Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."

Comments

Common Sense

[COMON$]

Everyone knows global warming is caused by His Noodliness hugging the earth even closer.

Re:Common Sense

[jellomizer]

But there has recently been a rise in piracy.

Re:Common Sense

[pitchpipe]

Avast Matey, it might be that he is warming us up for another act of Intelligent Design!

Re:Common Sense

[LandDolphin]

And it's felt pretty cold this week

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.

Re:Common Sense

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

and this year was the coldest on over a decade, or so i heard.

coincidence ?

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

There will still be cold winters and warm summers no matter whether the mean global temperature is rising or falling. The variation from year to year swamps the slow, gradual rise in temperatures.

Think of the stock market. After one or two days of going up, we don't suddenly say the bear market is over. Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

When the winters and summers are extra warm everyone blames Global warming. Why when it is extra cold can we not discount global warming?

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

Re:Common Sense

[mini me]

I don't know about your area, but around here warmer temperatures lead to more snow than a colder winter would normally provide.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Most of your post sounds like a nonsensical rant. You do have one question that I can answer. You're asking why the sea levels are not rising, even though the glaciers are melting. Sea levels are rising, around 1.7 mm per year for the past century. This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm. Sea levels may rise about another meter during this century. One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's long term you want to look at, then do it. G.W. alarmists conveniently stop going back in time when the data stops proving their point (thus the infamous "hockey stick" graph). There is evidence of many periods of higher-than-now amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as well as periods of hotter-than-now temperatures. In most cases, the CO2 rise follows the temperature rise (instead of preceding it).

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

So, therefore, a rise in carbon dioxide cannot cause a temperature rise? Sounds like a non sequitur to me.

It seems to me that whatever happened in the past, if we dramatically increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it will cause temperatures in increase, because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. That's simple enough to follow, isn't it?

Re:Common Sense

[toriver]

I hear there's some cheap farmland on Tuvalu and in the Maldives you could buy and move to. Heck, you could probably trade in your apparently freezing cold house for quite a few acres.

REALLY fucking close to the sea too...

Re:Common Sense

[OrangeTide]

It's just the frost before the heat wave.

Re:Common Sense

[Tony Hoyle]

Melting glaciers won't cause a sea level rise unless they're sitting on land.. think archimedes.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Yes, of course. But do you know of any glaciers in the ocean? I can't think of any.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

So if the sea has been rising by 1.7 mm for the last 100 years, How does that coincide with global warming theory. Could this be explained by anything else? Underwater volcanic activity? Deposits from Rivers? etc.

Re:Common Sense

[BlindRobin]

pretty [global] weird[ing] eh mate ?

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

So it is not Global warming, it is really just an extended North pole region warming?

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

No thanks, There is plenty of land where I live. Population density is 2 people per square mile.

Re:Common Sense

[sheepofblue]

Yes they MAY rise if you extrapolate the data and nothing else. But if you think extrapolation is accurate then the drop in average temperature in '08 means the ice age is just around the corner.

Global warming or climate change (the new term to GYA) is based on models that lack MAJOR features like cloud cover. Use no new data from 1950 on an predict 2008.... the model won't. Read Reverend Al's book and find all the predictions past their time that have already failed. Yet keep believing because the facts will burst your little paranoid world.

Re:Common Sense

[sleigher]

Not only that but I don't think anyone said that global warming means that is going to be warmer all the time. Global Warming is supposed to bring more erratic weather patterns and stronger occurrences. So winter might very well be even colder and produce more snow as a result of Global Warming. For the record I am not saying I believe or or not, just saying what I understand to be the issue.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Humans have been burning fossil fuels for more than 100 years. Burning fossil fuels causes the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and an increase in greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere cause the Earth's temperature to rise. The rising temperature causes glaciers to melt and the water in the ocean to expand. This is what's causing the rise in sea levels.

There has also been some warming due to increased solar output, but it looks like most of the warming has been due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If there's another possible cause for the rise sea level, I haven't heard of it.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Glaciers are on land. When glaciers melt, the water runs into the sea. More water in the sea means the sea level rises. Time to repeat 3rd grade science.

Re:Common Sense

[thedonger]

They rose 1.7mm per year average over the last century, so what is the justification for the supposed 1m rise in the next century?

Re:Common Sense

[hierophanta]

no i dont think that is correct - think of it this way. the arctic glaciers are above sea level - when they melt they will be at sea level. whatever volume was above before and become below (or in) now is the additional volume which will raise the levels.

Re:Common Sense

[thedonger]

Manbearpig.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.

I don't pretend to know the Truth about global warming, but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.

We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia. Hence the use of indirect measurements such as polar ice cores and other approaches. The problem is that indicrect measures are not as accurrate as direct measures, and are all dependent upon the validity of the models they are based on.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. That's the first think I learned in my statistics courses when we discussed modeling. All the evidence I've seen shows that the models that have been developed to explain our direct measurements of the environment have very poor predictive value when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen, and yet the acolytes of the Holy Church of Human Caused Global Warming (now climate change because global temperatures haven't changed in the last couple of years) seem to simply ignore this.

Is global climate change a concern? YES!
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Not in my opinion!
Is it the fault of humanity? Quite frankly, we can't know becuase the models are so bad!

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

It's based on climate models. There's a large amount of uncertainty in the estimate, because we don't really know how ice sheets will react to such fast warming, but one meter seems likely.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort the average global temperatures for any decade and there'll be a hottest and a coldest. But being the coldest year in the hottest decade doesn't mean it's getting colder.

Re:Common Sense

[sheepofblue]

So when the sun goes out we can just run 2 strokes and cars with bad rings and we will be safe? Solar output is such a large contributor compared to CO2 that a small rise in output far out ways CO2 changes. Further prior to using oil we were heating with trees and poo in homes that were very inefficient. City air has improved in the US over the last 100 years not gotten worse.

Re:Common Sense

[Myopic]

Golly, the chances of that can't be more than, say, one in ten.

Re:Common Sense

[Myopic]

I accept most climate predictions on faith, since the details of the science are mostly over my head (the basics are easy to understand). And I totally understand why 3 feet of extra ocean would flood coastal cities and result in the loss of land along the coasts. But I don't understand why, besides the monetary cost, that's such a big deal. So, uh, we have to move uphill? And we only have to move three feet uphill? I don't know, that's not very convincing. Maybe we should be talking about the other, much more scary, effects of global warming.

Re:Common Sense

[Myopic]

I live in Alaska, where we have lots of glaciers that extend into the ocean. But glaciers aren't really what we're talking about, we're talking about ice fields, specifically Antarctica and Greenland. (Glaciers are the fingers extending from the hands of icefields.) Icefields exist on land, and that's the problem.

Yeah, the people who use the GP's argument are either being wags, or are completely shitbrained.

Re:Common Sense

[immcintosh]

The problem is you seem to be avoiding the simple point that global temperatures HAVE been rising. I'm sorry, but it's a recorded fact. The problem is you're setting up the classic straw man this argument alaways suffers from, namely, confusing the fact of a global rise in temperature with the theory of what is causing it or whether it is outside the realm of natural cycle.

All models are wrong, but some are useful.

That quote leaves out the fact that they're also necessary. The models may be bad, but until we get better ones we have to work with the ones we have now.

it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational. Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.

Actually, the currently scientific thinking is more complex than either side really wants to talk about. Historically, there is very strong evidence to suggest that large changes in Earth's temperature are actually caused by slight changes in its orbit. But, that being said, those changes can't account for the increase in CO2 by themselves. Generally, the thinking goes that the changes in orbit trigger a small initial change, which triggers CO2 buildup and temperature change in a feedback loop. In other words, current understanding of the evidence doesn't provide strong support for either side of this debate. (search around if you want to find evidence supporting this explanation--it's easy to find)

So, I would say you got right, one sorta right, and one dangerously wrong.

Is global climate change a concern? YES!
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.
Is it the fault of humanity? Conclusively, we can't really say until it's all over of course. Currently accepted science, however, suggests it is.

And a fourth that nobody ever seems to ask:

If it's not the fault of humanity, is it a historically precedented change, or is there some other causal factor we aren't aware of?

Re:Common Sense

[Xaoswolf]

Bravo.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

It is global warming. The warming is the greatest on the land, because there is not much water to help absorb the heat, and at the poles, where hotter temperatures mean ice and snow melt and therefore less sunlight is reflected back into space.

Re:Common Sense

[jellomizer]

Think of global warming as moving your Normal Distribution Curve of all weather up 2 or 3 degrees (A shift to the right on the X axes).
Think of the current weather as a point along that curve. You can still get record colds in a period of global warming they are just slightly less probable then they were before. I don't think global warming has moved the chart a full standard deviation yet. So for the most case you can expect cold weather but more often then not the weather will be above the historical average.

Re:Common Sense

[MrHanky]

The link between CO2 and temperature is causational, and this is experimentally proven: it absorbs more infrared light than the dominant gasses in the atmosphere, directly heating it. The earth's climate is of course dependent on many other factors, and the CO2 level in the atmosphere likewise depends on other factors than humans burning fossil fuel, and your sorry attempt at criticism just isn't valid.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

The prediction of rise is sea level is due to climate models, not simple extrapolation. Those climate models do include cloud cover, and I'm not sure what would make you believe otherwise. If you have any facts to suggest that global warming is not occurring, I'd like to see them. So far, I haven't come across any.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

According to the charts used by the Global Warming crowd there was a warming period from 1860-1880 but then a cooling period from 1880-1910 then a warming period from 1910-1940 then cooling from 1940-1950 Then several ups and downs since that have been equated to a general warming.

Did the sea level continue to rise by 1.7 mm during the cooling trends?

"Humans have been burning fossil fuels for more than 100 years."

If C02 levels have been elevated for over 100 years then why have we continued to see long periods of cooling?

Re:Common Sense

[DrDitto]

Is global climate change a concern? YES! Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Not in my opinion! Is it the fault of humanity? Quite frankly, we can't know becuase the models are so bad!

An even more important question: are the consequences dire enough to take preventative action even with lots of uncertainty? Should we buy an insurance policy?

I also believe there is a decent chance that climate change is not caused by humanity. But I also believe the consequences are so severe that we should at least devote 5-10% of the world's GDP towards preventative measures to hedge the risk.

Re:Common Sense

[daver00]

That quote leaves out the fact that they're also necessary. The models may be bad, but until we get better ones we have to work with the ones we have now.

But thats a bit of a cop out isn't it? So let me get this straight,we don't have the technology to accurately predict things so we will go with something we know to be horridly inaccurate because we have nothing better. I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit harsh here but thats just not good enough.

The problem I have now with climate change (I'm a skeptic of the models, as all scientific minded people should be, but I believe in the fluctuations) is there is an elephant in the room that nobody dares discuss. And here it is: The collective world is in no way ever going to come together and cut CO2 emissions to the levels that scientists claim is necessary. I'm not being hopelessly pessimistic here I honestly believe that this is simply a pragmatic and obvious view. The problems governments across the world have is that this is a giant mexican standoff. Nobody is going to give an inch lest they lose competitive advantage over other countries.

Its not good I know and I agree, but given that this is the dismal situation we are in there is a fifth thing that NOBODY wants to talk about: What do we do when it happens. Every imaginable half measure to mitigate CO2 output is being attempted, and yet no plans are being put in place to deal with rising sea levels. No discussion takes place on the necessity to build for stronger storms, to capture more rainfall when it comes. Nobody seems to want to admit that if the scientists are right, we aren't stopping this thing. Not no way so long as the geopolitical situation is as it is. That is a reality that I believe we need to learn to live with. And I'm sorry, but please, prove me wrong.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

We have continued to see periods of cooling because there are natural warming and cooling cycles. Just because the global temperature is getting warmer on average doesn't mean that all cooling suddenly stops. It's just that in addition to the normal warming and cooling cycles, there is also a long-term trend of global warming. Surely this isn't too hard to comprehend, is it?

Re:Common Sense

[UnknowingFool]

It has been said that the Global temperature rising by 1-2 degrees? Average temperatures vary by more than that every year. Also 50 years ago without Digital thermometers the measurements could have been off by 1-2 degrees.

Don't confuse evidence with effect because then you misconstrue science. As a measure of global warming scientists have used qualitative measurements like average temperature as a gauge or baseline. In science you need qualitative arguments. You can't say "the earth is getting warmer" without basing it on something qualitative. The raise in temperature is also not absolute but relative. For example, the average temperature from year to year are being compared to another not to the absolute temperature. What the data shows isn't just that the earth is getting warmer (that has happened before), but that the rate of climate change is much faster than in any previous period in the last several million years.

It is also a proven fact that temperatures are warmer within cities than outside of cities. They may try to take that into account when figuring out Global temperatures, but a Corn field from 50 years ago will be warmer now that it is paved and full of buildings. Remove the data from larger cities and your global warming becomes more of a regional warming. While other regions are getting cooler.

This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out. What they using are polar snowfall thickness, air pocket analysis, vegetation studies, etc.

And how exactly is it that the ice caps are going to completely melt with a 1-2 degree change in temperature? If the temperature moves from -89 to -87 nothing is going to melt.

Again, temperature is relative and being used for comparison. Temperatures are not absolute. In this vein, a change of few degrees by comparison changed the Sahara a few hundred thousand years ago from a tropical forest into the desert.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

You haven't been paying close attention to NOAA. Or the warnings issued by the EPA. That's just within this government. Italy is concerned about Venice sinking into the sea that they are building sea barriers. They realize however Venice faces both rising sea levels and Venice was built on soft clay.

Weather patterns are cyclical it will get warmer and it will get cooler. I would prefer warmer vs cooler.

As a human you can change the temperature of your indoor surroundings or clothing. Many things in nature are triggered by temperature. Deciduous trees shed leaves and grow them back based on temperature. Some animals mate based on temperature (crocodile gender is determined by the egg nest's temperature). The world is bigger than your personal comfort level.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

"and this year was the coldest on over a decade, or so i heard."

Yes coldest since 2000. Spinning the data point in the opposite direction - it was the 10th hottest year on record.

Re:Common Sense

[UnknowingFool]

Precisely. One thing that the climate change deniers keep misconstruing is that the earth has always gone in climate cycles so therefore humans are not responsible. Climate change advocates have always said that the rate of change we have seen is faster than any period in the history of the earth and it started right around the Industrial Revolution. A coincidence too large to ignore.

Re:Common Sense

[alexibu]

Correlational models have long been dismissed as useless.

To get models to work climatatologists have had to use models based on physics.

This is because we have been having other effects on the earth besides pumping out CO2. We have also been emitting fine particles of polution, and sulphate aerosols and ozone effecting chemicals, and chemicals that cause photo chemical smog.

The bad news is that a lot of those other polutions are masking the CO2 -> temperature signal to a large degree. So pure correlational models do not work well.

This is also bad news because arm chair climatologists like yourself will be unable to observe significant changes in their local climate before the net forcing from greenhouse gasses is already a lot worse. The time constants of most of the masking effects are much shorter than the CO2 time constant. So unfortunately when the 'skeptics' react to some really adverse conditions and we stop burning fossil fuels, we will find we have to ride out even worse problems. This is on top of the decade or so lag between CO2 concentration and surface temperature changes.

As vagulely alluded to, pre historical climate change CO2 increases lagged temperature increases. This is not a cause for celebration. In those cases climate change was caused by increased temperature (changes in distance to sun etc). In our case it is caused by increases in CO2. The two are both forcings that cause each other to rise.
This means more CO2 begets more temperature which begets more CO2. This is not a good thing, and certainly not a reason for skeptics to use to say global warming is not dangerous.
There are lots of mechanisms by which temperature makes more CO2e, trees suffering, marshes melting, rotting, methane clathrates.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

Most of that rise was in the last half of the century and is due to thermal expansion not melting ice. BTW: anthropogenic warming was first proposed about 100yrs ago.

Re:Common Sense

[UnknowingFool]

acolytes of the Holy Church of Human Caused Global Warming

This is rather an unnecessary slam on scientists. Most scientists are by their nature, skeptics. When virtually all of them agree that climate change is happening and that man most likely cause it, that has to mean something. And to be clear no scientists have ever said that humans are the cause. They have said humans are the most likely cause. As for modeling, there is no model that exists anywhere that can perfectly predict the future. The models that exist today explain things far better than any other models. They may need to be tweaked but for the most part they are the best that we have. But you in your mightiness somehow know more than thousands of PhDs whose specific expertise is this problem.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

And surely it isn't too hard to comprehend that there are cycles and some are longer than others. We know there have been cycles that have lasted for more than fifty years. So who is to say that we are not seeing just another cycle? Why is it that when it is getting warmer is it caused by humans and when it is getting colder it is caused by a cycle?

Re:Common Sense

[Braino420]

Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.

I totally agree, we need more than a few hundred years of data before we can come to any conclusion about the cause of global warming, especially before acting drastically on that conclusion. A few hundred years in the history of the world is short-term.

Re:Common Sense

[B4D BE4T]

Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.

I think you missed the GP's point. His point is that we have been taking direct measurements of temperature, CO2 levels, polar ice coverage, etc. for a very short (in the geologic sense) period of time. We can't use this data alone because the time frame that it represents is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions. It would be like trying to determine yearly trends in the stock market by looking at a couple of seconds of trade data.

So to extend our observation time frame, we add data from indirect measurements which are not as accurate. One problem with these measurements is that they can lump hundreds of years worth of data into a single data point. Ice cores, for example, show yearly data near the top, but deeper sections combine data over 10s then 100s of years. In the past, there may have been a rise in temperature similar to the one we are seeing today followed by a period of falling temperatures, but we would see this as only a single data point in an ice core unless it happened very recently.

But that is only one example. There are many other potential problems with the methods used to indirectly obtain past climate data. You're right that the evidence we currently have shows a global rise in temperature, but that is based on a lot of assumptions. I think saying that a global rise in temperature is indisputably happening is going a little too far.

Re:Common Sense

[Braino420]

This rise is due to both melting glaciers and the expansion of oceans as they warm.

And what happens when the ocean gets bigger? The earth gets cooler. It's part of a very large cycle and we're only seeing a very small part of that cycle.

One meter may not sound like much, but that amount of rise could flood many urban coastal areas.

Hyperbole.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Funny enough, in Alaska glaciers are actually growing right now (http://www.pjstar.com/oped/x420257915/Op-Ed-Look-to-patterns-to-grasp-glacier-growth). That neither proves nor disproves AGW, but the growth of glaciers makes it a bit more important to set out parameters on how much of a pause in global warming do you need before going back to the drawing board. We've currently got a decade's worth of pause with a bit of cooling the last year to two.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

So how much cooling before you go back to the drawing board? How much of an unexplained pause in global warming before you figure out your current crop of models are useless?

Somehow I don't get very many takers on that question from AGW enthusiasts. I never have.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

It could possibly be. If you want to do research and show that's the case, more power to you. The hypothesis so far has been that the increase in temperatures has been due to increased carbon dioxide. That hypothesis has been supported time and again, and have not been refuted. There has not been a successful competing hypothesis put forth. This is why the consensus is that there's more than a 90% probability that most of the warming is due to human activities. There is a chance, although less than 10%, that it is not.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Take a look at the temps over the past ten years or so. We've had a decade long pause at least and the last couple of years have been markedly colder. How many years of pause/cooling before it's not just random chance anymore?

Re:Common Sense

[mako1138]

Greenland melt seems to be picking up speed

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Nice graph in your article. Did you notice that its data stopped at 2004? We're in a local period of warming pause from about 1998 through 2006 and outright cooling for 2007-2008. That's what most of the data's showing. Pointing to articles with old data does not help in discussing more recent data. In 2004, people were saying that a few years pause meant nothing. It's now a decade.

