I read his last book cover to cover, and it was pretty much crap, and, ironically, this "sequel" actually proves it.
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared went out of his way to show that some cultures were stupider than others because of all of these manner of environmental forces.
The comparitive historic poverty of Africa has -nothing- to do with the choices Africans made, for example. It came down to a sad and unfortunate combination of natural resources, and they were oh so helpless.
Conversely, early civilizations did not come to dominate the world for a time because of a culture that was better at world domination, instead, they dominated because every other culture had some lame excuse for not taking mathematics from basic algebra into the calculus or some other technological advance.
Of course, Jared even tips his hand as to the point of the book. It couldn't be that some cultures had adopted values that lead to bad decision making, that, would why open up the whole can of worms about cultural worth and thus invite old arguments about cultural superiority. No, no no, we can't have that. But...
In this new book, it turns out that our culture -must- change, and -must- make new choices, in order to save our precious mother earth. The question is then, if there are smart moves to make, and dumb moves to make, is it all remotely possible that European cultures of 1500-1914, American culture of 1800-1960, Chinese culture up until around 1500, Roman culture up till around 200AD, all had some sort of spark of superiority that allowed them to make good decisions and good choices when confronted with environmental change, whereas, other cultures have not?
Let's think about the gobbledygook we right, Jared!
This is my sig.
That's right! Because taxi drivers and armchair geeks know better than the people studying the issues! Bunk! You tell 'em.
lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
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!
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.
Climatologists use fairly long-term data.
Perhaps you're confusing that with your "data", which appears to have exactly 3 data points, one per year.
Environmentalism has become a dangerous, fearmongering religion.
The media feeds on fear, which "spreads the faith".
Makes for a nasty feedback loop.
Case and point:
"Environmental scientists" got DDT banned by waaaaaaaay overstating the risks to an all too willing media.
Over 30 million people die of mosquito borne Malaria in poor third world countries.
Whoops!!!!
Now the WHO again backs DDT to stop Malaria.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6083944
How many will die (or more likely be impoverished) as an unintended consequences of (manmade) Global Warming regulations to stop an UNPROVEN phenomenon.
It's not going to just get warmer over short time periods.. It always amazes me that folks don't realize that.
What surprises me even more is how few people know that we've been experiencing global warming since 1830. AFAIK, we don't currently have a good model that can explain this.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
CO2 content 2x higher than it has ever been in the history of our planet? Where are you pulling this garbage from?
CO2 levels were [b]11x higher[/b] 500 million years ago. 3x as high just 100 million years ago. This is all through proxy measurement, but if it's even remotely accurate then atmospheric CO2 levels today are some of the lowest in the last 500 million years. There's a nice article all about it that you might want to read.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Could have something to do with three volcanos going off in Alaska and the Aleutian islands. I've noticed the temperature in Texas drop and we've gotten a lot of rain after the 3rd one went off and cold fronts have come down from that area.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
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.
Quit paying the ACs, that only makes them post more.
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
The environmentalists weren't worried about people in the first place.
It was the fish and the birds they were worried about.
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
"Nobody says that climate change isn't happening. The temperature data is fact. It can't be denied any more than it can denied that the sky is blue."
All that temperature data tells us is that temperatures have risen At Thermometers. GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE HAS MOVED ON.
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
"The last ice age was before the start of the Holocene, over 11,000 years ago. Not, as you claim the "late 19th centure[sic].""
Uhh, the Little Ice Age ended in the late 19th century.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I gotta say, I was completely shocked, when about 10 years ago or so, I visited a friend that lived in the far NE of the US. I was amazed to find out, there were houses...LOTS of them that didn't actually have air conditioning?!?!
Growing up in the south, I'd always known everyone to have AC. The oddball ones were the ones that didn't have central heat and air...although after I moved to the NOLA area, in so many old houses, there are a lot of places with window units, but, I'd just never thought there were places in the US that didn't have AC at all. Then again...I'd never been exposed to people that actually used heating oil before as a means of heat. I'd always grown up with gas heating, or possibly electric...
Definitely some strange things and ways of life up there in 'yankee land'.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Doing stuff is overrated. Hitler did stuff! And look where that led! Wouldn't we all have been better off if he had just stayed home and gotten high?
What were we talking about again?
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.
...and thus experiencing winter right now, I'd just like to say NO SHIT SHERLOCK!!
We're freezing our butts off down here. Record low temperatures, frost for the first time in many places, etc.
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.
I pretty much agree with you, except for one point:
Nuclear doesn't have a limited supply in any realistic sense. This is just part of the massive anti-nuclear FUD brought to us by big oil & friends. In fact, it was one of the first, since nuclear was the first serious alternative to fossil fuels. The only reason nuclear seems limited is because we've let ourselves get boxed in to thinking in terms of one of the most wasteful and dangerous fuel cycles imaginable, which relies on comparatively rare feedstock and produces much more waste than it needs to*.
In a rational world, what we now call "nuclear waste" would be known as "fuel reserves" and we'd be set for the foreseeable future.