Re:Common Sense

[Mike Buddha]

There's going to be a thousand years in the next century, duh.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

Rather than demanding simplistic answers that fit their politcs, scientists put error bars on things that are uncertain such as clouds. Clouds are not ignored they are simply not well understood, the affect of cosmic rays on clouds is even LESS well understood and like the Hadley center, I fail to see how a lack of an observable trend in cosmic rays results in an observable trend in clouds. Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.

Mis-informative would be a better tag for your post, if the evidence was based soley on extrapolation of tempratures then you might have cause to dissmiss it as speculation. As it stands your post is just another lame political troll using the same tired old arguments that have been debunked to death.

BTW: The phrase "climate change" was coined by SKEPTICS in the early 90's, they pointed out that the term "global warming" implied a certain conclusion - both terms are literally correct.

Re:Common Sense

[CorSci81]

It's because most of the world's population lives very near to the coast, and a great deal of developed coastal land is less than 2m above sea level. Moving that much infrastructure "three feet uphill" would cost a lot compared to the cost of addressing the problem in the first place. It also means places like Manhattan become much more prone to flooding and the effects of storm surges. One meter could be the difference between a strong winter storm being a nuisance versus flooding the subways. Sea level rise is most talked about because it's one of the most tangible effects and one whose economic costs are easiest to calculate. If you can frame global warming as an economic argument many more people who might otherwise say "so what?" start to listen. Convincing them to pony up now to avoid a catastrophic economic cost later is a different matter, given how short sighted some people seem to be. Unfortunately short term greed frequently wins over long term prudence, especially if you don't expect to be around to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

There are scientists who do science and those bearing the label of scientists who engage in pseudo-science. It is those latter who fully deserve the label "acolytes of the Holy Church of Human Caused Global Warming". Some of them have infected the IPCC process. There was a rather significant resignation from the IPCC a few years back over pseudo-scientific claims made over hurricane strength and frequency. The person who resigned wasn't the guy making the pseudo-scientific claims to the media but rather the scientist who called him on it and got no support from the high ups in the IPCC. That resigning scientist has my support. Does he have yours?

Re:Common Sense

[Wildclaw]

When the winters and summers are extra warm everyone blames Global warming. Why when it is extra cold can we not discount global warming?

Blaiming warm summers at Global Warming is as stupid and ignorant as using Cold winters to discount global warming. You can only get the real story by looking at an aggregate measure of the whole planet.

If all the glaciers are melting where is the rise in sea levels?

Because a lot of the the water is accumulating in the eastern Antarctic which acts as the number one water storage in the world. And I doubt we will see the eastern antarctic melt any time soon.

Glaciers are melting (which isn't strange as we have been coming out of some colder times such as an iceage) and water levels are rising some. It just won't flood the world like the international panic creation club want you to believe.

Re:Common Sense

[p!ngu]

Didn't you do hypothesis testing in high school? If you had the data, this would be a pretty simple question to get an estimate on...

Re:Common Sense

[z-j-y]

Every time if possible, GWers(including Hansen himself) will quote singular small events to prove their point. Whenever it is inconvenient to do so, they'll ignore the event as insignificant statistical fluctuation. Including, the insignificant fact of a ten-year cooling trend.

And yes, I just heard someone on TV crediting Global Warming for snows in Houston and Las Vegas. He is just a TV host, but you see what this has become.

It's almost as if GWers never heard of something called "falsifiability".

Re:Common Sense

[ElectricRook]

The seas have been rising 1.7mm/yr for the last several hundred years. They are up over 3 1/2 meters since the 17th century. Holland still has not flooded, even though they built dykes to dry-out and farm the Zuderzee over 400 years ago. If we can't match 17th century public works with 21 century science and equipment, then we deserve our fate...
Those who follow the rantings of a politically motivated activists seeking social justice need to wise up about what social justice really means.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

Yes the media have concentrated on sea level rise, it will be a big problem in places like Bangladesh and will cause large migrations. Having said that I agree with you, wet feet is the least of our concerns. The sacry affects can already be seen in Australia's Murry-Darling river basin (our bread-basket), for 8 or 9 of the last 10yrs our harvest has been down by ~50%. Of course the Murry has huge land management problems but the steady northward shift in rainfall patterns is the straw that's breaking it's back.

Re:Common Sense

[Wildclaw]

"The problem is you seem to be avoiding the simple point that global temperatures HAVE been rising. I'm sorry, but it's a recorded fact. "

That link is lying. It claims to have global temperatures back to the 1860s, but we didn't really have the equipment nescessary to measure global temperatures until the 1978 when we began using satellites to measure temperature.

Before that we only had local temperature measurements. And such measurements have proven to be pretty useless due to local temperature shifts because of change in population (and as a result energy usage). Especially as we are talking about an overall change in temperature that is less than one degree.

Re:Common Sense

[sumdumass]

Don't you dare suggest that global warming stopped.

Hell, this study on cosmic rays which was completed before we found out that the hole in the magnetosphere actually works in reverse and let in more cosmic rays on the other side, is definitive proof that global warming is still active. There will be a vote tomorrow and the consensus will declare the science settled with no need to ever visit it again.

Re:Common Sense

[sumdumass]

Do you think those Europeans will hate us any more if we do have to go back to the drawing board after the went through all the Kyoto BS and we laugh at them because we didn't?

Seriously, think of the international relations.

Re:Common Sense

[sumdumass]

Ice floats because it's volume of water expands when it freezes. Now, the amount of expansion is more then equal to the displacement of water compare to the weight of the exposed ice. Buoyancy is "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object."

This means that 1 gallon of water when frozen will weight the same as one gallon of water but take up extra space. That extra space will displace more water and the weight of the extra water displaces will equal the weight of the exposed ice. When the water melts, it contracts back to normal and the ice above see level shrinks simple moves into it's place. That why when the ice in a bowl of ice water, even though the ice is above the water level, will not raise the water level when it melts.

Well, that is Unless they are sitting on land like the parent said.

Re:Common Sense

[wish bot]

We'll give you the benifit of doubt that you are asking serious questions here.

1. People have actually though to measure the effect of solar radiation on the average global temperature. Fluxuations don't make enough difference to account for current trends. Sorry.

2. Yes, in the past our fuel souces have been 'ineffient' (although some of this 'old' technology is actaully pretty damn good). Just because we now have 'efficient' power sources doesn't mean we haven't been using more...much more...of them. You should also have a look at global population growth over the past 1000 years to understand the magnitude of the problem.

3. City air quality has nothing at all to do with CO2 emissions, sorry. Also I think you'd be surprised to find out what you're breathing in. Sure, it might not be sooty and black, but just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it's not there, and not bad for you.

Re:Common Sense

[CrazedWalrus]

Also kind of strange how the climate does not cycle over 11yrs in tune with the cosmic rays from sunspots.

Why is that strange? You've got two phenomena, oscillating at different frequencies. Earth's cycles don't affect those of the sun's, and the sun's don't affect the Earth's so drastically as to force a significant change in the Earth's rhythm.

So what happens? I'd hazard a guess that they add up. When the cycles both peak, you get a particularly hot year. When they're both low, you get a cold year. Most of the time they're out of sync, where a low sun cycle cools off a high point in the Earth's cycle, or a high sun cycle warms up what would have normally been a particularly cold winter.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

"You've got two phenomena, oscillating at different frequencies."

No I haven't, and neither have you.

Re:Common Sense

[CrazedWalrus]

This stuff doesn't happen overnight, assuming it happens at all. If we're talking a hundred years, people move around. If Manhattan starts having flooding problems, people will sell off and leave it. Not really a big deal -- certainly no different than has happened countless times in other former boomtowns. Honestly, the idea of fitting 3 million people on an island is a little wacky to begin with.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

Just because CO2 can increase the temperature inside of a very simplified model under fixed conditions, does not PROVE that the link between CO2 and global temperature is causational. As I said before, All models are wrong but some models are useful. There exists a lot of work to be done between proving that a theorized mechanism is possible and that the mechanism is valid enough to be called a fact.

The burden of proof is on the researchers creating the model and IMO they've only done a small portion of the work necessary and decided to claim victory without finishing.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

A very reasonable stance. My questions to you are:

1. If the researchers are wrong as to the cause, is it not possible that they are wrong as to the mechanism as well?

2. If CO2 from human activity isn't to blame, what are the odds that CO2 is even the culprit?

3. If CO2 isn't the culprit, what is and why are we wasting our time controlling, caping, and trading CO2 emissions?

This is what I find so irritating about the lack of debate. The environment is unimaginably complicated. What are the odds that controlling the emission of a single gas will control global temperature?

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

like yourself will be unable to observe significant changes in their local climate

I don't base my opinions on my local climate, but on the predictions I've been hearing since elementary school telling me that by 2000 most of florida's coast would be under water. That lack of predictive accuracy made me a skeptic.

In our case it is caused by increases in CO2.

I am not convinced of this because the evidence is inconsistent with the predictions made by the models. I don't argue that the models we have are the best available at the point. However, that doesn't make them ready for prime time (ie making global policy decisions, shooting our energy infrastructure in the foot, etc.)

Re:Common Sense

[shutdown -p now]

Moscow here, and we're still waiting for a first decent snowfall. Mind you, our bears refuse to go out onto the streets, and the ushankas are lying idle!

Re:Common Sense

[MrHanky]

Sorry, but you're the one with simplified models, pretending historic precedence for rise in temperature being followed by rise in CO2 level is "effect preceding cause". Sidetracking doesn't make you any less wrong.

Everyone knows the climate models are incomplete. That doesn't take away the fact that CO2 increases energy uptake from infrared light in the atmosphere. This isn't a model, it's a simple fact. There will be things that counteract it, perhaps an increase in cloud formation caused by the higher temperatures or whatever, more biomass taking up more carbon from the atmosphere; and other things will further contribute to it (like melting tundra in Siberia releasing tons of methane), and these are the things that makes modeling the climate difficult, not the link between CO2 and energy uptake in itself. The model is needed to predict more accurately, not to show cause and effect. A model doesn't prove anything: as someone harping on about the problems of models, you should know that. But obviously, you don't.

Re:Common Sense

[alexibu]

I've been hearing since elementary school telling me that by 2000 most of florida's coast would be under water. That lack of predictive accuracy made me a skeptic.

I am not sure about this but the highest informed sea level rise I have seen is about 0.5 m by 2050.

Note that all of the modelled sea level rises do not include 'non linear' effects, simply because we don't know enough to predict them. So there are real possibilities that sea level rise will be much greater if effects like water lubricating glaciers underneath turn out to be significant.

However, that doesn't make them ready for prime time (ie making global policy decisions, shooting our energy infrastructure in the foot, etc.)

I disagree.

There are two possibilities for whether climate change is real or not. Real and Not Real. The largest scientific effort undertaken by humanity to date says that Real inequivical, and is 90% certain to be caused by our carbon emissions.

Note that the IPCC only accepts as fact things that have unanimous support amoung thousands of member scientists.

There are two possibilities for how we might conduct ourselves in the coming years. We fix it or don't fix it.

The cost of fixing it is important but most studies show that it will be some small fraction of economic growth

So that gives us four possible outcomes

Fix it and its not real - not a disaster slowed economic growth, recoverable, skeptics say I told you so

Fix it and its real - not a disaster slowed economic growth, recoverable

Don't fix it and its not real Skeptics proven correct, unaffected economic growth, we fight over the remaining fossil fuels in an increasingly polluted world (by things other than CO2 because it has been proven not to effect climate), before moving to renewables anyway.

Don't fix it and its real Disaster mass extinction , political unrest, starvation.

The choice is easy, unless you are involved in coal or oil, or just have ideological hatred of the thought of rich people having to do anything that might benefit more than just themselves.

Re:Common Sense

[MakotoKamui]

I'll bite, though I doubt this will be read by you, or honestly anyone.

How long until we go back to the drawing board? Who's to say we ever left it? That's the thing of scientific models and the whole thing about a hypothesis - you keep observing, making adjustments to your ideas, testing them some more, wash, rinse, repeat.

The major problem with proving/disproving climate change/global warming is that a) we're inside the running event of the planet, so it's hard to make outside observations, and b) we can't experiment. So yes, we today say "here's what we've been seeing. Here's why we think it's happening, and this is what that would mean for the future". Tomorrow, we'll say "gee, and this is what we actually saw. Let's adjust our thinking, and see what predicitons we can make from that".

Please keep in mind that current scientific theories are not what you hear spouted on TV, and even those are more advanced than what most people have in mind when they talk about climate change and global warming.

Re:Common Sense

[jgtg32a]

In the second chart I'm finding the "proxy" data rather interesting.

Why does it appear to be .1 deg cooler, in part of the section where there is an overlay?

Re:Common Sense

[damasterwc]

what the heck is a global average anyway? it doesn't make sense (to me) to measure it like that...

Re:Common Sense

[damasterwc]

melting ice from glaciers on land has already caused a staggering 1/4" rise in sea level... lord help us.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

Explain to me how you and I both stating that their models are wrong and not appropriate for prediction makes me wrong and you right. The use of past behavior to predict future behavior is by it's very definition extrapolation, and also the only way we can try to predict the future behavior of any phenomena.

I've never argued that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses, potentially increasing the global temp. What I have said is that there is an entire movement based around using obviously flawed, and inaccurate (or incomplete if you prefer) models to dictate policy. There is a huge push to decrease CO2 on a global scale. This is only justifiable if it can be shown reliably, that increases in CO2 are actually causing global warming, and not tied to it in some other way. If CO2 increases are only marginally related to global temp, because of other mitigating factors decreasing the effect of CO2, or the existence of other factors (ie solar output at all wavelengths, vulcanism, etc.), or global temp was increasing all along and we've only recently begun to see the larger trend, then minimizing CO2 emissions is a waste of time and effort.

Re:Common Sense

[MadUndergrad]

Tell that to the 60 million people who live in Bangladesh. I'm sure they'd be happy to know that they deserve to die on account of their economic condition. I doubt they can build seawalls around half their country. The Dutch had hundreds of years and a trading empire. How long does Bangladesh have?

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

Note that the IPCC only accepts as fact things that have unanimous support amoung thousands of member scientists.

If you truly believe this, then you've never had to deal with a bureaucrat. The UN is full of them, and while many of them truly believe they are doing what is right, most of them are not scientists. They are most likely Poli. Sci. or Rhetoric majors and ill equipped to see when a person with scientific credentials is pulling the wool over their eyes.

Even if my skepticism is misplaced, and GW is real and happening (something I am more than willing to consider). I'm still not convinced that something as complex as global climate can be controlled so completely by the concentration of a single gas in the atmosphere. I don't believe that CO2 is as all-important as it's made out to be (I'm not saying it's not important).

I think that those pushing CO2 are guilty of damn near criminal negligence. They've gotten to the point where they've identified a suspect and decided to forgo collecting any more evidence that might point the blame in a different direction. that is not science that is politics, something that bureaucracies excel at.

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

I would expect to see at least twenty years of cooling before I would conclude there's a new long-term trend.

Re:Common Sense

[DrDitto]

You don't need to convince me that CO2 could very well be a "follower" of climate change. There is an MIT climatologist (his name escapes me), who was on the UN committee for climate change, that steadfastly believes that higher levels of CO2 are a result of climate change and not the cause of it.

But the scientific majority disagrees and thus I believe we need to place our bets appropriately. The scientific majority as been wrong before. I'm a PhD and I know first-hand how an entire academic community can succumb to "group think".

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Oh, they'll hate us about the same either way. We're the adult figure in their geopolitical lives. Try this experiment next time you find yourself stuck at a dinner party with some anti-american european. Ask that person to construct a coordinated response that has nothing to do with america. They just can't. Within half a minute they reflexively go back to sneering at the US. It really is quite pathetic how we're their indispensable villain and excuse why they can't actually get anything done.

Re:Common Sense

[Hellsbells]

There is a real life, complex example of CO2 causing increased temperatures. It is the planet Venus. It has an atmosphere of 97% CO2 and has an average surface temperature considerably hotter than Mercury despite orbiting further from the Sun.

So there is clearly a causational link between CO2 and temperature.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

You left the drawing board when you start punishing skeptics politically and financially. When the BBC blackballs a reliable and beloved TV figure because they don't believe in global warming, we've gone beyond normal scientific inquiry. I've nothing against normal scientific inquiry and everything against black balling and political revenge designed to stifle discussion. Actual scientists should see the threat and rush to defend honest inquiry even when they don't agree with the skeptics but that's not what's happened for the most part.

Please keep in mind that scientists are flat out saying that they're juicing their statements in order to goose the politicians into action. They're lying in their political pronouncements and calling it science. If they're wrong, the backlash will be enormous and very damaging to both the political driven and actual real science without much discrimination.

Go read about the Copenhagen consensus and how global warming spending as most AGW advocates want it, on balance, kills lots of people that wouldn't have to die if funding hadn't been shifted to global warming to counter apocalyptic scenarios that simply aren't happening.

They want to save the world and they don't even notice the blood on their hands.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Ok, fair enough. We're half way there at 10 years right now and you have people shouting consensus science and that further argument is illegitimate ranting from bought and paid for "deniers". So let's say this global warming "pause and cool" continues for another 10 years, you think that there's going to be no consequences when you and the rest of the scientific community do your about face and announce that there's a new long term trend?

Do you have any idea how many people are going to die due to the lost economic growth and unavailable funds that are going to be poured instead into global warming regulation and CO2 prevention over the next ten years?

The problem is the AGW guys shouting that the argument is over and that there's a consensus and everybody should just shut it and get in line. To hell with that. That's not science, but rather a nasty form of political orthodoxy.

Re:Common Sense

[SnEptUne]

The same can be said about skin cancers.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Enlighten me o noble p!ngu with something other than snark. The plain fact is that we're talking about lots of lives and huge piles of money one way or another. It isn't just a simple statistical calculation once you start playing in that arena.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Sorry, I've lost my gallows humor on this subject.

Re:Common Sense

[daath93]

when the president elect is planning $850-billion in infrastructure updates including 'green' tech, who the hell is going to compete when the govt is giving away free (albeit more and more worthless) money?

Re:Common Sense

[p!ngu]

Well, what I mean to say is that the "Average Temperature(tm)" or whatever they use is normally distributed (or at the least, we have (almost surely) enough samples that the Central Limit Theorem kicks in, and the difference is arbitrary). Anyway, you calculate the probability, assuming the normal distribution, of this string of cold years. If that probability is in a certain confidence interval (5% or less), you say something is up and the Earth is getting colder. I'm sure everything to do with global warming is really complicated, but this particular calculation is not. All I know of the subject is that the Earth is apparently getting hotter on average, and we need to investigate the cause of that. Really it comes down to: Is it caused (predominately) by humans, or not? If it is, we have to change whatever we're doing that's causing it. If it isn't, we have to investigate ways to deal with it. Either way it'll cost money, but I guess it's like growing up and realizing you'll have to work to live.

Re:Common Sense

[CompCons]

It was the 10th hottest year in the last 30 NOT the 10th hottest year on record.

Re:Common Sense

[sumdumass]

Are there real life models where less then .01 percent of the atmospheric makeup change in Co2 causes catastrophic warming? I don't think so.

Your talking about about a number like .0001 parts being the so called problem in earth and comparing it to .9700 or better on Venus. So the question isn't is there a link, it might be more of is there a significant link with such a small percentage (.001%) difference.

Lets look at this as a car analogy. Lets say a car traveling at 3.5 MPH hits a brick wall. Now lets look at a car going 9700 MPH that hits a brick wall. Sure, there is devastating damage in the later but the amount of difference on the earth is supposed to be less then 1MPH in comparison. So is 1 MPH faster causing that much more damage or effects when it hits the brick wall.

As the parent said, none of the models trying to provide information on that have been corect so far. Yet for some reason, the political move behind it wants to enslave everyone, force needlessly expensive energy costs at us, wreck and displace the economy while bolstering others (The prime reason for Kyoto) and it still isn't established that the science is accurate because no one can get all the data sets. Remember the math errors in the US data sets that changed the warmest years around? Remember the Data errors in the MANN hockystick graph that when corrected made it look more like a willlow branch your grandmother would use to beat your ass with? Remember just recently where Hansen and NASA tried to claim either September or October was the hottest money on record until someone who used the rule that was made to ensure US data access after the NASA Y2K error just to find out that the used the previous month's data instead and was more worried about reinforcing the alarm of global warming then checking their own work? If you don't think there is reason to question the claims, if nothing but to make sure they are accurate enough to be made, then you simply haven't been paying attention.

Re:Common Sense

[ElectricRook]

The fact that Bangladesh has survived 1.5m of sea level rising in 400 years, makes me believe that they will also survive the next 1.5m rise just fine.
I believe the people of Bangladesh are quite capable of deciding either to prevent the flooding, or accept it. And more importantly, they certainly don't need us putting our noses into their business.
If the people of Bangladesh live in poverty caused by institutionalized corruption, that is not your or my business either.

Re:Common Sense

[buback]

They do sit on land.

Re:Common Sense

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.

Global warming -> Melting polar ice -> New source of fresh water in the ocean -> Golf stream cuts east earlier -> Colder coasts in US North East / Warmer Coasts in Greenland -> People in Northern US suffering colder winters -> People misunderstanding that global warming may cause some areas to get colder -> Your post.

Note, you may not live in the NE US, but I'm sure many places in the world suffer similarly.

Re:Common Sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Until I read this comment I was inclined to agree with your side on this issue. But the moral quality of this post is making me seriously reconsider. Listen, the other side may be wrong, but I'd rather be wrong with them than take the chance of being wrong with you.

Re:Common Sense

[ElectricRook]

You side with sticking your nose into the business of a sovereign country? Maybe you want to invade them and show them how to live?

Re:Common Sense

[Hellsbells]

Crmarvin42 claimed that there was no proof that there was any kind of causal link between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm saying that there clearly is because using a simple thought experiment: If tomorrow we increased the amount of CO2 on Earth to be similar to the levels of CO2 as Venus (97%), it would be considerably hotter on Earth.

Therefore there is a causal link (not just a correlation) between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature. End of story. I never made any claims about what effect smaller increases of CO2 would have, just that there is a definite causal link between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature.

Re:Common Sense

[iron spartan]

Yes coldest since 2000. Spinning the data point in the opposite direction - it was the 10th hottest year on record.

Wasn't that claim based on September's temp data being "accidentally" being entered as Octobers data?

Re:Common Sense

[1u3hr]

Melting glaciers won't cause a sea level rise unless they're sitting on land.. think archimedes.

Yes, as in Greenland, or the WHOLE FUCKING CONTINENT ANTARCTICA.

Don't worry about Archimedes, just remember your primary school geography.

Re:Common Sense

[mi]

But being the coldest year in the hottest decade doesn't mean it's getting colder.

Inconveniently, the hottest decade was the 1930s:

Recent days have brought to light four more highly "inconvenient truths" for our global warming alarmists. The first caused acute embarrassment to Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), exposing a serious flaw in its record of US surface temperatures since 1880. The error was so glaring that, on August 7, GISS had to post revised figures which show, instead of temperatures reaching their highest level in the past decade, that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998 but 1934. Of the 10 warmest years since 1880, it turns out that four were in the 1930s and only three in the past decade.

The significance of this is that James Hansen, the head of GISS, has been Al Gore's closest scientific ally for nearly 20 years in promoting the global warming scare. The revised figures relate only to temperatures in North America but the fact that the pre-eminent scientific champion of the orthodoxy has been promoting erroneous data has considerable implications.

Re:Common Sense

[timmarhy]

CO2 is a very minor green house gas. the amount we contribute is less than 2% a year compared to natural sources. solar radiation is where the heat comes from to begin with, so increased solar activity is always going to raise temps. other planets in the solar system are also warming as we are.

there are also other unproven counter points such as extra CO2 leads to an increase in flora that absorbes it (in the same way greenhouse keepers add extra CO2 to get extra growth) and that rising temps will increase cloud cover that will reflect heat.

what you have repeated is like it's come from an al gore promo. vastly over simplified and misleading "facts" that have been repeated over and over without anyone challenging them.

Re:Common Sense

[daver00]

My major concern is that science as a whole is going to lose out in the long run, not governments, not industry, and not bankers. A lot of scientists are basically gambling away the credibility of science as it exists in the minds of the public, and that is bad for the scientists and bad for our civilisation. You are spot on in saying the politicisation of the issue is bad news but I won't let (the many) scientists off the hook here because they have been complicit in the whole affair as far as I'm concerned. I don't think I've heard a 'scientist' in the public eye in recent months, hell years, say anything other than: "There is a consensus, there is indisputable proof".

Bad scientists, very bad.

Re:Common Sense

[NeutronCowboy]

Couple of years - about 10. Which would be beginning to change trends that have been pretty consistent. Just because the people you ask don't have that answer doesn't mean no one has. Read the papers.

Re:Common Sense

[Genda]

I'm sorry but your need more current information. I would also suggest the if you see and issue with 20,000 scientists and professionals on one side of an issue and a dozen or so on the payroll of major oil companies on the other, that you do the rational thing, and look for who has reason to be honest and who doesn't. There are virtually no serious scientists in the fields of meteorology, oceanography, ecology, biology, geophysics, or environmental science who any more doubt that the average temperature of the planet is rising, that the rise is almost perfectly correlated to the increase of man-made carbon in the atmosphere, that global temperature going back many millions is also correlated to carbon in the atmosphere, and that we are heading towards serious problems if we don't do something about the carbon in the atmosphere.

You say there are no direct methods for taking past global temperature readings, that is incorrect. Scientists have recently discovered that thermal records of earths surface temperature propagate slowly down into the earth crust. Recent measurements match other less direct sources and validate the work of other scientists. As we come up with many new ways to look at our planet's history, from many different perspectives, we consistently discover that greenhouse gases (including CO2, CH3, and water vapor) have dramatic effects on global climate, chemical changes in the ocean (please do a little reading on ocean acidification, and the rise of slime in the oceans, also check out the atmospheric and oceanic impact of dead zones at the mouths of major rivers around the world.)

You're right about the complexity of the model and our models get better every day. As we take more measurements, and include more variables, and build better and better machines to model the complexities of the environment, we begin to see fascinating behavior that more and more is reflected in physical reality. Global warming only describes an moving average. Global Climate Change it more appropriate because it described the thermodynamic impact of increasing the energy of a system not in equilibrium, but even that is not quite accurate. As the atmosphere becomes more and more warped, and the lower atmosphere get's hotter and the upper atmosphere get's colder, the kind of gross instabilities that could lead to serious breakdown of "Normal Weather" grow. As ocean currents are impacted by freshening from ice melt, and haline cycles are disrupted, completely unpredictable results could produce dire impact to a quarter of the world's population. Why would anybody dream of taunting fate with the likely result costing the lives of untold millions. When we have real solutions at hand, and by simply showing the same kind of fortitude and commitment to the future that our fathers and grandfathers demonstrated in fighting global fascism, we could ensure a world worth living in for our posterity.

To do less is simply criminal.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

google is your friend, and if you want to be pedantic it's not over yet.

Re:Common Sense

[jcr]

I also believe there is a decent chance that climate change is not caused by humanity. But I also believe the consequences are so severe that we should at least devote 5-10% of the world's GDP towards preventative measures to hedge the risk

My objection to your proposal, is that when you demand a tithe, you increase the power of the state. Don't forget that the most egregious polluters are usually state enterprises.

-jcr

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

I think you are mixing up a couple of things, I think the recent clerical error from NSIC on Artic sea ice is what you are reffering to. The error was picked up within a day of the data release.

Re:Common Sense

[Kumiorava]

For myself it would be enough to get satellite data trending downwards on the warming trend that is used in the graph on the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

You could also use 5 year cumulative trend, if that shows significant decline then I would like to question the global warming. Until that happens I'm going with the flow of current most likely explanation. Additionally I believe that reducing the global CO2 emissions shouldn't really harm the environment either.

Re:Common Sense

[Troed]

This has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth in general. No one is using a thermometer in cities and averaging them out.

That's exactly how it is done. Please visit http://surfacestations.org/ to see what a problem it is, as well.

Re:Common Sense

[MrHanky]

"it indicates that the connection between CO2 and Global average temperature may be correlational and not causational," you said, which implies "that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses" but is rather an unknown. And now you're sidetracking an argument against the science to be against "an entire movement" (nice strawman there) instead. I'll give you one thing: you're not very honest.

But I believe you when you say your argument is really against the environmentalist movement and not against the science, i.e. that you argue for purely ideological reasons. Then: Why is it a waste of time and effort to find ways to cut emissions (which equals consumption, in most cases)? Will oil last forever? Highly unlikely. So cutting back consumption and finding alternate sources of energy is most likely extremely important. Will cutting emissions hurt the economy? Now: what precise and accurate model do you have which predicts how the economy will react to drastic cuts in CO2 emissions? None, of course: economy has just shown (yet again) that the best in the field can't reliably predict one single year ahead. So basically, all Lomborg type arguments can go fuck themselves: they're a pseudo-science trying to get the upper hand on physics.

And you don't want to let a model based on scientific facts dictate policy, for the profound reason that "all models are wrong". Just what exactly do you prefer? That "the free market" should decide?

Re:Common Sense

[risom]

have a look at http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1067239&cid=26166351

Re:Common Sense

[XSpud]

Yes, average temperatures can vary according to natural cycles and they can vary year on year just due to natural variations. In fact, it would be very surprising if the average temperature stayed constant for any length of time. It's entirely expected that we should get some years that are cooler than others.

One thing that indicates that the current global warming trend is a man-made phenomenon is the high rate of increase - this cannot be easily explained in terms of what we know about natural causes, but can be explained by theories of man-made warming i.e. the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

There may be a lot of hyperbole surrounding the whole climate change issue, but unbiased climate scientists have looked for alternative natural theories that explain the current warming trend - it's just that there's no theory that fits the data we observe nearly as well as CO2-caused warming.

Re:Common Sense

[risom]

or, to reply to myself, read this: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1067239&cid=26165263

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

You can't actually think that decades of climate change research specifically left out winter?

It's called global warming because, unsurprisingly, temperatures are going up. What is suprising is that solar output has not gone up a proportionate amount. But I'll stop there. You're asking questions that could have been answered by Wikipedia, let alone the actual scientifc literature. Do some reading and get back to us.

Re:Common Sense

[mpeskett]

You're thinking of Arctic sea ice I think - glaciers are normally based on land, though they might also flow out into the sea.

You are right though, that ice freely floating in water doesn't effect the water level when it melts (because of the way water expands when it freezes).

Re:Common Sense

[Burnhard]

Indeed. In fact they have risen by over 120m since the end of the last ice-age. That's approximately 10mm per year (assuming the last ice-age ended around 12,000 years ago), although the rise is unlikely to have been linear. I would say our current 1.7mm/y is rather pedestrian by comparison.

Re:Common Sense

[mpeskett]

Much of the Arctic is floating ice, and so will have no net effect on sea levels by melting. On the other hand the ice in the Antarctic ice sheets, Greenland and various glaciers on mountains is all currently sat on top of land, and so will add to the height of the ocean.

The effect you're thinking of comes about because water expands as it freezes, so it naturally floats with about 90% of its volume underwater and about 10% above the surface. When it melts, all of it's volume is part of the sea, but that volume is only 90% of what it was; the same volume of water as the iceberg was displacing.

Only works for ice that's floating on the ocean, if it starts out on land then it wasn't displacing any water before and will increase the ocean's volume when it runs down off the land.

Re:Common Sense

[XSpud]

> The problem is the AGW guys shouting that the argument is over and that there's a consensus and everybody should just shut it and get in line. To hell with that. That's not science, but rather a nasty form of political orthodoxy.

The GP post concerned statistical fluctuations in mean temperatures - to me this is science.

You raise possible economic and human consequences of taking steps to deal with a perceived problem - to me this is political.

I think your post demonstrates how easy it is for the discussions on climate science to turn into political discussions. Somehow we have to keep these separate, as political considerations should never be a factor in determining scientific truth.

There is a discussion to be had regarding whether we should be making wide-ranging economic changes based on theories that are x% likely to be correct, but the consequence of these changes (or the impact of not taking action) should not have an impact on the science, other than to act as a guide to decision-makers where best to allocate research funds.

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

Then you can't be asking the right people.

If you look at this graph, you get the answer: it'd have a be a pretty big pause. Decades, even.

Re:Common Sense

[Burnhard]

Gavin Schmidt of "real-climate" fame recently posted an article showing how good the model predictions actually were (with respect to tropical temperatures as measured by satellite). As Steve McIntyre (of Climate-Audit fame) noted, Schmidt appears to have carefully chosen his starting point to give the best possible correlation between the models and reality. No surprise there then.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687

Re:Common Sense

[SolusSD]

We are at a solar minimum and approaching the maximum distance the earth will be from the sun in the next 10,000 years. This is usually cause for an ice age, but global warming, due to human activity, has effectively masked the effect. Some NASA scientist wrote a 'warning' to the scientific community awhile back to to misread this temporary cooling period. While it may be cooler than the recent trend for the next 8-10 years, after that the trend we saw in the second half of the last century will continue. Global warming due to man made CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to natural sources-- BUT the natural sources have struck a balance (sources and sinks essentially cancel each other out) where as the man made sources throw off this balance leading to the increase in the mean atmospheric CO2 we've been seeing.

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

Effect does not, under normal circumstances, preceed cause.

But CO2 output continues to rise. You can always look at last year and say "see? It was lower". I don't see how that proves anything. The proof that we have is that models that take human CO2 production into account are much more accurate. That is, they correlate better with recorded data.

but I am damn sure that most of the people claiming they do, are talking out of their collective asses.

I hope you realize what an extraordinary claim that is. Climatology did not pop up out of thin air when Al Gore did his movie. Many scientists from many countries have spent entire careers studying these trends.

We have not been directly recording global temperatures for long enough to draw any conclusions about global cycles that extend into the centuries and millennia.

The pre-satellite data is considered accurate enough to use because can't be shown to be so wrong as to actually skew the models.

when trying to predict wheather paterns we've already seen

The models currently in use, though not perfect, have been shown to both predict trends accurately as well as comfortably reconstruct past events. James Hansen modeled a few scenarios in the 80s, all of which are close but one of which was dead-on. That model shows climates continuing to go up. Also, it's important to note that nobody's trying to predict the weather. Climate is a different beast entirely, much more long-term and smoothed out.

I don't expect to change anyone's mind. But please try to realize that it takes a phenomenal amount of arrogance to, in the absense of alternative hypothesis or evidence, disparage the decades-old scientific consensus. You also risk misleading others.

My understanding is that there has not been a successful model that left out human CO2 emission. It has been said that perhaps 6% of climate change papers reject the consensus position. You should at least look at the arguments in those, and understand why the other 94%, and most of the governments of the world, see a smoking gun in the data.

Scientists have always considered things like solar output, earth's orbit, volcanic activity, cloud cover (which complicates things but essentially they do both: heat by insulation, cool by reflecting sunlight), and yes even cosmic rays. Taking everything into account, the consensus is still that, yes we are causing this, and yes it will continue. The warming itself is not even up for debate.

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

something we know to be horridly inaccurate

Who said the current models are horribly inaccurate? I think you'll find that they hold their own, but that's something that you need to see for yourself. In any case, nothing in science is taken to be absolute truth and predictions are necessarily made with a grain of salt. But don't go thinking that there is some sort of 50/50 debate going on. There is a clear consensus and it only gets stronger as time goes on.

The collective world is in no way ever going to come together and cut CO2 emissions to the levels that scientists claim is necessary.

I completely agree, and with the rest of what you're saying as well. But it doesn't change reality. If we're boned, at least we'll know why.

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

2005 was the hottest year on record.

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

They use ice cores.

Re:Common Sense

[Omniskio]

Coincidence? I think not. Could it be Satan?! (Who doesn't love us anymore?)

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

Christopher Landsea...his position is that we are only detecting more powerful hurricanes because we have better detection methods. He has been pretty vocal about it and it's what caused him to leave the IPCC and denounce them as political.

There are at least a few scientists who have published papers attempting to show that hurricanes have at least gotten stronger as temperatures have risen. The IPCC may be political but I don't think it's a clear cut as them ignoring valid science in favor of conjecture. It's certainly still a contentious topic and from what I gather it's harder to study, probably because it involves storm-chasing. Increased sea temperatures have been pretty effectively shown to affect hurricanes, the question is how much.

I have to respect Landsea for his cleverness and for making a principled stand. But note that even he doesn't deny the greenhouse effect...*that* would be political.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

My post acknowledged that there exists evidence that CO2 can increase the temperature in a global system (your venus example as well as experimental evidence). However, Evidence is not Proof.

You need lots of falsifiable predictions to be found accurate before the evidence adds up to the level of proof. I'm saying that the GW proponents have a lot of evidence that GW is happening. They also have evidence (less so IMO) that CO2 may be the culprit. However, the amount of evidence they've brought together doesn't meet the burden of proof necessary for the kind of radical restructuring of our energy economy that is being pushed.

I have no problem with the idea that I'm wrong, but I insist on a larger quantity of reliable data before I'll be convinced and when people saying things like "The debate is over!!" it means they aren't looking for any more evidence.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

I would also suggest the if you see and issue with 20,000 scientists and professionals on one side of an issue and a dozen or so on the payroll of major oil companies on the other, that you do the rational thing, and look for who has reason to be honest and who doesn't.

Starting a reply by trying to imply I am either on the payroll of interested parties, or unable to notice if the sources I read are, means you're not even willing to consider the possibility that I have a point worth considering. This is a nonstarter for any discussion.

There are virtually no serious scientists in the fields

There is a post in this discussion that contained quotes of 15 or so, highly respected scientists within the very fields you are outlining that falsify the statement you are making.

Scientists have recently discovered that thermal records of earths surface temperature propagate slowly down into the earth crust

This is not a direct measurement of global atmospheric temperature. It is a direct measurement of global soil temp, and is used as an indirect measure of global atmospheric temperature. The global atmospheric temp is not the only thing influencing the temp of the earths crust (vulcanism and radioactivity come to mind), so those other influences need to be accurately accounted for in any calculation attempting to yield historical data for the global atmospheric temperature.

Why would anybody dream of taunting fate with the likely result costing the lives of untold millions.

Consider the possibility that our obsessive focus on CO2 has caused us to miss a more important controller of GCC. IMO, failing to even consider other possibilities is a greater tempting of fate than touting CO2 as the only major controller of GCC that we can influence and declaring the debate over.

Re:Common Sense

[Minozake]

Why such the arbitrary number?

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

I've never stated that I'm against improving efficiency, finding alternatives to fossil fuels, minimizing consumption, or that CO2 doesn't absorb more energy than other gasses. Just because CO2 can absorb energy, doesn't mean it's impact is large enough to be the main culprit in Global Climate Change. I do believe it is a factor.

However, I don't believe enough evidence has been mustered to justify the kind of extreme measures that have been proposed.
Want to minimize automobile emissions? Great!
Want to find alternatives to the burning of finite and polluting fuels like oil and coal? Great!
Want to increase our use of renewable energy sources like wind, wave, geothermal, etc.? Excellent.
Want to push technology that isn't ready based on a religious like belief in models that have been shown to have incredibly low predictive ability? NO! Wait until the models improve to the point where they are right even 60% of the time. Throw some more money at those researchers that are actually improving the validity of the models.

This is what I see is happening in the US. It's not that we shouldn't be pushing to reduce CO2, or that we shouldn't be using these models (as has been unnecessarily pointed out repeatedly, they are the best we've ever had). It's that we are pushing too hard, because we are treating these models as though they are better than they currently are.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

decades-old scientific consensus.