--MarkusQ
* But still nothing compared to what fossil fuels produce. There isn't a coal plant on the planet that could get an operating license as a nuclear plant, given the amount of radioactive carbon they dump into the air.
Here in the mountains of New Mexico, air conditioning also not even much of a consideration either. Of course, much of this depends on construction of the house, too. Adobe-style construction (thick-walled, usually with cement and a fair bit of insulation nowadays) tends to keep things in a wonderfully comfortable zone. There are some hot days here and there, but all in all it's not that bad. We don't get the high humidity like you would in the south. Having been to South Australia on several occasions during the summer where it can get fairly humid, I can attest that I'd rather contend with the hot, dry weather than hot and humid (ugh!). On the other hand, I usually blame my weird sense of humor on oxygen deprivation at the higher altitudes. ;)
(I was intending to mod you up, but I felt the urge to forgo my mod points and comment instead! Doh!)
He who has no
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.
*snip*
It's just a shame that the other breeds of environmentalists happen to think certain species of birds are a bit more important than the real estate wind generators or molten salt solar plants would take up. I certainly won't debate the need for developing clean energy solutions, but at some point, you have to cut the ropes and say "enough is enough." Using ecological buzzwords is cute and all, but if the West doesn't pull its head out of its withering anal cavity, we may as well kiss electricity goodbye. There are plenty of niche groups that are standing in the way of everything because they feel we need to go back to pre-industrial population levels--to hell with the 6-point-something billion people we already have on this rock. No matter what happens, it'll never be enough. And if that's not frustrating, look at the various stories popping up here and there about locals who absolutely hate the noise wind generators make when they're running.
Fine. Maybe I'm just cynical. But trust me: Sooner or later, these wonderful carbon-neutral solutions are going to be put on a standstill because some fringe group is upset that their favorite little plot of land is being destroyed. At least, that's how it's worked out here in the southwest. There are a lot of the "not in my backyard" types who will do anything to halt human progress. I should think that we need to adopt sensible energy policies, but the greatest hurdle comes from the same crowd who want to save the planet--usually by suicide. (VHEMt comes to mind, if I remembered the acronym correctly.)
He who has no
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.
It's not that simple, I'm affraid.
1. At the very least the cost, or "danger", in acting rashly upon a fairy tale to please some cultists is to not do something that would actually work. At worst it's doing something outright unproductive, that compounds the problem in the long run or creates a bigger problem.
As the stereotypical example, take Easter Island. Instead of doing what would have worked (start replanting trees) they did what the priests told them (cut more trees to build and haul more statues to the gods, 'cause the gods would surely take care of all problems.) Eventually the problem got so bad that they couldn't even make enough fishing vessels any more. Maybe stopping and thinking before acting couldn't have been worse.
I find that to be, ironically, a decent metaphor for _both_ extremes of the climate debate. Both have their a priori "truth" set in stone, both don't actually do real science (in real science, no truth is set in stone, and everything is falsifiable), and both would rather act now, goddammit, instead of at least trying to understand the big model. I can almost imagine a bunch of Easter Island tribesmen doing the same, waving fists and shouting slogans to act now to please the gods, and calling anyone names if he even tries debating the already decided orthodoxy.
2. To also answer the question what is the danger: the economy is already in a precarious position in most western countries, having worked on, essentially, over-spending ever since the Great Depression. We don't really have a better model to replace it with.
The old laissez-faire model essentially died in the Great Depression. Not that it was that great a model to start with. It produced increasingly erratic swings between boom and crash, with each boom setting the stage for the following crash. Increasingly more money and resources were going not into satisfying people's needs (which, may I remind, was how the Wealth Of Nations was supposed to be measured), but into rebuilding the industry after the last crash. The actual standard of living for workers decline through the 19'th and early 20'th century, with the general theme being demanding more hours work for less pay.
(And it's funny to see Libertarians pining for _that_ model. But I digress.)
Even if some claim (rather unproven, but ok) that it was the corrective measures that finally caused the big crash, it still just wasn't a that great model anyway. The swings were getting bigger and bigger, and the whole situation shittier and shittier. Even _if_ it would have bombed a bit later without the corrective actions, bomb it would have. And it wasn't much fun to be an employee in that model even before it bombing.
Some also tried other stunts in the meantime, like supply-side economics, but even those failed to work better than the current model.
Or, of course, we could actually be Keynesian as Keynes actually intended it to work: overspend in times of crisis, yes, but cut back and pay the debts in times of boom. No government yet managed to do that, and it could be argued that it would make for a very unpopular government to cut back, say, welfare, _because_ the economy is doing great. Plus other problems.
But, of course, adding yet another permanent burden to it, really doesn't help there.
Basically most first world economies are in a bigger trouble than they seem. We all _seem_ to do great, but we're steadily heading towards the end of the model that makes it work. At some point, the debt gets so big that you can't go on like that any more. And all we've been doing is postpone the next crash. Quite successfully and for a remarkably long time, duly noted, but that's what we've been doing. And each averted crisis added even more debt. Not just in the USA, but everywhere.