The fact that there are scientists within the appropriate communities questioning the CO2 as the major motivator of global climate change would appear to indicate that there is no consensus, never mind one that is decades old. There is another post attached to this topic that contains quotes of highly respected scientists within the relevant fields expressing doubt, criticism, and in some cases ridicule on this topic. That doesn't make me right, but it does remove the possibility of a consensus from the discussion.

I don't believe that CO2 is innocent. I believe that the role of CO2 has been overstated. If I put on my tinfoil hat I can give you several potential reasons for the overstating of CO2's importance:
1. Making global climate change our fault scares funding agencies into forking over a lot of cash to try and find solutions to the problem.
2. The UN has a love/hate relationship with industrialized western nations (they provide the bulk of the funding, but they are also the minority of it's members). Since CO2 emissions come predominantly from western nations, this enables the blame to be placed on those nations. The western nations would need to sacrifice their current energy infrastructures to mediate these problems, give the 2nd and 3rd world member nations a chance to catch up.

I don't actually believe that either of these are primary motivating factors, but I do believe they both play a role in the overstatement of CO2's role.

Re:Common Sense

[interploy]

I'd guess a minimum of 100 years. It needs to be on a scale long enough to be reasonably accurate in terms of changing weather patterns, and short enough to be a reasonable amount of time in terms of human lifespan. If we can maintain or lower the average in that time then I think it's safe to say we've taken the right steps.

From another perspective, you could say we spent 100 years fucking up the planet with carbon emissions and gross amounts of waste, we should spend at least another 100 trying to clean it up.

Besides which, having a difficult question does not invalidate the problem. It's like saying, "How long do I have to shoo away this pack of wolves before I can climb down out of this tree?" Your statements imply guy should just climb down because the question is a real stumper so the problem must not exist, when really the answer is, "As long as it fucking takes."

Re:Common Sense

[Minozake]

[...]the theory of what is causing it or whether it is outside the realm of natural cycle.

Clarify please. Scientific theory or colloquial speculation?

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

Because on ten-year scales El Nino and La Nina can make it look like temperatures are steady or dropping. There's also an eleven-year cycle of solar output. Over a period of twenty years or more, it would be very unlikely to see a cooling trend if there's a long-term warming trend of 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, which is what we've seen over the last 25 years.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

So the "Proof" of global warming is basically that we have no better theory? Yet patterns of warming don't match very well with patterns of CO2(with the exception of the last 40 years or so). We are being told that Global temperatures have gone up by fractions of a degree. I would be amazed if they could actually get all that data together without the margin of error being at least fractions of a degree. I can have 3 different digital thermometers in different places in my yard and they will all read different. Going back 100 years they didn't have digital thermometers. Temperatures in Cities are warmer than outside cities.

Global warming appears to me to be science with an agenda behind it. With something as big and as complex as this, I think you could try to have the numbers say just about whatever you want them to say.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

Actually I live in the Desert no where near the NE US.

Re:Common Sense

[sumdumass]

I think his point was more along the lines of Cause being the source of the observed effect rather then a Link between the two. It's sort of like saying I have a pint of red paint, I can only paint so much with it but it will cover my entire house. Well, most likely it won't be enough to make your entire house red. So while some of the house will be painted, not all of it can be.

Let me explain a little further then he was going from. If Co2 can raise the average temp of the earth, is the movement we are seeing enough to do so or is it just a reaction from another process? Take the oceans for instance, You have two concepts I'm going to brush into here but one is the decadal oscillations (elmino and so on but it actually happens in about 5 spots) which are suggested to be influenced by solar activity. The other is undersea volcanic activity.

Now the Oceans are huge carbon syncs and it isn't quite known how the expanding warmth of these anomalies actually effect the storage capabilities of these areas. We know that warmer water holds less carbon which means undersea volcanic activity, current anomalies like the Pacific decadal oscillations warm the ocean and some carbon will be released. We also know that Current shifts in the Oceans or the warming of any body of water will have an effect of warming the area surrounding it for quite a space beyond the ocean because of the air currents flowing over it. Both of these are capable of melting polar ice caps when the ambient outside air temp is below the freezing point of the ice.

So, while there is supposedly a rise in global temperature that isn't an accounting error, And while there is a rise in Co2 in the atmosphere that isn't in error either, the question that remains unproven is if a shift of less then .0001 parts of the atmosphere is capable of causing the warmth we are seeing or is it more reactionary to another cause. That correlation to one way or another hasn't been proven and all the models that I know of have broken when attempting to demonstrate it beyond the instance the model was tailored to prove.

Re:Common Sense

[MaxQuordlepleen]

Ask that person to construct a coordinated response that has nothing to do with america. They just can't. Within half a minute they reflexively go back to sneering at the US.

And you wonder why the rest of the world sneers...

Re:Common Sense

[bunratty]

I'm not sure what additional evidence you want. The only way we could possibly provide more evidence is to have a duplicate Earth in orbit and put a different amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere, thereby running a controlled experiment. The data that the Earth is warming is very clear. Let's say that you're skeptical about the accuracy of the temperature measurements. I can understand that. But if temperatures are not rising, why would the Arctic ice be melting? It doesn't make any sense, does it?

Re:Common Sense

[arminw]

...This is why the consensus is....

And of course, nature pays attention to human consensus! History of science throughout the ages demonstrates that consensus is mostly wrong. For centuries the consensus was that the earth is flat, at the center of the universe, the universe has always existed, disease is caused by "bad air" and on and on and on. What makes us incredibly arrogant humans of the 20th and 21st century so sure that we are right "this time" in contrast to our ancestors? Truly, the more we discover about the universe, the life therein, our own nature and make-up, the more anyone who is even remotely honest, will come to the conclusion that the questions are far outpacing the answers.

Does the sun shine by burning wood, thermonuclear nuclear fusion or is there an external galactic or extragalactic power source? The fact is, we don't really know, but are guessing.

We think we know that opposite electric charges attract. What we don't know is that why then negative electrons and positive protons don't collide and merge and destruct in a flash of energy, obliterating every atom in the universe. There are theories, but there has never been an EXPERIMENT that shows why atoms don't self destruct or why the law of attraction of opposite charges should not apply to atoms. All we observe is that atoms work, yet appear to violate some other principles we observe by experiments. As to what is really going on -- well we have theories (guesses), but are these really right? Who knows?

In some ways, science is worse off than the blind men trying to determine the nature of the elephant. Each of them had a different theory, but if or when they came to a consensus, that would not be right either. Global warming is less accessible to study than the elephant.

Re:Common Sense

[jackspenn]

Sort the average global temperatures for any decade and there'll be a hottest and a coldest. But being the coldest year in the hottest decade doesn't mean it's getting colder.

But the fact that the temp this year is not explained by the global warming models indicates, you global warming theorists may not know as much as you think you do, or perhaps you know a lot of stuff that just isn't so.
-Eric

Re:Common Sense

[jackspenn]

I got news for you buddy, this past decade was not the hottest in Earth's history. If you trend over the the entire history, not some randomly selected time period you will discover that "The Earth on average is getting cooler". Plus I could argue that getting warmer means the Earth likely has a net energy gain, which isn't nearly as dangerous as having a net energy loss and certainly it isn't worth disrupting the lives of billions of people for a hypothesis that fails to explain why this year is colder then previous years. If you look at it logically, "Global Warming" is almost as scientifically credible as "Intelligent Design", almost.

Re:Common Sense

[Dunavant]

2005 was the hottest year on record.

[citation needed]

Re:Common Sense

[Dunavant]

Nevermind, google agrees pretty copiously.

Re:Common Sense

[wclacy]

Could it be regional warming? Antarctica has if anything seen an increase in ice over the past 30 years.

Re:Common Sense

[XSpud]

> So the "Proof" of global warming is basically that we have no better theory?

I'm not sure what you mean by Proof of global warming. Global warming is a fact - there are measurements that show this clearly.

> We are being told that Global temperatures have gone up by fractions of a degree.

About 0.5 Celsius increase in 40 years I think. It doesn't sound like much but to climate scientists it's a big deal. It's a lot of extra heat in the atmosphere.

> I would be amazed if they could actually get all that data together without the margin of error being at least fractions of a degree.

Accurate readings of temperature have been possible for over a hundred years now and the margin of error estimating temperatures 1000 years ago using indirect means is only +/- 0.5 degrees. Statistical analysis of actual measurements means we can be effectively certain that global warming is real.

> I can have 3 different digital thermometers in different places in my yard and they will all read different.

Try an experiment then - take readings from each thermometer over a period of time and plot a graph of temperature against time for each of them. See how they track each other? Now consider doing this for 100 years in thousands of places around the world, analyse the results statistically and you'll see a similar pattern. They won't track each other as well as the thermometers in your back yard due to weather being different in different places but you will see a clear trend.

> Going back 100 years they didn't have digital thermometers.

They had mercury thermometers - a technology still used around the world today to decide whether to rush children to A&E. Sometimes it's surprising how good older measurements were (e.g. measurements taken in the same locality but by different people agree very well).

> Temperatures in Cities are warmer than outside cities.

This is true and you will find temperatures in urban areas that were once rural have increased significantly. Of course scientists are aware of this effect, and take this into account e.g. by discarding measurements from existing urban areas.

> Global warming appears to me to be science with an agenda behind it. With something as big and as complex as this, I think you could try to have the numbers say just about whatever you want them to say.

I think there are people on both sides who have an agenda and this doesn't help things. However, when you look at the data from a scientific viewpoint it clearly shows that global warming is real. There's really little doubt about this and even groups opposed to the scientific consensus of man-made warming now concede this fact.

The debate has moved on now - it's not whether global warming is happening, but whether its causes are man-made. And the majority of scientists feel this also is pretty much confirmed now and the debate should be about what we can do about it.

Re:Common Sense

[Tenebrousedge]

Where in Alaska?

Re:Common Sense

[Myopic]

I don't really trust an op-ed piece for scientific analysis. I live in Juneau, where we have a local glacier that you can visit right here in the middle of town (and more that you can hike to). That one, the Mendenhall, is receding, and has been since before the industrial revolution. We have our local Juneau Ice Field, which has a whole bunch of glaciers, and the local scientists tell us that one of those glaciers is advancing (for unknown reasons, apparently) but all the others are receding.

I don't know that you mean by a decade's worth of pause. Global temps have been rising for the last decade, and glaciers around these parts have been receding for he last decade.

Re:Common Sense

[Myopic]

Moving that much infrastructure "three feet uphill" would cost a lot compared to the cost of addressing the problem in the first place.

It would!? Golly, how much?

Of course, we don't know. But my point is more general -- yeah, okay, it costs a lot to get people to move from Manhattan to Brooklyn, but that's not a difficult thing to do. Everyone would just, you know, literally walk up the hill three feet.

Global warming is more scary because of the potential effects on the global plant and ocean life. That's what I fear. But, hey then again, I live at the top of a hill.

Re:Common Sense

[CorSci81]

In general I agree with you that the other possible effects are far scarier than the sea level rise. My point is framing the debate in terms of monetary cost is likely to get more people to listen to you than trying to convince your average person to worry about ecological damage they're unlikely to directly observe. Unfortonately, for many people responsible environmental practices aren't a concern until it is in their backyard.

Re:Common Sense

[atraintocry]

I believe that the role of CO2 has been overstated.

Oh, absolutely. In the media it has been overstated, at least for the purpose of simplifying things. It's not even the only greenhouse gas. And obviously there are other factors involved in warming. But the geologists and climatologists know this. We are talking about warming in levels of less than one degree Celsius. But that can still have a dramatic effect on the environment.

In terms of political spin in the US, we have had scummy things going on on both sides, like progressives in the 80s trying to pin global warming on smokers in order to get anti-smoking legislation, as well as the politically-charged "junk science / sound science" terminology that has made the Republicans look pretty bad IMO. And a lot of the "scientific debate" among laypeople is really just whether or not people are OK with Kyoto.

Where I see statements about lack of consensus is in places like the WSJ or editorial columns of other newspapers. But the couple of meta-studies that I'm aware of (Oreskes, Schulte) show that most of the studies reaffirm or at least assume AGW. It's possible that there are others I'm unaware of. And naturally there are many respected scientists that don't agree with the consensus (Wikipedia has an enormous list) but again I disagree that points to there not being one.

Re:Common Sense

[crmarvin42]

I don't mean to be insulting, but being able to assemble a list of respected scientists that don't agree proves that there isn't a consensus. That there exists a long list of respected scientists who are essentially being ignored is evidence (although not proof) that politics is getting in the way. Without politics being involved, these respected scientists would be give lip service at the very least by their peers. Instead, they are simply ignored which is not good science, but a very effective political maneuver if you can get enough people to go along with you in ignoring the dissenters.

Re:Common Sense

[TapeCutter]

Now that I think about it both statements are probably true. IIRC the top 10 years have all been within the last couple of decades.

Re:Common Sense

[The Spoonman]

Which suggests that perhaps it needs more study instead of being dismissed out of hand as the concept of a couple of wackos lead unthinkingly by Al Gore.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Everybody who's saying the discussion is over and there's a scientific consensus has "left the drawing board". We've got a 10 year pause and 2 years of cooling going on and none of the models predicted it. We've got "missing heat" and grossly oversimplified models. We've got a recognition that weather is initial condition dependent but faith that somehow climate is not.

So yes, there's a problem.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

So since we're about half way there with a 10 year end to warming while CO2 levels continue their march upwards, isn't it time to maybe back off the idea that we must charge ahead with horrendously expensive solutions *now*, *now*, *now* and wait a bit to see how things play out?

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

The negative/flat trends have lasted about 10 years now.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

Funny enough, the biggest cooling has shown up in 2007 and 2008. The previous 8 years are more of a "pause" in previous warming. The punchline is that your graph ends in 2006. The graph also has a huge spike around 1998 (major el nino) while the accompanying data table purporting to explain the graph has no spike bit runs uninterrupted higher through 2007. Something's not quite right there.

Reducing emissions sucks up money that could be spent elsewhere better. At the margin this has pretty bad effects (ie people die). The reality is that anytime you divert large amounts of money to something, people in the third world die. The precautionary principle is a huge middle finger raised by rich self-indulgent 1st world paranoids to the poor of the world.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

GISS shows flat/cooling since 1/2001, HADCRUT is flat/cooling since 4/1997.

Re:Common Sense

[dbrutus]

The problem is that the scientists are acting like politicians. There is absolutely zero scientific motivation to prefer prevention over mitigation but the whole thrust of the IPCC push has been to create a drumbeat in favor of prevention via massive government action.

Such political statements have been called science and that's the real problem.

More propaganda

[genner]

Nothing but lies from the people making money off cosmic rays.

Oh yeah?

[dk90406]

What about the Human Torch from Fantastic Four. He is causing it all, you know...

Say it with me...

[Tetsujin]

Correlation is not explanation.

Re:Say it with me...

[philspear]

Correlation is not causa... wait... huh?

Anyway I think the fortune cookie logic here is, as usual, misapplied.

FTA

This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.

They're not saying "A happens with B, therefore A causes B." They're saying "A does not happen with B."

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se. Didn't read if there was a possibility of a non-correlating causation, or maybe if I did, I don't have enough of a background in atmospheric science to realize it.

Re:Say it with me...

[Chris Burke]

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se.

Well, yes, actually, absence of correlation implies the absence of causation. At least via the method you are examining for correlation. Correlation is not causation, but it is a prerequisite of causation. If you did a study where people smoked a cigarette and then were screened for lung cancer, you would find no correlation and thus correctly conclude that smoking a cigarette does not cause lung cancer. But there's still a relationship between them, as you could perform a study and find a strong correlation between a long term history of cigarette smoking and lung cancer, which when combined with further biological evidence would cause one to conclude that long-term smoking habits cause cancer.

Similarly, this absence-of-correlation would strongly imply that cosmic rays do not directly impact cloud formation. There might be some other round-about way in which it impacts them, I dunno sea bass absorb the rays which gives them gas which drifts up into the atmosphere and seeds clouds. But you'd have to find a correlation between that mechanism and clouds formation.

Re:Say it with me...

[Chris Burke]

I don't like the word "prerequisite" in that post, so let me rephrase it like this:

Causation implies correlation.

Therefore, no correlation implies no causation.

Re:Say it with me...

[enharmonix]

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se.

Actually lack of correlation is logically stronger than actual correlation. I'm going to simplify this a little bit, but it should stand. Let H = "Fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds." That's our hypothesis. Let O = "In periods where fewer cosmic rays are present, we would expect to observe fewer clouds." That's our expected observation. The statement H->O (H implies O) is TRUE: it literally states if fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds, then when we have a decline in cosmic rays we expect to see fewer clouds. Obviously true.

Now, H->O can be translated to ~H OR O (using ~ for not). They tested and found ~O (there was no reduction in cloud cover), so we get ~H OR FALSE. It should be trivial to see that the only way this statement is TRUE is if H is also FALSE.

(As an aside, notice that when O is true, the value of H doesn't matter. This is why correlation does not equal causation. H might cause O, or something else might cause O. )

Point being H is FALSE: fewer cosmic rays does not result in less cloud cover. The study didn't actually address the global warming aspect of it; they merely disproved the notion that fewer cosmic rays result in fewer clouds.

Re:Say it with me...

[Frequency Domain]

Causation implies correlation.

Usually, but not always. Correlation measures the degree of linear relationship. If the relationship (causal or not) is non-linear, correlation can be zero.

You can confirm this with the following small example. If X is uniformly distributed between -1 and 1, and Y = X**2, then Cov(X,Y) is zero even though you can predict Y perfectly if I tell you the value of X. In fact, it works for Y equal to any even power of X.

Re:Say it with me...

[Chris Burke]

Correlation measures the degree of linear relationship.

Pardon my sloppiness, but I'm using "correlation" not in the strict statistical sense of measuring the correlation coefficient, but in the sense of being able to fit any function to the data to show non-independence. The correlation coefficient is basically a measure of the error when fitting a line to the data. You can fit other curves to the data, and measure their error, and thus measure correlation (colloquial sense, but still mathematically valid) between them.

Re:Say it with me...

[cthulu_mt]

Ho Ho Ho?

Re:Say it with me...

[Tetsujin]

Correlation is not explanation.

Correlation is not causa... wait... huh?

Text mismatch error.

Re:Say it with me...

[enharmonix]

Sadly that was not meant to be a joke... I fail it.

Re:Say it with me...

[tzhuge]

'prerequisite' seems like the right word to me

correlation is necessary, but not sufficient, for causation

Actually I think the more appropriate phrase in the case the GP is talking about is: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Which really only means they can't conclusively say there is no causal relationship (only that we haven't seen empirical evidence of one).

Re:Say it with me...

[philspear]

Yes, it was a nerdly joke: people always say "correlation is not causation" but Tetsujin changed it to "explanation." So I started saying it along with him and got confused when he said something I wasn't used to. At least that was the joke. Explaining it takes all the humor out of it. Not that there was much humor in there to begin with I guess.

Re:Say it with me...

[iSzabo]

Good point! I blame cosmic rays for my desire to release greenhouse gasses!

Re:Say it with me...

[Tetsujin]

Not that there was much humor in there to begin with I guess.

Yeah, sometimes the jokes are funny - other times they are not. I can't claim a perfect success rate, but I have fun... :D

Re:Say it with me...

[Lars T.]

Nope. The norwegian study didn't concentrate on correlation but on busting the hypothesis about cloud formation, cosmic rays and global warming... And then they added a mention of no correlation having been found earlier.

So they are saying "We found out that B isn't caused by A in the ways that have been suggested. Also note that studies haven't shown correlation between those either."

So the cosmic ray thing doesn't really have anything to back it up.

Well, it disproves Global Warming, that's all the back up it needs.

Re:Say it with me...

[Mutant321]

Exactly. The concept of "correlation is not causation" is actually a bit more subtle than a lot of people realise. Some people almost seem to think it means "if two things are correlated, then one CANNOT be the cause of the other", which is, of course, absurd.

The phrase should really be something like: "correlation is not absolute proof of causation, in and of itself" (if we side-step the issue of what "absolute proof" even means).

If two things are correlated, one *may* cause the other. It may not. You really need to do some investigation and see if there's a plausible mechanism linking the two. But if you've got some reasonable statistics to back up the correlation, it's probably worth at least looking in to it.

Mooo

[Anonymous Coward]

I blame the cows. Farting around the country side doing nuttin' but to make us sweaty and fat.

Re:Mooo

[hierophanta]

and if you dont believe him here is a link (i found it on the internets so it must be true)

Re:Mooo

[Whiteox]

It's the cow burps and not the farts.
An average cow is thought to emit between 542 litres (if located in a barn) and 600 litres (if in a field) of methane per day through burping and exhalation, making commercially farmed cattle a major contributor to the greenhouse effect. 95% of this gas is emitted through belching
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belching

So?

[Glock27]

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated with cloud formation, however it's clear that cooling is strongly correlated with low sunspot activity.

So, even if this is not the mechanism, it changes very little. We're still in solar minimum, instead of a peak that was originally predicted for 2006. Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Re:So?

[samkass]

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

And piracy is up...

Re:So?

[Glock27]

"Everybody knows that there is solar variability."

. Everyone, apparently, but the authors of the various global climate models, none of which currently include it.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, there is no causal link between the giant ball of fire and the temperature on earth.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's inconvenient is that despite a global cooling it's still one of the hottest years on record. It's only cool relative to 2000.

Re:So?

[ericferris]

"Everybody knows that there is solar variability."

. Everyone, apparently, but the authors of the various global climate models, none of which currently include it.

Not true. There are models which include variation in the radiated solar input (that's sunshire for us laymen). Some even achieve a measure of success in reproducing the observed climate changes over the last few centuries. But as every other model, they don't explain everything and they cannot reproduce all the observed changes.

Moreover, to account for the most striking recent climate change episodes, these model presuppose a solar variation that is not backed by independent evidence. For example, the Medieval warming could be explained with solar activity increase, but we lack independent proof of it.

On the other hand, the climate change (cooling) that led to the demise of the Mayan empire can entirely be explained by solar forcing (that is, solar activity changes were the main cause), and this has been amply documented.

Re:So?

[BlackSabbath]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/

To quote from the linked article:
"The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a complete fabrication?

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you could read, you would notice the words they use are "seasonal and diurnal," which have nothing to do with longer term variations in sunspot activity, like what the parent is referring to.

Re:So?

[mhall119]

Isn't that a bit like trying to prove that ocean levels aren't rising by showing a strong correlation between water level and lunar orbit?

Yes, global temperature and solar activity are linked, but when you average out the highs and lows, it's still an increasing function.

Re:So?

[mhall119]

Or, to use a car analogy, it's like saying that GM doesn't have a financial problem because their stock was up yesterday.

Re:So?

[smoker2]

Ignore the clouds. Wasn't there a study showing the relationship between rates of radioactive decay and solar activity ? IIRC, then some of the earths warming comes from the core, which in turn is warmed by radioactive decay. After a big bag of assumptions, couldn't solar activity be related to global temperature. Tectonics must release a lot of heat, and we've had quite a few events recently (Christmas 2006 onwards anyway).

Re:So?

[ArsonSmith]

We had a WARMING TREND.

Fixed that for you, it's been getting cooler the last 10 years.

Re:So?

[Belial6]

And yet, we are being told that all of the ice on the planet is melting because of higher temperatures. That is part of the problem with the global warming claim. Both increased and decreased temperatures are being reported. Both claims are being rationalized with "Your an idiot if you don't think there is global warming", "There is no debate", "There is a consensus in the scientific community", and "Go back to driving your SUV while talking on your cell phone". So, I as you this. Are all of the people that are claiming that the temperature is currently rising, lying, or wrong?

We see the same kind of poor logic applied to the worldwide reports of colder temperatures. The meme is "A single data point is not a global trend" and "localized weather can decrease while still having an increase globally", yet those same people turn around and use "single data points" and "localized weather" as proof of global warming.

The logic flounders completely when those pushing the global warming idea get to "The global warming deniers only believe there is no global warming because they are hearing their information from crappy journalists, who don't understand the science." Yet, the vast majority of people in the world are NOT climate scientists. They are just reading a different set of badly written reports by crappy journalists.

Re:So?

[RobRyland]

Sorry Sabbath, but that AC is right. 'Solar Variability' refers to changes in the actual output from the sun and is not related to seasonal and diurnal cycles. consider it a term of art. -Rob

Re:So?

[I cant believe its n]

First rule of solar variability is, you do not talk about solar variability!

Re:So?

[asynchronous13]

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Needs citation.
Global Temperature Land Ocean Index? -- Increasing
Global Temperature (meteorological stations)? -- Increasing.
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Three Latitude Bands? -- Slight dip for low latitudes, but mostly increasing
Annual Mean Temperature Change for Hemispheres? -- You guessed, it, increasing.
Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change? -- All positive (thus, increasing)
Annual Mean Temperature Change in the United States? -- Shocking! - also increasing!
Seasonal Mean Temperature Change? -- Don't let the dip fool you, just means it is warming less rapidly

Perhaps you heard that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000? Well that's true. 2008 has the coolest temperatures of the past 8 years. But guess what? It's the 9th warmest year on record (since 1880). I'd wait for a few more data points before claiming a global cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Indeed.

Re:So?

[bunratty]

You may be referring to the abnormally warm year of 1998, which was caused by a strong El Nino. The fact is that the mean global temperature is continuing to rise, at an increasingly faster pace. This is why the Arctic ice is melting.

Re:So?

[asynchronous13]

We had a WARMING TREND.

Fixed that for you, it's been getting cooler the last 10 years.

Is that so?

The truth is that 2008 is the coolest year since 2000. Every year from 2001 to 2007 was warmer than 2008. Creatively spun, one can make it sound like things have been cooling since 2000. But in reality, the trend is still warming with merely one data point (this year) below the upward slope.

Re:So?

[bunratty]

No, the people claiming that the temperature is currently rising are not lying or wrong. Global mean temperature is still showing an upward trend.

I don't see any climate scientists using "single data points" and "localized weather" as proof of global warming. You need to look at the overall trend in global temperatures, over the past several decades. If you even glance at such a graph, you can easily see the rise.

Re:So?

[Repossessed]

Actually, yes, the climate model I've seen pushed around the most does account for solar activity, which is why temperatures aren't expected to start rising again for another ten years.

Also, since I'm pretty sure you were trying to insinuate that global warming is caused by solar activity, I'm going to point out that if you only use that for the modeling, our temperatures should be dropping
(overall, not just for this next decade), not raising.

Re:So?

[MCSEBear]

If NASA understood solar cycles, they wouldn't already be a year off on their prediction for when the next solar cycle would begin. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Re:So?

[gardyloo]

Brilliant post. Whomever modded it "Redundant" is an idiot.

Re:So?

[Jerry]

Science isn't making shit up...

Don't think so? GW "data" is laced with examples of manipulation. The most recent is the July 2008 CO2 readings from Mauna Loa. It seems that the folks "maintaining" the Mauna Loa CO2 data has been caught "Hansenizing" it all the way back to 1974 to ELIMINATE a CO2 reversal. The GW folks are all about using "adjusted" data to support their agenda, Thankfully, the military doesn't buy into their schemes and use REAL temperature data in their guidance equations, otherwise their accuracy might falter from being able to hit a 1 sq meter target to missing by a mile. Here is the data showing the CO2 manipulation, from the posting by Dee Norris.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/04/mauna-loa-co2-january-to-july-trend-goes-negative-first-time-in-history/

Dee Norris (19:08:01) :

it would seem, contrary to earlier claims that NOAA only adjusted the recent year, that the dataset back to mid-1974 has been adjusted. I will resist using the term Hansenized until I hear back from Dr Tans.

Here is a comparison of the new and old mean values:

Mauna Loa CO2 Adjustments on Aug 4th 2008
# decimal new old
Year Month date mean mean Change
1958 3 1958.208 315.71 315.71 0
1958 4 1958.292 317.45 317.45 0 .... snipped for brevity ... .... check URL for total listing ...
2008 6 2008.458 387.87 387.99 0.12
2008 7 2008.542 385.6 384.93 -0.67

Dee Norris (20:05:35) :

I did a quick plot of the differences between the old and new means.

          http://tinyurl.com/6qb3sg

Other than July 2008, the change seems to radiate out from 1994, each oscillation growing larger as time progresses in either direction.

I look forward to NOAA explaining the justification for this sort of adjustment.

This is just one of many examples of data cooking by GW believers. With their GW as a hammer they see everything else as a nail. Earth warming? Proof of GW! Earth cooling? Proof of GW! Drought? Proof of GW. Unusual rain and floods? Proof of GW.

To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.

Re:So?

[geekoid]

ummm the subs activity are immediatly felt, so it effects the weather pretty quickly. Even taking that into account, the underling global temperature is still rising.

And no, it is not in a cooling trend. It's in a not rising as quickly as we predicted trend.

Also lok up how they detrmine global temperature, I think you'll be suprised to find out it's not the daily temperature averaged. per se.

Re:So?

[geekoid]

-1 Liar. I suggest you ACTUALLY LOOK at the models, and stop spreading your fucking lies.
This is the number one way to tell is someone's opinion on global warming should even be listened to.
I mean, do you even know what a moron you look like to people in the profession?
Seriously dude, study up.

Re:So?

[crmarvin42]

does this model you've seen consider more wavelenths than the visible?

I found a web site of unverifiable credibility, that claimed most papers that purportedly show the sun to not be a major player in global temp changes only focused on the solar output of visible light (which is relatively, and amazingly consistent), and ignored both the shorter and longer wavelenghts of light.

Re:So?

[crmarvin42]

I keep seeing the year 2000 trotted out as some artificial dividing line. Please don't tell me that all of the global warming data is based on a data set with only 9 data points!

Re:So?

[naasking]

Also, since I'm pretty sure you were trying to insinuate that global warming is caused by solar activity, I'm going to point out that if you only use that for the modeling, our temperatures should be dropping (overall, not just for this next decade), not raising.

Why is that?

Re:So?

[Goateee]

Whomever modded it "Redundant" is an idiot.

No. There was already a thread named Common Sense about the FSM. Including mentioned Pastafarians.

Re:So?

[Xaoswolf]

And what kind of tectonic activity is brought about by all the gas hogging engines of all the SUVs running? Or what about plates shifting under the force of all those turning tires? It all falls back to SUVs...

Re:So?

[Samah]

Here is the data showing the CO2 manipulation, from the posting by Dee Norris.

And of course Dee Norris knows this first-hand because his brother Chuck is the real cause for global warming/climate change. Sea levels are actually rising because of all the people Chuck has triple-kicked in.

Re:So?

[Myopic]

That is contrary to my understanding of the data. Can you show data for that? This is the data I'm familiar with: data

Re:So?

[Repossessed]

It has to do with orbital patterns of the earth. Which can mostly predict ice cover over earths history, though not when there are shifts in carbon dioxide levels (the last glacial maxima, the cooling 5.6 million years ago, current trends, there are probably others).

Re:So?

[Wildclaw]

Most global warming data just tells you that humans are more active in an area which causes temperature to increase some. As the global population has increased a lot in the last 30 years it isn't strange that temperature has gone up. Especially combined with a lot of the population using more energy intensive tools. Humans are basically releasing far more warmth into the atmosphere than we did 30 years ago. Oh, and as CO2 in the atmosphere increases growth that is even more lifeforms that generate warmth.

The CO2 theories simply makes no sense as there have been periods in earths history with far larger CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. The runaway doomsday scenarios are simply wishful thinking and propaganda from organisations that thrive on panic and fear.

I am not saying that CO2 doesn't affect temperature to some degree. It does, but I am sick and tired of all the CO2 environmentalists that take up all the spotlight while pushing the real environmental issues such as real dangerous pollution, the rapidly decreasing amount of fish in our seas and increasing global population. The slight temperature increase that CO2 gives is minor compared to the real issue of sustainable life on earth.

Re:So?

[Repossessed]

No, the model I'm thinking of bases the variation off of solar input variation caused by the earth's orbital/rotation/tilt pattern. We don't, as far as I know, have enough data on what the sun does to include it in prediction models, or models that are means to be applied over geological time scales.

Re:So?

[dwguenther]

If you read the NOAA data description and papers, you will find that the adjustments are due to carefully documented re-calibrations of the standard gases used as references by the measurement instruments. More importantly, if you look at the difference graph linked in your comment, you will note that the typical correction is 0.2ppm and the largest correct is about 0.7ppm. This is insignificant compared to the 50ppm increase over the last 30 years at Mauna Loa. It begs the question; why are you (and others in this thread) ranting so violently against a simple measurement? What possible benefit could NOAA scientists gain over your lives? The politicization of science here is making no sense...

Re:So?

[domatic]

I don't buy the runaway doomsday scenario either. However, the small amount of bias that humans can inject into the planetary climate could have economic and political consequences. Places like Manhattan becoming flood prone, grain growing "bread baskets" shifting north, small islands becoming flooded out and so-forth aren't things we should ignore. Is it likely we'll turn the Earth into another Venus? Doubtful. Could we cause no end of trouble for ourselves? It isn't like we haven't before.......

Re:So?

[z-j-y]

Places like Manhattan becoming flood prone...

and the problem is?

Re:So?

[Lars T.]

Let me get this straight: you are claiming that because recently the CO2 levels may have gone down, they never were up, so Global Warming is a hoax?

Re:So?

[Wildclaw]

"Places like Manhattan becoming flood prone, grain growing "bread baskets" shifting north, small islands becoming flooded out"

You mean business like usual. Climate changing is nothing new. Some places become less habitable with time, other becomes more habitable.

The people who don't move get stuck in worse conditions while those who move to better places can live better. Of course, there are people who refuse to move because of sentimental reasons but they die eventually. And there are always people who move to bad (often floodable) areas because they simply lack common sense.

But in general it works out nicely over time. Things don't go from livable to unlivable in a day. It takes a long time. And it doesn't matter if some cities gets flooded, because cities have been rebuilt and rebuilt time and time again during our short history. And the changes happens in a timespan that make it manageable.

If you want to live in the same place for your whole life as a general rule don't settle in a place that could be prone to flooding, earthquakes or hurricanes. If you are willing to take the risk, sure go ahead and live in those areas but be prepared to pay the extra premium for it. Coastal properties have always been worth a lot because people like living near water, but they should also be aware that the extra price of the property isn't all they are paying for it. They are also paying with the extra risk that comes from living near water.

As for the "bread basket" comment. Again, some areas become better to grow food in while others get worse. Climate change is far less likely to cause problems here than human stupidity in other areas such as cutting down too many trees and leaving soil exposed. Such changes can cause problems that are difficult to fix.

Re:So?

[DougWebb]

Here's another graph which shows the upward trend in global temperature since the late 1800s; that period is the clearly upward-sloped line on the right. The other graphs in the series are also very informative. These graphs are from the paper Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

Re:So?

[dangitman]

To the GW Faithful EVERY change "proves" GW. This attitude moves them from the area of science to that of Faith. When you can't falsify your hypothesis then your hypothesis is a Faith.

Well, I don't know about the "GW Faithful", but for you, every post seems to be a lunatic rant against those who consider heathens for not believing the same as you. You sound very religious about it.

Re:So?

[chitokutai]

Did anyone else read this as George W.?

George W. "data" is laced with examples of manipulation.

Re:So?

[bonifatius]

All your temperature records are from Nasa. Nasa changes old data mostly down and doesn't explain why. The result is a warming trend that isn't in the original data. I don't believe their temperature record anymore!

I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.

In addition it is the only record that is confirmed by weather balloons measurements, an independent record.

This is a site, which shows the most used temperature records with its sources:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html#UAH%20MSU

But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature. Neither the speed nor the magnitude of the temperature change is unique in the climate history of the earth. On the contrary it is a normal change.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Re:So?

[evil_breeds]

Nicely done - the more links, the better for all of us.

Re:So?

[naasking]

Is there a site or paper describing the orbital patterns or our current position?

Re:So?

[Glock27]

Unfortunately I was away from my keyboard and couldn't respond to all these lovely replies. I doubt I would have had time regardless.

At any rate, I claim there's a cooling trend based on data such as that presented at:

http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/

If you take a trend line from 2002 or later to present, you'll notice a downward trend. That is "cooling".

Even with NASA's cooked figures (including improperly adjusted measurements), last January there was only a 0.1 C temperature anomaly. That is FAR below the prediction made by Hansen et. al. in 1998. Where did the warming go? It is supposed to be cumulative you know.

If they couldn't get the prediction right less than ten years down the road (and they are WAY off), what gives you the slightest confidence their prediction for 2100 is worth a thing?

CAGW is a hoax. One that has a price tag as high as $45 trillion. One that's being used to drive major government policy. It must be exposed, and stopped, as soon as possible.

Re:So?

[Glock27]

By the way, I should add that the sunspot cycles are looking to produce at least 15 more years of cooling. That gives us quite a bit more breathing room to determine if man-made CO2 is actually a problem or not.

The jury's still out at this point, with many responsible scientists siding with "not".

Re:So?

[Glock27]

I don't see any climate scientists using "single data points" and "localized weather" as proof of global warming.

.

There were excellent examples of this recently, both front page articles:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/melting.ice/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081216/ap_on_sc/sci_arctic_ice;_ylt=Ak1io9hb791KvrjNodwbWfoDW7oF

These articles are quite alarmist regarding "2 trillion tons of ice melting" (which by the way is ~0.0074% of the world's landlocked ice), but completely fail to mention that ice is accreting elsewhere such as the eastern part of the antarctic ice cap. In fact, one of the articles even failed to mention that the Alaskan glaciers are now growing, even though there's been a net ice loss since 2003.

Hope that helped...

(BTW you should also note the lack of alarmist arctic ice cap stories, since the ice there has increased from last year's levels.)

Re:So?

[Glock27]

Sure, I'll look. What model are you pointing me at?

Citation, please.

Re:So?

[asynchronous13]

At any rate, I claim there's a cooling trend based on data such as that presented at:

http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/

If you take a trend line from 2002 or later to present, you'll notice a downward trend. That is "cooling".

You should learn to read graphs better. As you mentioned, the lowest value is 0.1 C -- which indicates warming. Any positive value indicates warming, any negative value indicates cooling. There are only positive values on that entire graph. The downward trend from 2002 in that graph only means that things are warming less rapidly than before. "Warming less rapidly" is still warming, not cooling (you might notice that I even mentioned that in my post).

The other graph is for one specific altitude layer. That's why I presented graphs depicting multiple altitudes, latitudes, hemispheres etc. If you are talking about a trend then you need more than one data point.

what gives you the slightest confidence their prediction for 2100 is worth a thing?

What are you talking about? I said nothing about predictions. Please don't confuse global warming with Global Warming - the former is merely a description of observed data while the latter is pretty much a religion. My point is quite simple: on average, the measured temperature around the world is increasing. To say otherwise is inconsistent with the observed data. Every dataset that I've examined is consistent in this (if you have seen other large data sets that contradict this, please refer them to me, I would like to see them).

Re:So?

[Glock27]

You should learn to read graphs better.

.

I do just fine, thanks. ;-)

As you mentioned, the lowest value is 0.1 C -- which indicates warming.

It indicates warming versus an arbitrarily chosen "average" temperature. Another one of the games NASA is playing is basing that "anamoly" on a period with a large temperature dip (the '70s). Remember the Time cover article from that era predicting a new ice age?