Fear what will happen when we all no longer have the reserves to avert the next one, because it won't be pretty. Unless you're at least, say, 90 years old, you have only seen minor crises, held small by having the money to throw at them. To
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I guess South Australia could be considered humid compared to New Mexico (I wouldn't know for sure, not having been there, but I'll bow to your superior knowledge), but those of us who live here think of it as dry. Now, Sydney, or Darwin in the wet season, that's humid. You can watch the water come out of the air onto your skin as it cools in the evenings.
What a long, strange trip it's been.
I don't see us running out of thorium anytime soon
This raises another good point, regarding the 'scarcity' of nuclear fuels alluded to a few level up in this thread. All the radioactive material we could be using to turn water into steam to power electrical generators is already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now, it's just heating the surrounding rocks in a more diffuse spread than if it was all stuck into a reactor together.
We will run out of nuclear fuels at the same point in time whether we're using them or not, cause by their very natures, radioactive materials are always sitting there radiating. It's just a question of whether we take advantage of that energy while it's there, or just let it warm a lot of rocks a little bit until it all burns out.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now
You clearly don't understand nuclear physics.
Thorium natural isotope has a half-life 13 billion years (yes, 13 billion).
Uranium's natural isotope has a half-life of 4.4 billion years.
Neither are "burning up underground".
Most fuel is created by modifying it to create less stable isotopes. Then, when you put a big pile of it together (and/or bombard it with particles, as in the previous article), it creates a chain-reaction that triggers rapid fission. This is VERY different than half-life decay.
You do, indeed, "burn" it up. I'm not arguing against nuclear power, but just pointing out that your post is pretty much 100% entirely made up gibberish .
So you're saying that 'AC' button in my car doesn't activate an anonymity cloak for when I want to drive quickly through speed check areas or flip off cop cars? Uh oh.
which is totally what she said
Did ANYONE actually read the article where the very next paragraph says:
Global Warming deniers think that any variation of temperature other than year after year increases in temperature is proof that Global Warming is a hoax. They fail to see the larger picture.
Time makes more converts than reason
"thw worst thing you can do is ramp up production and burn through your last remaining drops"
This just isn't accurate ,especially in this case. If the oil were irreplacable, you may have an argument, but it isn't.
As the cost of oil goes up, the financial incentive to use something else increases, while also becoming cost competitive.
If you ration, you create artificial scarcity, but you also remove a major incentive to find alternatives. In addition, and not accidentally IMNSHO, you condition people to live on an energy diet. I'm sure some of you love that idea, but I consider rationing out of necessity a scientific failure.
Yeah, who would have thought that it was possible to make it through childhood to being an adult and still have all their teeth!
Just kidding.... :-)
Actually, the "carbon credit" is soon to be renamed to an "indulgence".
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Can someone point me, with no magical PhD to set me straight, where I've gone wrong?
Certainly...
First, we had global warming which was supposed to obviously describe the global increase in temperatures affecting climate everywhere...
No, I don't think anyone has ever seriously pushed that except perhaps some VERY misguided media. "Global Warming" (better referred to as Climate Change) causes a gradual and non-linear rise in average global temperature. If it's 0.1 degrees cooler there, and 0.2 degrees warmer here, then the global average is higher. So, it's quite possible for some places to be colder.
It's ALSO quite possible for some time periods to be colder. If it's 0.1 degrees cooler this year, and 0.2 degrees warmer next year, then over 2 years, the temperature has increased by 0.05 per year. Some places may even be completely unaffected for long periods and experience a very stable climate, while others have more drastic effects. When you're talking global averages, there's a LOT of room to move on smaller scales.
...and was supposed to already be in effect.
It is already in effect - things are warmer now than they would be were we not affecting the environment.
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.
Now with this it seems global warming isn't actually supposed to be here, yet.
That's not really right either. The temperature is currently warmer than it should be - let's call it "warm". It will REMAIN "warm" for around 10 years, and will then get WARMER. That's a flat point on a graph, but it's definitely not saying that we haven't started warming yet! Also, as with any chaotic system, it may have fluctuations within the next 10 years as well - it may be REALLY hot in 2012, and REALLY cold in 2015, but these alone would mean nothing at all. If it was ALSO really cold in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and onwards, and we saw a trend of it getting colder and colder during those years, then we'd need to seriously rethink our ideas about climate change. That may happen, although it's more likely not to.
Of course, the big difference between the 21st century global climate change and the pre-Ice Age global climate change is that somehow the humans are at fault for the present predicament
Yes, that is one big difference (we're not the SOLE cause, but we're not helping). The other big difference (and in fact, the one which leads to the conclusion that is the first difference) is how quickly it's happening... the pre-Ice Age climate change took a long time, and was very gradual. This climate change is happening MUCH more quickly.
And here I thought warming and cooling were just normal climate changes which have occurred irregardless of human existence.
They are perfectly normal, and would happen "irregardless(sic) of human existence". However, that doesn't mean that our activities can't ALSO have an effect on the environment.
All clearer for you now?
My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into new warmth.
Uhhh, I thought Global Warming was here and now....demonstrably ... But now we have a holding pattern for 10 years before it really kicks in? I'm super-serial, this fear-mongering is getting old.