Any positive value indicates warming, any negative value indicates cooling. There are only positive values on that entire graph.

See above.

The downward trend from 2002 in that graph only means that things are warming less rapidly than before. "Warming less rapidly" is still warming, not cooling (you might notice that I even mentioned that in my post).

Uh, no, the downward trend means cooling from the starting point forward. 2002-2008 means SIX YEARS of cooling. You don't find that significant?!?

Plus any measurement within 1 C is well within a reasonable random variation...

At any rate, I'll go out on a limb and predict that this winter and the next few years will seal the deal on a medium-term cooling trend. The long solar cycle also predicts an even longer solar cycle next time, based on the leading solar dynamics model.

I predict we'll see something like at least thirty years cooler than 1998 by the time that temperature is approached again.

Re:So?

[asynchronous13]

All your temperature records are from Nasa. Nasa changes old data mostly down and doesn't explain why. The result is a warming trend that isn't in the original data. I don't believe their temperature record anymore!

The raw data is also available if you are that suspicious. They correct for things like time of day -- it doesn't make sense to compare 9am samples directly against 12noon samples now does it?

I use the temperature record of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The temperature is measured by satellites. Therefore there is no heat island effect that distorts the data.

Good, b/c UAH data also shows a global warming trend, too. It just shows a bit less warming than does the nasa data. Both data sets agree that the overall trend is still warming (not cooling, as was asserted above)

But most importantly, none of the temperature shows an alarming rise in the global temperature.

Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers. On average, the measured temperature is getting warmer. Simple - no qualifiers needed. If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.

Re:So?

[asynchronous13]

*sigh* - Show me some long term data, not cherry picked ranges. For example, when the five-year running average slopes down, it starts to become interesting. (the five year slope is pretty flat currently, so it could go either way next year)

Here's the same data source for 1979 through 2008. It's apparent that it has not been cooling for the last six years. At best you could claim 2 years, but that is not enough to claim a trend when you're talking about global climate.

Here's a comparison of satellite temperatures and direct surface measurements. All of the data agree that there is an overall warming trend, they merely disagree on the extent of the warming.

Let me be clear - I am not claiming that this is a doomsday scenario. My only point is that the data does not support the claim that we are in a cooling trend.

Re:So?

[bonifatius]

Who gets to decide what level is alarming? See, I don't need to use qualifiers.

Catastrophic global warming is the whole point of the global warming debate! If there is no catastrophic global warming, we don't need to spend billions on "climate protection". In the past there have been thousands of global warming trends that were faster and bigger. Those weren't catastrophic.

If the observed amount of warming is significant or not is an entirely different matter, I am merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state that there is a cooling trend.

There are an infinite amount of cooling trends in the temperature records. It all depends on the time frame one chooses. For the last ten years there is a cooling trend in the UAH temperature record, while the CO2 part in the air is steadily growing.

Another example is the longest temperature record that I know of. It shows a cooling trend of about minus -6 degrees Celsius over 550 million years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png

Re:So?

[Glock27]

Still waiting... **crickets**

Global Warming Heretics

[bizitch]

Snowing today in Malibu, New Orleans and Vegas

Then of course there are these heretics

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

"I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly..As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history.When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.". Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of P

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FauxPasIII]

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[arizwebfoot]

Very well done, gimme some more please.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[fracai]

Some real nice attempts at "Argument from Authority" there.

So far it seems that the scientific consensus is that warming is real and likely to be contributed towards by human activity.

My favorite of your quotes is, "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."
No real scientist needs to figure out how to do that. They would just say, "Ya know? I looked at the data again, existing and new, and I've changed my evaluation because of the following points: ...". And that's that. Anyone who's afraid to say "I was wrong" isn't a good scientist, or a scientist at all.

All I see in those quotes are buzzwords and alarmist phrasing targeted at grabbing headlines. There may be just as much of that on the other side as well, but you'll need to do better than a list of quotes to convince anyone, or me anyway.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not against cleaning up the environment. I'm against religion being passed off as science.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Anonymous Coward]

why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

aggregation of personal wealth and power at the expense of and detriment to everyone else.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Beelzebud]

What are you rambling about? Religion?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[abigor]

What inspires this sort of passion, as opposed to other scientific things - for example, the Higgs Boson, or dark matter/energy? I've always wondered why GW deniers, practically all of whom lack any sort of real science education, picked up on this one issue in particular.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[arizwebfoot]

Okay, if you have 1000 scientists and the bottom 80 percent think global warming is the warm and fuzzy trend and the top 20 percent thinks it's a hoax, you could say there was a scientific consensus of sorts, but it would still be wrong.

Any idiot can follow, but it takes real guts to lead. My favorite quote was:

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

And in the scientific community, you cannot one day be for something and then the next day be against it without being labeled either wishy-washy or someone who doesn't fact check first (which leads to a serious credibility problem).

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Beelzebud]

That's simple. Politics. Look at the trend here. All the global climate change deniers make sure to insult Al Gore at least once in every post. The one guy that does try to provide "evidence" to support his idea links to Senator Inhofe (R), who has a long track record of being a climate change denier.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Strep]

Name this passionate movement. No one said that making "things more shitty" is good. All that's being said is that increased CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing and that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Neon Aardvark]

Plants (and therefore most life by weight) don't seem to view C02 as a "shitty pollution". Actual, precisely the opposite.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[BlackSabbath]

So what?

Half these quotes are nonsense themselves that merely display the non-science related biases of the person speaking (e.g. Delgado Domingos).

What I don't get is what skeptics hope to prove by making quotes like that. Where are the peer-reviewed papers by all these guys? Oh, you mean they are just blowing hot air instead of doing the science? Perhaps they're too lazy, or maybe they are so brilliant that they can see through it all. However this brilliant minority seems to produce very little in the way of concrete science related to THIS subject (climatology) as opposed to the overwhelming, prodigious amount of science produced by the vast majority of climatologists of which a very large proportion has similar conclusions.

Forget the soundbites, show me the science!

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[homotron]

The same progress that allows us to live 100+ years now vs the 30 of just a few hundred years ago is what pollutes and destroys and eventually cleans up and recovers. You can't pick and choose as no one has that foresight. So you either slow progress in the name of protection or you progress and deal with the side effects as they come. For me, i'll take progress and a little pollution that we will no doubt be able to handle. The world hasn't come close yet to ending because of us.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[leereyno]

I really don't understand what motivates you to lie and construct straw man arguments. Is intellectual honesty and integrity so difficult?

A disbelief in anthropogenic planetary warming is not an implied argument for the destruction of the environment.

"Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?"

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FooGoo]

It's not a passionate movement for more pollution... It's a passionate movement against government social experimentation/intervention under the guise of science. You'll find that most people who support the manmade global warming assumption use it to justify a whole host of government intrusion into our lives from punitive taxation to telling you what kind of car you should drive (hybrid), to what kind of coffee you should drink (organic, fair trade). These are personal social issues and not areas for government mandates.

If I where a scientist I would be very upset that the credibility of my profession was being undermined by people with political agendas. Pretty soon scientists will have the same level of credibility as the 4 out of 5 dentists or recommend Crest.

I believe that there are 3 great professionals that can truly benefit humanity. The statesman, the religious leader, and the scientist. We've already witnessed the decline of the first two so I guess it the scientists turn.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Captain Splendid]

That's the point. None of the scientists promoting global warming ARE good scientists because of the money they're getting to promote global warming.

Wow. I've heard some fucked up arguments against global warming and climate change, but that one takes the cake. If there's one thing the "alarmists" do not have on their side, it's freaking money.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[thejeffer]

Easy answer: Cost. You're not understanding the other side if you think their goal is wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil. There's a cost associated with being greener. If you offer me the choice between two products, one that's polluting, one that's green as grass, and the cost is the roughly the same, absolutely I'll choose the greener one. However, if I have to pay a 50% premium to save the environment, then I'm sorry, but given the economic state we're in, I'm probably going to choose the cheaper one. So here's your assignment: find ways to produce things, do things, etc, that are both greener AND cheaper. You do that, and the whole discussion becomes moot, because everyone will be on your side.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[PingXao]

I, for one, agree that GW is most likely man made. I am not against cleaning up the environment, either. I want to drink clean water and breathe clean air, too (notwithstanding the fact that I live only 40 miles away from New Jersey).

Having said that, where, if you please, are the numbers that back up the contention that if we reduce emissions by x% that future GW will be ameliorated y% ? Any tax that's on something you can't see or touch, as in, "we have to pay this to combat global warming", is going to be a tough sell, especially if it's something that's to remain in place over generations.

Then there's the possibility that the GW trends are irreversible. That would really be throwing money away, if that were the case. But I don't really know. So where are the studies that show it's a. humanly possible to even do something about GW, and b. if it is possible, how much of a "fix" does it provide?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[fishthegeek]

Consensus is not science. In fact consensus argued that...

1. The world is flat.
2. Eugenics.
3. That Africans were inferior.
4. That Newton was right about gravity.
5. That Einstein was wrong (see number 4)

It is dangerous to take consensus as an indicator of the accuracy of a claim. More often than not it was the contra-thinking individuals that were proven right over time.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FauxPasIII]

> It's not a passionate movement for more pollution... It's a passionate movement against
> government social experimentation/intervention under the guise of science.

I realize that you and the broader movement for denying human-caused global are not pro-pollution, but those are the bedfellows you're lying down with. The net result of your movement is more pollution and more environmental degradation. I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[LordLucless]

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

There's not. There's just a passionate movement against knee-jerk reactions that involve spending billions of dollars, have wide-spread economic repercussions and involve deceiving large swathes of the population.

Your questions sounds suspiciously like "Why do you hate America?"

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[homer_s]

Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil?

Maybe you can explain why there is such a passionate movement for wanting more poverty and misery?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[danbeck]

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

Global Warming is nothing more than religious fascism wrapped up in a pretty package of guilt and stranded polar bears. Your idiotic question illustrates this perfectly. In your mind, people who disagree with the shit being passed off as science want dirty water, more pollution and some section of the US to fall off into the ocean.

No one, NO ONE wants "more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil". Just because you think the sky is falling and are willing to believe any bullshit story you hear, it doesn't mean we all are going to open our pocketbooks so that people like you can push for more taxes to combat this "problem".

The earth has been cooling for years now and the very idea that any climate change means doom and destruction is a FUCKING joke. For decades now scientists with axes to grind and funding to aquire have been crying that we only have 10 more years to go, or 20 more years to go. In the 60's it was global cooling, in the 90's it was global warning and now that we are in a massive cooling cycle, they've wised up and are now saying *ANY* climate change is bad.

I don't believe it and I don't trust the "scientists" who subscribe to this shit theory. Follow the money and you'll find the real reason people are pushing this. Pollution credits, green companies and carbon offsets are a huge business.

The only warming that is happening are the gasbags who are constantly crying about climate change.

You retards have been promising us an apocalypse for YEARS now. Where is it? Where is the show?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Bryansix]

Here is a very good answer to your question. Are you ready? Hold on to your butt! It's the Carbon Dioxide! If we don't care about how much CO2 we produce then we invest heavily in CLEAN COAL which scrubs all the particulate and other chemicals out of the exhaust and then we don't give a flying crap about the CO2. No sequestering anything. Just scrub the exhaust and be done with it. Then the price of power drops precipitously. Get it? Good. Now pass this around.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[tripdizzle]

Did you read the quotes?? Some of those guys worked for the UN IPCC, now that they don't need to worry getting fired, they are telling the truth, plain and simple.

"Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in the history.When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Bryansix]

Your post does not correlate with reality. The reality is that is is not career suicide to denounce man made global warming.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Terwin]

Perhaps we are just in favor of the climate recovering from the current ice age so that we can move away from a period where for a substantial portion of the planet, plant life largely shuts down for a significant part of the year.

Ask any geologist, we are in an ice age, and you can see this easily because we have ice-caps that do not completely melt every summer.

Perhaps we just want the planet to recover to what it has been for most of it's history: a warmer climate where the amount of energy harvested by the vegetative biomass is sufficient to support a far more abundant animal biomass than could ever get by in this energy-poor environment.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[ljw1004]

Bjorn Lomberg (author, "the skeptical environmentalist") made this argument:

We have $1 today. We can spend it now to clean up the environment. Or we can invest it now, watch it turn into $50 in a century, and of that use $5 to clean up the environment at that time. It'll be more expensive, naturally, but he thinks that economies grow faster than do environmental burdens.

My instinct is that he's flat out wrong.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FooGoo]

Both sides have their crackpots and their extremes lead to undesirable results. But we shouldn't just accept the claims of global warming promoters just because we might like the end result. Flawed science is still flawed even if the result may be something that makes us feel good.

The truth is other than a few isolated cases and in some third world countries the planet is pretty nice. The third world just lacks the will and infrastructure to keep it clean. I've experienced the pollution in India, the smog, in China, and flooding in the Philippines because trash clogs the drainage. These are not global warming problems.

I've seen television campaigns in the Philippines saying that the flooding is cause more powerful storms do to global warming so it's something they can't do anything about. While the truth is if they stopped littering in the streets the drainage wouldn't get clogged and the streets wouldn't be flooded.

These are social/cultural problems. Fixing them will not affect global warming one way or the other but they will improve peoples lives.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[ArsonSmith]

Where should I crap then? Didn't the space station just have some issues with it's crapper?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

But greener is cheaper - because then you don't have to pay that $10 000 hospital bill you get when you get sick from pollution.

The cost of pollution is higher then the cost of lowering the pollution in the first place.

So you pay either way.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[BlackSabbath]

OK Dr.Itoh, what is the "truth"? Where is YOUR peer-reviewed paper showing some actual research?
Well, maybe you can be forgiven, since you are actually a bio-med engineer (Google it yourself you lazy sods).

By the way, Itoh was a "reviewer" not a "contributor". And just so that you know, the scientists on the IPCC were chosen by their respective governments, so of course, there's no change of bias there...

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Teresita]

Why is climate change so bad anyway? When has the climate not changed? Do we know what would happen to the genetic diversity of animals if the climate stopped changing? Why is promoting a static climate called a "progressive" (experimentalist) issue and not the ultimate conservative (traditionalist) issue?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[MaWeiTao]

What in the hell does skepticism in the global warming hysteria have to do with pollution? That's quite a leap of logic there, can you explain it to me?

I'm completely opposed to pollution, but that doesn't mean I have to blindly subscribe to the notion of man-made global warming. Quite frankly, the whole movement stinks to me more of a political and social movement than anything driven by concerns for the environment. The fact that there has been a shift from the use of the term "global warming" to "climate change" should make anyone skeptical. Someone seems to be trying to cover their ass to make the movement relevant if the claims and reality fail to agree.

We've been hearing claims for the last 15-20 years that we're doomed with even minimal changes and climate. The consequences are always around the corner. And yet here we are still waiting.

More often than not, I hear global warming being lumped in with claims that the haves are somehow oppressing the have-nots. In my part of the country the wealthy have taken to using environmentalism as a tool to preserve their way of life.

All this doesn't mean, however, that I want to see raw sewage dumped into the ocean and garbage strewn about everywhere. I think it's great that we're finally seeing alternatives to gasoline powered cars, clean energy is becoming a reality and companies and governments are becoming smarter about managing and recycling waste. And I will agree that not enough is being done.

The problem with the global warming crowd is that they make unrealistic and unattainable claims; like during the presidential campaign when there were television ads claiming that the US could be on 100% clean energy in 10 years. And they're constantly shitting on people. It doesn't matter what people do, it's never enough. I feel like these people still wouldn't be satisfied if we were living in huts and cooking over campfires. After all, some communities are even banning the use of fireplaces.

And ultimately, that's what it comes down to. These people trying to force things down our throat based on a pseudo science. And perhaps for now it hasn't had a significant impact, but are we going to cripple this country based on something we're not even certain of? We already have enough problems as it is.

And yes, I will call it a pseudo science because I find it an insult every time someone comes along and claims it's an absolute fact that man is affecting the climate. Like somehow, despite all the archaeological and scientific data, the climate has been static for the last 4+ billion years. However, if you believed in creationism and the 6000 year old universe, then I might understand the belief in man-made global warming.

I will concede that the human race is great at procrastinating and will always choose the path of least resistance. So in some cases we need a fire under our asses to get something done. But in many ways this hysteria is going too far.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[MaWeiTao]

That's because the Higgs Boson and dark matter has no immediate impact on our lives. But the man-made global warming hysteria campaign can have a real impact on our daily lives.

Hell, it's already bad enough that I can't watch an educational show about nature or the environment without it turning into a propaganda piece about how awful humans are.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Paxtez]

Because it's dishonest?

I would rather live in the current world (environmentally speaking) and have an honest scientific community/government than have a cleaner, dishonest world.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[snspdaarf]

I would like that too. I do what I can, and what I can afford to do, to reduce my footprint. However, I remember the climatologist at The Weather Channel saying that AMS should pull the credentials of anyone that did not agree with global warming. That is not the argument of someone interested in The Truth, but someone that is interested in Being In Control Of Other People's Lives. Piss on that noise.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FooGoo]

Try to invalidate someone's argument due to improper formating of said claim and a wikipedia link is know as asshattery. [No Citation Needed]

You may be new here but there is a website called Google it lets you find stuff on the internet. Using it I was able to find things like links between global warming and fair trade, government saying what kind of car I can't buy, and my favorite scam of all the carbon tax.

"Right now, California and New York refuse to register new diesel cars because they don't meet emission regulations."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/06/es.climatejustice/index.html

http://www.globalwarmingsolutions.org/personal-action/make-your-gifts-free-trade-this-valentineâ(TM)s-day

http://www.carbontax.org/

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[bunratty]

Climate change, in itself, is not bad. The climate has changed in the past and will continue to change.

But when the Earth gets significantly warmer due to human activity, and when the change in climate causes millions of people to relocate because the coasts get flooded, or if it causes shortages of fresh water and food, humans may tend to view it as something to try to prevent.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Gat0r30y]

A disbelief in anthropogenic planetary warming is not an implied argument for the destruction of the environment.

So, what policy changes would you recommend? How does your disbelief in a specific cause change the way you view how we should implement / change environmental policy? I would suspect that it would significantly change the way you view things like caps on carbon emissions. Am I right? What about things like mercury emissions from coal fired power plants? Are you for or against stricter standards? What about in other countries? Should China adapt stricter standards? The pollution their coal plants creates ends up in California, so that is our problem too no? How can we take a global leadership role in solving these problems when we are so hypocritical as to deny the very existence of a significant portion of climate research in a quest to appease the coal/oil and gas industries?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Gat0r30y]

Global Warming has become the socialists latest grab for power, but the tide is slowly turning.

How is global warming going to give the means of production to the workers?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[LWATCDR]

Cleaning up the environment and global warming are two very different issues.
If global warming isn't man made then the CO2 output is harmless.
CO2 doesn't make anything shitty to use your terms if it isn't the root cause of global warming.
It sure doesn't have any effect on water or soil quality.
Now burning coal without good the latest emissions controls sure does. Leaded gas also is an issue.

I am a skeptic of the global warming religion but at the same time I am for at least cutting the growth in CO2 output until we know for sure just to be safe.

But if CO2 isn't an issue we will spend a lot of resources solving a none problem that could go to solve other problems.
Not to mention the cost in jobs and just plain standard of living.

The latest studies that I have read BTW oil and gas really are not the problem it is Coal.

So your statment sounds good but really has no basis in fact. It has nothing to do with wanting pollution but with not wanting to waste resources.

Why I disagree with those that want to do nothing they are not as dumb or as simple minded as you seem to think.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Neon Aardvark]

Yeah, I did took chemistry courses for the first 2 years of my physics degree, so I know what carbon dioxide is. I also typo-ed "actually" as "actual".

Broadly speaking, I'm skeptical about fragile natural balances, given the continuously changing climate of Earth, stretching as far back as we can measure it.

I'm skeptical that this particular climate is somehow miraculously the best of all, given that it's by mere chance we are alive at this point.

And humanity is the most adaptable of all creatures, living in the frozen tundra, and in the Sahara, and everywhere in between. So I'm not particularly worried.

We need more objective science, and less scare-mongering.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[cptnapalm]

"the same level of credibility as the 4 out of 5 dentists or recommend Crest"

... you mean my toothpaste is a lie?

8~(

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Xerloq]

No one wants to make the world a crappy place... It's that I don't want fanatic nutjobs trying to control my life with their made-up mumbo-jumbo. That goes for you on BOTH sides of the argument.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[borizz]

CO2 is not the only factor going green would affect (or effect, or whatever, English is not my native tongue). All kinds of stuff gets dumped in the environment that we could do without.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[toriver]

There's just a passionate movement against knee-jerk reactions that involve spending billions of dollars, have wide-spread economic repercussions and involve deceiving large swathes of the population.

Why did you just switch the topic to the Iraq war?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Xelios]

Because assuming we are the cause of the climate shift implies we have to do something to fix it. If the outcome of all this is limited to reducing pollution and working toward cleaner energy then I'm happy. We should be doing that regardless. But the minute people start talking about deliberate climate modification to offset the warming I get worried. And this kind of thinking is already cropping up, with proposals to seed clouds to reflect more sunlight, or add lime to seawater.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[toriver]

Relatively less than Exxon et al are pouring into the anti-global-warming revisionism. Thankfully some oil companies grew a conscience and left that band of lie-spreading lobbyists.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FooGoo]

No, there is a consensus among dentists that it's toothpaste so you're all good.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[htrn]

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

May I take a minute to plead for us to consider that we want what's best for the planet? I personally would love to stop pollution as much as is possible (without moving back to horse and buggy time periods). This, however, has nothing to do with my views of global warming. I work very hard to try and limit the pollution I produce on a regular basis and have as many discussions as I can with those around me about treating the world around them well.

This being said, I don't hold to the belief of CO2 emissions being pollutants as that would make the existence of all non-plant life on this planet a drag on it, rather than an ecologically complete system.

My biggest concern is that if what you say is true and you just want to work on reducing pollution as I do then wonderful, let's talk about that on its own merits and not try to hide it in something as politically charged as global warming.

Now go ahead and mark me as troll.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Transcendz]

And who will have to prove that the supposed 80% scientists in the consensus are the "bottom" ones ? Should those "bottom" scientists be the ones who have no prize or celebrity ?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[ArsonSmith]

"...but the tide is slowly turning."

or rising.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[thepotoo]

You think humans are more adaptable than cockroaches or bacteria?

You're going to be in for a big shock when the nukes start flying.

Seriously, no one is worried that global warming is going to wipe out humanity. It's just going to make life for people living in Africa a whole lot more difficult (fewer viable crops), and force relocation of people who live near coasts.

That in and of itself is a bad thing, but to make matters worse, stochastic events like global warming have played a huge role in shaping evolution over the last few billion years. This was the point of Gould's book, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, if you want more information.

Whether anthropogenic or not, global warming may be part of a larger shift away from large-brained mammals as the "dominant" species of the planet. And, speaking as a large-brained mammal, I don't like the idea of that.

We need more objective science, and less scare-mongering.

Seconded. I'd also like to see more environmental awareness (above and beyond just cutting CO2 emissions).

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[crmarvin42]

I can't think of a single person I know that is against cleaning up the environment and preventing further pollution! However, that doesn't mean everyone supports the gutting of our economy in favor of less efficient and more expensive methods of energy production.

I like to consider myself an environmentalist. All of the research I've done in my 6 years of grad school have had, at least the potential for reducing the environmental impact of animal production.

However, that doesn't mean I ascribe to the kind of Group Think that removes my ability to call "BULLSHIT" when I see poorly validated models trotted out and presented as though they were the be all/end all of climate predictiom. The truly annoying thing is that these models are being revised every year because they are wrong just as often as they are right.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[crmarvin42]

All kinds of stuff gets dumped in the environment that we could do without.

Questioning the validity of the models used to support the "Humans are the primary cause of global warmig", or even the "global warming is happening" movements, doesn't in any way mean that someone is in favor of environmental pollution. Separate the two in you mind and you'll be able to follow the discussion a lot better

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[superdave80]

Cleaner air/water/soil does not have anything to do with reducing carbon dioxide. We've been cleaning those things up for decades without changing how much CO2 we put out. Global warming skeptics don't want to focus our 'cleaning' resources on the wrong thing. Also, global warming is presented to us as a "Do it NOW or we all die!" scenario (and to hell with what it will do to our economy), where cleaning the environment is something that we can do gradually over time without significant impact on us.

California is, unfortunately, going down the road of harming our economy (while in the middle of a recession, no less) by instituting all sorts of goofy "greenhouse gas emissions reduction" laws.
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/1452652.html

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[crmarvin42]

I can't speak for leereyno, but my skepticism means I'm not sure that there is anything we can do to effect climate change.

If climate change is real, but it isn't driven by human activity, then human activity probably can't be used to counter it. If CO2 emissions are not the cause of global warming, then reducing CO2 emissions will not stop it. Don't you see how important a distinction that is?

It would mean that we are wasting time, money, and resources chasing a red herring, instead of figuring out what we need to do adapt to the environmental conditions that are coming. I don't know that my skepticism is well placed, but the shrill screaming of those on the other side when I ask questions, makes me think I might be right. It also makes me continue to ask questions since the screaming is almost never a helpful answer.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[superdave80]

I realize that you and the broader movement for denying human-caused global are not pro-pollution, but those are the bedfellows you're lying down with.

So what if there are polluters that want to pollute more? We already have lots of environmental regulations in place to reduce pollution, and those won't go away just because we don't believe in global warming. CO2 is not pollution. What the hell do you think all those plants and trees are surviving on?

The net result of your movement is more pollution and more environmental degradation.

And I could just as easily say that the net result of your movement will be the tanking of the world economy.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[pitchpipe]

OK, pdf warning. Try scrolling down to look at the list of distinguished people and institutions.

My point is that you can always find some distinguished scientists that support a kooky belief. There is still a renowned virologist that does not believe that the HIV virus causes AIDS. At a certain point, arguing with the people who still don't believe is pointless. One must get on with fixing the problems.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[EvolutionsPeak]

Hah! You condemn him for "Argument from Authority" and then in the next sentence you appeal to the "Authority of the Many". Way to go, very insightful.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[BubbaDoom]

Great. Lets say for arguments sake that global warming is a reality. What the heck are we supposed to do about it? Even if no more green house gas goes into the atmosphere starting Jan 1, 2009, the climate will still change. AFAIK there is no solution proposed to reverse the trend of GW.

And if the US/Western nations decides to crack down on green house gases, India and China aren't going to - they aren't about to stop their industrial revolutions.

We're as doomed as doomed can be.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[sams67]

The Flat Earth Society uses that same tactic to try to dismiss mainstream science as "religion".

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[MozeeToby]

Because if you are misleading the public so that they do what you want them to do, that is unethical. I'm not saying that is the case with global warming, but it is the kind of thing that I hear from people quite often.

The reason there is 'such a passionate movement' against stricter environmental standards is that there is a definate economic cost to those standards, in developing countries the impacts would be quite significant. Also, if Global Warming were shown to be untrue, all the effort we spent capping CO2 emmisions could have been spent reducing sulfer or particulate matter or smog, all of which have an immediate and direct impact on health and comfort.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[tthomas48]

Why exactly do you have indoor plumbing? That's a massive expensive! It ads to the cost of building a house. It adds to my taxes since the city has to maintain the sewer system. Indoor plumbing is something we just can't afford in the current economic climate. Let's all make a pact to only shit on the right side of the river and everything will be ok.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[psnyder]

I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.

This sent shivers down my spine.

Because:
1) You are well spoken and seem to be an educated and intelligent person, and
2) You are advocating that spreading misinformation is the prefered way to get beneficial change.
3) Not only that, you're essentially asking scientists to stop doing science, to stop questioning, and to stop learning.

I agree that the climate scare had the silver lining of getting people more interested in environmentalism. But what if we've slowed down aid to the infrastructure of 3rd world countries, and humans weren't actually in control of this warming trend? What if it slowed funding to 3rd world hospitals so they couldn't get proper shelter and electricity? And what if we've slowed down scientific research? There are a large number of possible negative implications. Yes there are a large number of possible positive implications too. Which is why we should hesitate to act drastically until all avenues have been explored thoroughly. And anyone who thinks that all avenues have been explored thoroughly is either arrogant or ignorant to the enormous scope of factors that can actually influence global temperature.

What kind of environmentalists do you want keeping the earth clean? Uninformed masses that follow trends? Or educated, informed people that have the information to make intelligent decisions?

Controlling the masses through misinformation is too susceptible to corruption and tyranny, and doing it on this scale (even with good intentions) can have horrible consequences.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[borizz]

I follow the discussion just fine. The GP to my first post asked why so many seem to prefer pollution. The response was about CO2, which isn't the only pollution we generate.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Znork]

I would suspect that it would significantly change the way you view things

Personally I don't trust either side of the climate debate further than their models can make an accurate prediction. Mainly because they're both highly politicised and the actual science is in many cases... debatable.

That hardly changes my view on use of fossil fuels tho; even if someone can ignore the politically and socially devastating consequences of certain aspects of extraction, one has to be fairly dense and utterly irresponsible to ignore the economic implications of having such a fundamental resource in the socioeconomic fabric to be based on very short-term non-renewable and non-recyclable materials.

The very idea that some people seem to need the (real or not) threat of global warming to feel we need to deal with the issue and drastically cut down on the use of oil, coal and gas is a tragic indication of the short-sightedness of many, as well as their blantant disregard of human suffering caused by their actions and choices.

So personally, I'm for stricter standards, but for other reasons. And I dislike the nature of the global warming debate; if future developments invalidate the theories of human induced warming it risks setting back trust in science a whole lot, something we may not be able to afford if in the future there comes some new threat where the credibility of environmental scientists would be essential in bringing about rapid action.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Shivetya]

Thank you for the list of good solid quotes.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Beelzebud]

It's not. That's just every right-wingers' label to apply to anyone they don't agree with.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[daver00]

You can be both interested and passionate about cleaning up the environment AND skeptical of bad science. I know I am. It is extremely important to humanity that science remain of the highest integrity, especially for the environmentalists out there. I'm sorry but the 'return to subsistence living in a mud hut' philosophy will never wash with the masses so we have exactly one avenue: better, cleaner technology.

Now my point is this, if we don't have an active interest in science in the community then we won't have a growing community of good scientists. Without a strong and growing community of good scientists our rate of advance in engineering will decline, and we are very dependent on rapid advances in technology to solve our environmental problems. Now at best, global warming research teaches young scientists to be overly optimistic about the capabilities of statistical modeling, at worst it teaches that falsifiability is overrated and you can manipulate data to fit a belief. And when prediction after prediction turns up wrong you will take the luster off what is a very good and honorable profession, and you will inevitably turn a good portion of the public away from science altogether. This is enough of a problem already!

The pursuit of science is in and of itself a marvelous thing to be involved in, the sciences are possibly the greatest examples of all human achievement (certainly they are in my opinion). But science is not about proving things! Science is about observing, and attempting to explain, always improving your explanations. Consensus and proof are antithetical to science, and this is where this whole GW stuff is really getting dangerous to science. Predictions are going to keep turning up wrong, and all of the vast industry of scientific research is going to suffer because of it. Ultimately this means those of us who do want to help the environment are going to have a much harder time achieving anything.

Global warming has already taken control of far too much of the environmental debate, it seems now that most average people are convinced that if we 'solve' this 'problem' then we have saved the planet. Well, I for one believe there are far more important and pressing issues than a few degrees temperature change over the next century.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Wildclaw]

But the GP to your first post was lying. There is no "pollution" movement, because as the responses concluded, CO2 isn't really pollution but a naturally occuring atmospheric gas.

And that is the real danger of the CO2 GW religion. They take attention away from the real pollution issues that occur such as the release of heavy metals and radioactive materials into the atmosphere as well as many other important environmental issues.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[daver00]

The idea of a scientific consensus concerns me to no end. Science is about proving theories wrong, you can't prove a theory correct you can only demonstrate that a given theory is better than another theory. If everybody agrees then nobody is out trying to prove the current theory wrong, and that is simply not science, its belief.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Wildclaw]

And in the scientific community, you cannot one day be for something and then the next day be against it without being labeled either wishy-washy or someone who doesn't fact check first (which leads to a serious credibility problem).

And there is the biggest problem. I have heavy trust problems with anyone who isn't "wishy-washy" in a complex area like global climate theory. People who claim to know the truth doesn't belong in science. They should become preachers instead. Trying to find flaws in his own theories is exactly what a good scientist should do. Calling that "wishy-washy" is an insult to science itself.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[bizitch]

Check out the link ... there's ALOT more than that

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Wildclaw]

Hmm, I guess you could start here

http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html

Just something that I found spending 20 seconds on google. There are probably some bad articles in there, but then again there is bad science on both sides...... Both sides, what a misnomer. Many skeptics are just that, skeptics. They are tired of the obvious propaganda spouted from all directions. And yes, it is obvious. IPCC for example has so lost its credibility that even though they do have many good scientists that work with them, the way they handle the research makes the whole process and organisation useless.

And I know I am not providing anything useful in this post except the link I posted, but sometimes you just need to vent, and slashdot is as good a place as any.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dasunt]

I realize that you and the broader movement for denying human-caused global are not pro-pollution, but those are the bedfellows you're lying down with. The net result of your movement is more pollution and more environmental degradation. I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to table the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet.

That's why I'm against people who criticize the war on terror. By pushing for close overview of the government's actions, they are aligning themselves with those who wish to terrorize and hurt others.

Respecting human rights isn't a bad idea, but we need to make everyone safe first and catch the bad guys.

:P

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[ralphbecket]

Can you back this up with evidence? I'm genuinely interested in the answer, although personally I'm more concerned with the substance of an argument than in how the speaker gets paid.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[bendodge]

I don't understand what motivates you.

I am against global warming action because somehow all these anti-pollution movements want more government. I've no problem at all with a movement that tries to cut down on pollution as long as they don't try to do it top-down through the government. Call me cynical (I am), but I think there are two motivations for promoting warmingmongering:
1. Money
2. Political control
The #1s will go away after the money dries up. I'm much more concerned about the #2s, because government bureaucracy tends to be immortal, and I've never heard of bureaucracy that expands freedoms instead of restricting them.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[bendodge]

It's just grant funding suicide.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dangitman]

Nonsense. The fossil-fuel driven industrial industries have spoken publicly in favor of making things shittier for everybody.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dangitman]

There is no "pollution" movement,

Except there definitely is. Where have you been, not to notice?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dangitman]

And I could just as easily say that the net result of your movement will be the tanking of the world economy.

But you'd be talking utter bollocks. The world economy is much more likely to crash if we don't deal with pollution, fuel consumption and emissions. Where do you get the idea that dealing with environmental problems will cause economic harm? Some right-wing "think tank"?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dangitman]

2) You are advocating that spreading misinformation is the prefered way to get beneficial change.

Wait, where does he advocate misinformation in his post?

3) Not only that, you're essentially asking scientists to stop doing science, to stop questioning, and to stop learning.

Wait, where does he say that? He actually says the opposite - he's encouraging the asking of academic questions, he's advocating learning and examining the issue.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Whiteox]

Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air

Global Dimming

Believe it or not, pollutants in the air reduce the sun's energy hitting the face of the planet. So do clouds.
So there is a conundrum that no-one wants to face.
If you reduce pollutants by not burning dirty coal for example, then global dimming will decrease, therefore adding to any warming phenomina that may (or may not) exist.

So stick that in your pipe and smoke it! (joke).

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[BlackSabbath]

I can understand frustration. And yes, there are nutjobs that haved hitched their wagons to what they perceive to be "sides".

You say that the IPCC has lost credibility - with who? You say "the way they handle the research" - what way? And why are they useless?

At the end of the day, it boils down to the science on one hand and the extent to which we are convinced of the likelihood of the fitness of the theory to the observations, and on the other hand the exploitation of this issue by many decision makers, and the likelihood that they will make decisions based on the science rather than the lobby groups.

As I keep saying to people, arguments about the crack-pots, the politicians, the ra-ra brigades and the vested interests are essentially irrelevant. What research is happening, how good is it and are we listening and acting upon the conclusions, is the ONLY thing that matters here.

If the IPCC is as biased by vested interests as say the DoE, so what? What does the science say?

Any scientist that talks about sides, is no scientist. I do appreciate that there are divergent results, but for every paper on the list you link to that are at least a dozen (OK, I'm averaging) papers showing the opposite. I'm compelled to apply Occam's razor here.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[buback]

CO2 causes oceanic acidification. If you've ever owned a fish tank, you know how important pH is to keeping fish alive. Shellfish and Coral reefs will dissolve if it get's to acidic. So CO2 IS pollution.

Also, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. At some level, it will have an effect on the climate, either through self-regulating mechanisms like critics claim, or through feedback mechanisms. Either one is unpredictable and scary were they to happen in the short term. So, again, CO2 IS DEFIANTLY pollution.

If you say that C02 at it's current level isn't pollution, you've got an argument we might be able to work with. But at some level, CO2 is a very bad thing.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[superdave80]

The world economy is much more likely to crash if we don't deal with pollution, fuel consumption and emissions.

Please read my entire post. CO2 is not pollution The market will take care of fuel consumption.

Where do you get the idea that dealing with environmental problems will cause economic harm?

Because if there was some economic benefit to dealing with "environmental problems" (which CO2 is not), then it would already be done by industry. The fact that they don't means that it will cost more money and resources to do it.

Some right-wing "think tank"?

No, I get the idea from basic economics and common sense.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[iron spartan]

It is if your research relies on government grants.

Politicians need to be kept as far away from science and scientists as possible for the good of everyone.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[timmarhy]

do you think "peer reviewed" means it's safe from politics? what gets me about global warming advocates is they seem completely deaf to any kind of decenting views, even if you put forward a perfectly credible counter point they just try attack you on something else without dealing with the issue you raised. It goes against the spirit of what scienfitic research and review is all about. i think it stems from the whole Al Gore inspired, we have to save the world at all costs from teh evil CO2, mentality.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[FauxPasIII]

You misunderstand me. My point is, we can let the climatologists and the politicians keep scrapping over whether climate change is man-made, whether we can affect it through our behavior, and for that matter whether we even want to change the course. But no matter where we all eventually land on those questions, if we can just agree as well-intentioned people on both sides that we prefer clean air to dirty air, clean water to filthy water, non-polluting renewable power sources to fossil fuels, then we can go ahead and get to work on 99% of the issues that environmental weenies like me care about while we wait for the science to get to the bottom of what's really going on.

The problem I have with the vehement opponents of the man-made climate change theory is not having a healthy debate with them; it's that their movement comes bundled with a package of policies that lead to more pollution and more dependence on filthy non-renewable energy resources.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[shutdown -p now]

I am against global warming action because somehow all these anti-pollution movements want more government. I've no problem at all with a movement that tries to cut down on pollution as long as they don't try to do it top-down through the government.

Why not? Government intervenes whenever there is direct harm done - whenever a crime is committed. You do not "motivate" criminals to do less crimes with money - you just ban the practice, and lock the offenders away. Pollution (in general - I'm not speaking specifically of CO2 here) is clearly harfmul - it has a net quantifiable direct effect to population as a whole. As such, it should be a crime, and it is the government that should deal with it, not the "invisible hand".

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, I did took chemistry courses for the first 2 years of my physics degree, so I know what carbon dioxide is. I also typo-ed "actually" as "actual".

That "C-zero-two" is one persistent typo you've got - it repeats in your other post four times.

Fat fingers, eh? ;)

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Kumiorava]

Peer reviewed is significantly better than quotes from some random scientists with random degrees. I would also like to see a computer model of global cooling that would explain why we have now reached the cooling trend. I'm fairly sure that it's not all the time politics and there are several honest scientists doing their work as well as they can.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[addninja]

>So, again, CO2 IS DEFIANTLY pollution. http://d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Burnhard]

Yes, this is my main problem with the whole AGW scare. The warmists are essentially involved in a process of policy based evidence making . When I step back and look at the policy itself (less use of fossil fuels), I see a huge benefit to National Security in that we'll no longer be bent over a table by producers such as Russia and those in the Middle East. We won't be sending them over a trillion dollars a year for our fuel either.

However the issue is a little deeper than that. Public trust in Science and the Scientific process is being sorely tested in a whole host of areas. Institutions competing for Government grants are in an ever escalating fight with each other to capture the imagination of the public and therefore the politicians. We see increasingly idiotic media stories promoted by scientists in support of their work and reinforced by self-interested parties hoping to ride the wave of public ignorance to a fortune (Al Gore for instance).

If you care about Humanity, you should care about Science, because the survival of the former (at least in its civilised form) is utterly dependent on the integrity of the latter. If you care about Science, you should care about its current mis-use in support of something cretinously entitled `Climate Change'.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Burnhard]

Where are the peer-reviewed papers by all these guys?

The use of "Peer Review" as somehow validating is a little suspect in my opinion. Peer Review has its problems; reviewers are often "gate keepers" for journal publication and are not immune from personal prejudice (`the confining walls of academia'). There are many examples one could give of good Peer Review resulting in bad science. Just think of how many papers were published in Geology that were Peer Reviewed before the theory of Plate Tectonics came about. And what about the many thousands of papers published about the effects of diet on the development of stomach ulcers! Did Peer Review catch the errors in James Hansen's paper that gave rise to the Hockey Stick? Of course it didn't.

Peer Review is not audit and is particularly problematic in Climate Science. The Wegman Report shows us why.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[atraintocry]

It's closer to 95 percent, and scientists are skeptics by nature.

It's not the media that came up with this figure.

From http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Klaus-Martin Schulte surveyed peer reviewed abstracts from 2004 to February 2007 and claims 32 studies (6%) reject the consensus position.

You can read further at that site...only a fraction of those papers actually (a) reject the consensus and (b) advance some sort of scientific argument in the process.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Technopaladin]

I am of 2 minds.
1. Right wing Scaremongering works. See- Iraq War, War on Drugs, Racism, Prop 8, The Great Border Wall, "Their gonna Take our GUNS!!", Putin rears his head, Commies!.
For some reason Left wing scare mongering doesnt work except maybe "think of the children" which is really over used by both sides. I am sure someone can figure this out for me.

2. Objective science exists. It just hard for the media and layperson to understand. Example from IPCC report which is chock full of- Increasing concentrations of the long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide
(N2O), halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6); hereinafter
LLGHGs) have led to a combined RF of +2.63 [±0.26] W m-2.
Their RF has a high level of scientific understanding. The 9%
increase in this RF since the TAR is the result of concentration
changes since 1998.- and i understand that but there is alot in that paper that I have to read with dictionary in hand.

Fact is most climate scientists are in agreement that the world is getting warmer. Most of those believe humankind is the reason(some vary on how big a reason). Being skeptical is good but ignoring evidence is bad.
   

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[cryptoguy]

> Some real nice attempts at "Argument from Authority" there.
>
> So far it seems that the scientific consensus is that warming is real and likely to be contributed towards by human
> activity.

The pot is calling the kettle black. Appeal to "scientific consensus" is also a nice attempt at "Argument from Authority" -- and an attempt to discredit the argument without dealing with the substance.

Someone help me understand how direct quotes from a plethora of highly credentialed scientists rates a 4, and an ad hominem attack on that post rates a 5????

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Maltheus]

If I where a scientist I would be very upset that the credibility of my profession was being undermined by people with political agendas.

I'm not saying that global warming is not a real crisis, I simply don't know because I'm not in a position to judge the facts. But in my gut, I don't believe in it, precisely because of the political agendas you mention and the cult like feel of the whole movement. I just feel like I'm being bullshitted on this one. If man-made global warming is a real problem, then I think that any attempt to solve the problem is being undermined by the messengers. If they focused merely on alternative energy then I would be on board since energy depletion is a real issue, and we'd get something out of it on way or another. But when they focus on taxes and carbon credits, then I smell a scam that will only undermine the economy to the point where we won't be able to effectively deal with the effects of drought and rising sea levels. Once the global warming crowd stops treating doubters like holocaust deniers, then I might start listening.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[cryptoguy]

It could equally well be asked, what would motivate someone to clamp down on the energy that fuels our economy during the worst economic downturn in generations? There are tradeoffs to be made. But being motivated by one side or the other of the tradeoff interferes with objective science. Instead of pushing a politically motivated agenda, why not look for common ground. Reducing dependence on foreign oil is an appealing goal to people both sides of the issue. Don't shove global warming theories down everyone's throat.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Skjellifetti]

Uh, huh. Now show us that most people who believe in the man made origins of global warming believe in making you buy fair trade coffee. You can't. And that is the why you were called out as using a bogus Ad hominem argument. Calling someone's comment asshattery when they provide you with a link to a definition describing why your argument was bogus is a further use of an Ad hominem argument. Claiming that "I am new here" so my point about your nonsense must be wrong is still a further use of an Ad hominem argument. Are you capable of making any other type of argument? Finally, you do not format arguments, you make them -- in your case, very poorly (which is not an Ad hominem argument on my part, but a statement of fact backed up by the above dissection of your inane troll).

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[brizzadizza]

If ever there was an AC post that should be modded +5 informative, this would be it.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[toriver]

Why is only one side asked for evidence and not the other?

Name of the organization is the "Global Climate Coalition": http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/12/383156.shtml

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[camg188]

During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, (the largest climate temperature spike found so far), the global climate became much wetter. Terrestrial species extinctions did not increase. Mammals in particular flourished and diversified. There is no evidence of fresh water or food shortages during this time.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Neon Aardvark]

I'm skeptical about IPCC scientists because they have deliberately manipulated data on many occasions, and always in one direction - to downplay previous climate change, and skew modern climate change upwards. Examples of blatant manipulation include the infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, with its bizarre weightings (and which incidentally was publicized massively), and tree-ring forcings.

IPCC scientists (at least several of them) also seem loath to produce their averaging methods, source code and raw data, in order to verify their work.

So A. They aren't objective. They definitely have a vested interest in promoting the man-made global warming leading to doom theory.

B. They're not open enough.

C. Re. those numbers, are they taking into account particulate changes? (This alone was going to lead to an ice age in the 70s, until it didn't happen). And water vapor changes. Have they been inserted into a model, along with other real-world parameters (no magic numbers), which is capable of post-dicting climate change of the last century and making accurate predictions about the next decade or two (which we can then eventually verify)? If anyone knows of such a thing, with the code, I'd be interested.

Re. the scare-mongering thing, I don't buy this inane left/right dichotomy. The far left USSR committed full out genocide against some of its minorities. The US drug prison population sky rocketed under former pot-smoking Bill Clinton. Far right Nazi Germany cracked down hard on private gun ownership. I think you're looking for libertarian/authoritarian, which has absolutely nothing to do with left/right. Two orthogonal political axes.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dangitman]

Please read my entire post. CO2 is not pollution

But that's wrong. CO2 can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with CO2.

Because if there was some economic benefit to dealing with "environmental problems" (which CO2 is not)

Again, there are strong indications that excess CO2 emissions are an environmental problem.

then it would already be done by industry. The fact that they don't means that it will cost more money and resources to do it.

That's absurd. Industry does not account for 100% of the economy. And currently, the industry externalizes those costs onto everybody else. If they had to pay for all of their effects, then they probably would find a way to deal with it. But at the moment, they don't pay those costs. The industry doesn't see the value in environmental protection. And the value of the environment is not purely economic.

No, I get the idea from basic economics and common sense.

Both of which you clearly fail at.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[psnyder]

Okay good (^_^) I did misunderstand your point then, and I agree with you.

Perhaps the main problem then is, people can't agree on what has been established as "pollution" in this case. But I agree. It hasn't been established. We don't know how much specific dosages of CO2 effect temperature. We don't know how much the Earth's buffers compensate. We don't know how much everything else factors into the overall temperature. And as you said, we don't even know if we want to change the course. All of this, while we could be working on the other stuff that has been established and there is little to no debate about.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[psnyder]

Using "to table something" meaning to put it off, here I thought he was saying, "I just keep hoping that well-intentioned people would be willing to stop the academic questions about what's causing global warming until we've achieved the goals I think we mostly agree on; to stop crapping up our planet."

I thought he meant, 'Stop questioning that humans are causing it, and let everyone think we are, so that people clean up the environment'. I jumped to conclusions about it, and was wrong (which I found out when he posted back).

However, I don't think he was encouraging the asking of academic questions in this case. I found now that "to table something" can be used in 2 ways (@_@)

The technical word at the United Nations is to "table" a resolution -- which, unlike in the Congress, when you table something you put it off. At the United Nations, when you table something, you put it on.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[superdave80]

CO2 can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with CO2.

Water can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with water.
See how silly your statement sounds?

Industry does not account for 100% of the economy.

[sigh] Yes, you totally got me there. So, since industry isn't 100% of the economy, anything that happens to them won't affect the industry as a whole.

And currently, the industry externalizes those costs onto everybody else. If they had to pay for all of their effects, then they probably would find a way to deal with it.

What cost has been 'externalized'? CO2 in the air? How much is that costing you?

But at the moment, they don't pay those costs.

Thanks for proving my point about there being additional costs to industry if we implement harsh CO2 restrictions.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[Janeshat]

They are motivated by their love of truth and their faith in pure science.
They do not want more polution. That is just Greenie propoganda.
These scientists just want the facts to prevail. Don't you?

In science you always try to find the facts no matter where they lead.
Meanwhile global warming "science" is more like a religous movement where they know the answer and refute anyone who comes up with a different one.

While using lies and fear to motivate people might work, why can't we just try to educate people and hope that they choose to stop poluting so much?
That is a world I would want to live in.

Ignorance is a far greater threat to humanity than C02 ever will be.

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[dangitman]

Water can be pollution. Too much of anything can be pollution. Why don't you go and see how long you last in a room filled only with water. See how silly your statement sounds?

No, I don't see how that sound silly. The people of New Orleans suffered from too much water just recently.

Thanks for proving my point about there being additional costs to industry if we implement harsh CO2 restrictions.

But what of the costs to others? Why is "industry" your only consideration?

Re:Global Warming Heretics

[alexo]

I am of 2 minds.

I heard that Clozapine can help.

In other news

[djupedal]

Cosmic rays have been found as a likely contributing source related to repeatedly confused Norweigan researchers...

Video at 11.

Re:In other news

[repvik]

Who the fuck are these Norweigan? I happen to be from a country called Norway, where a bunch of Norwegians live. These people are ripping off our heritage!

Every time it snows in Vegas..

[skgrey]

Every time it snows in Vegas, Al Gore sheds a single tear. He must be some sort of whacky indian.

Give that duche Al Gore another prize!

[Phizzle]

Solar flares DO effect temperatures, and that has been consistently downplayed by the humanity-loathing environazis in their ongoing duchbaggery crusade for world luddism. But hey, lets not start any religious debates on /.

Re:Give that duche Al Gore another prize!

[Strep]

It's not going to work. It's not about saving anybody's anything. It's about power. Even if it's proven that we're not responsible for the changes, there will be some sort of legislation to regulate solar activity. Naturally, that will require increased taxes and regulation.

Re:Give that duche Al Gore another prize!

[aaron alderman]

Solar flares were popular in the 70's but the sun is getting old now and needs to turn the temperature up.

Every time it snows in Vegas

[Beelzebud]

People who are saying the global climate is changing are given more ammo for their argument, not less.... The fact that you use now yearly snow in Nevada as a jab against Al Gore shows your ignorance, and your bias. The fact that Vegas now sees snow every year actually strengthens the argument about global climate change, not weaken it...

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Beelzebud]

Do you always debate by inserting words into people's mouth first? Not once did I say the entire planet was warming. The term Global Climate Change means just that. Hot areas will cool down (Vegas), and cold areas will warm up (Antarctica). We aren't in a cooling trend, otherwise ice shelves that are tens of thousands of years old wouldn't be melting and dropping into the ocean.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[skgrey]

Seriously? Look at the snowfall trends for Vegas, it does this every ten years or so. My bias and ignorance against Al Gore? I was trying to make a joke, but I have a feeling you're trolling anyway since you are taking such a strong stand. I'd love to debate some of Gore's theories, his behaviors, and how much money he is making with his "green" movement with a well-informed person, but this isn't the forum and you aren't the person. Whoever marked this troll informative is wrong.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[techno-vampire]

The fact that Vegas now sees snow every year actually strengthens the argument about global climate change, not weaken it...

But nobody in their right mind doesn't think that the global climate isn't in a state of constant flux. The thing that AlGore and his minions don't want us to know is that right now, it's getting cooler, not warmer.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Strep]

Just wait a frickin' moment here. Didn't we all just vote for Change?

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Strep]

Vegas' summer was just as hot as ever despite seeing that there was actual snowfall/collection in winter. Explain that with your useless models.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[CorporateSuit]

We aren't in a cooling trend, otherwise ice shelves that are tens of thousands of years old wouldn't be melting and dropping into the ocean.

Apparently they would be.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[leereyno]

Please have the honesty to be consistent about the lies you repeat.

"Global Warming" does not mean climate change of any kind. It especially does not mean Global cooling.

If "Climate Change" is the new canard then it sounds to me like the crypto-marxist pseudo-environmentalists have modified their scam.

Unable to defeat freedom and capitalism through economic arguments, they switched to pseudo-environmentalism. The screamed to all who would listen that the earth was dying and that it was all our fault and the only solution was policies that would prevent the retard the spread of free markets into 3rd world nations, thereby preventing them from developing into healthy, thriving democracies with strong economies. All in the hope that their true religion, communism, would make a comeback before freedom and democracy became undefeatable around the world.

Now that their disingenuous bullshit is failing to correspond with reality, they're moving the goal posts yet again and working to cook up a new fraud to perpetrate.

The useful idiots will always be fooled, and some people will be fooled temporarily, but the left will never be able to fool everyone.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Captain Splendid]

crypto-marxist pseudo-environmentalists

Unable to defeat freedom and capitalism

ROFLMAO. You're either one hell of a dingbat or just a really shitty troll. Thanks for the laugh!

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[MCSEBear]

Do you honestly think that just because you and your ilk stopped using the phrase Global Warming, we will forget what you've been predicting all these years?

You've all spent the better part of a decade saying that man made CO2 is causing catastrophic temperature increases. Unfortunately CO2 is still on the rise, but temps are now dropping instead of rising.

Now you guys think you can suddenly claim that you didn't really mean 'global warming' but were talking about 'climate change' all along? Man made CO2 is causing huge temperature increases, except where it's causing huge temperature drops??? Really????

Shenanigans!

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[aaron alderman]

You said Mao, that makes you a Marxist.
QED

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[timmarhy]

don't worry they will wait 30 years and recycle the term, just like they did in the 70's (where the idea CO2 could warm the world came from) with global cooling. it was going to incase us in ice you know.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas

[Reziac]

And most of the SoCal desert spent the last two days snowed in. If it hadn't been melting almost as fast as it came down, we'd have 3 FEET instead of a mere 5 inches. 100 miles east, they DID get 3 feet and are still snowed in.

I've been trying to get moved back to Montana, but so far hadn't succeeded... but now Montana has come to me! ;)

The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[Beelzebud]

Hey if we ignore the problem, maybe it will go away! After all, humans can never be blamed for ANYTHING, right!

Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[Neon Aardvark]

Evil time travelling humans must also be behind all cyclical warming events stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg

The horror. The horror.

Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[buback]

OK, The graph you link to has it's last data point at 1950. On the graph, CO2 never gets above 300 ppm going back 400,000 years. Your graph also shows a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.

This graph has come current data: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It shows current CO2 levels at 385 ppm and rising.

The implication is that global temperature will see an equivalent rise above the norm of the past 400,000 years.

Your turn; ball's in your court.

Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[Neon Aardvark]

You can see we'd be historically at a peak in C02 (over the time scale of hundreds of thousands of years) even if there were no humans at all. Also, that graph will act as somewhat of an average. C02 will wiggle up and down a lot more if you could zoom in to the scale of decades.

Yes, most assuredly C02 and temperature are correlated. But in which direction is the causation? One posits ice ages trapping C02 through sealing the biomass in. And vice versa.

Also, you can see that yes, climate changes all the time. You don't need humans (as much as the IPCC tries to downplay pre-industrial temperature changes in their bizzare weightings).

Also, you can see that there are natural feedback mechanisms at work which prevent extremes. So I think it says a lot.

Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today.

[NiteShaed]

Hey if we ignore the problem, maybe it will go away!

Well, if humanity actually is the problem, that's probably true....

What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[leereyno]

Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem plausible that a huge ball of nuclear fire situated somewhere nearby might be causing changes to the earth's climate?

I don't know what you would call this object, and I don't think there is any evidence that it exists, but if it did exist then slight changes in its energy output would probably result in changes to earth's climate as well.

I know this sounds completely insane. I mean there aren't any such object out there right?

Excuse me why I go put on some sunscreen...

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[Chris Burke]

You're a fucking genius. In the entire history of climatology, no scientist has ever considered the possibility that the sun impacts climate. I wonder why that is, but no matter, clearly you are their intellectual superior.

Oh, wait, they've considered that, and solar variation explains at most 30% of the observed temperature change. Guess you aren't a genius after all. Sorry about that!

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[dnwq]

"Global warming is caused by solar changes" crackpot vs. "electric universe" crackpot?

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[bunratty]

Yes, solar output has been making the Earth warmer. But it doesn't seem to account for most of the warming over the past fifty years. There is a consensus that there's at least a 90% chance that most of the warming has been due to increased greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere caused by humans burning fossil fuels and forests.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[bunratty]

Given that the change in global mean temperature is 0.7 degrees Celsius, 30% of that is about 0.2 degrees Celsius. That leaves about 70% or about 0.5 degrees Celsius due to anthropogenic global warming.

Science never proves anything. Science can either refute or support a hypothesis. No one has been able to successfully refute the hypothesis of manmade global warming. On the contrary, there's lots of evidence to support it.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[slo]

I don't know how this gets modded interesting, but this has been studied ad nauseum, and no, recent warming is NOT caused by solar variability. It's amazing how many global warming deniers will jump on any alternate explanation and leave their much vaunted scepticism trailing in the dust. Any explanation is as good as another so let's choose the one that is most convenient.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[Neon Aardvark]

Sacrilege !

How can you tax a nuclear fireball? How can you use a nuclear fireball to increase your fame and power? How do you use it to reap more grant money?

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[mrsquid0]

So, is there any evidence that there have been slight changes in the Sun's energy output that correlate with mean temperatures on Earth? I didn't think so.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[mrsquid0]

>uh you realize that at 100 degrees 30% is nearly 30degrees either
>UP or DOWN?

No. Temperature changes go as the 4th root of the luminosity change.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[styrotech]

Not only that, but when using a temperature scale that can go below zero it is particularly pointless to talk about percentage changes.

ie: does 30% either side of 100 def F result in the same temp range as 30% either side of 37.8 deg C?

or to put it another way: how much of a percentage drop would it take to go from +1 deg to -1 deg and how did that compare to the percentage drop from +3 to +1?

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[mrsquid0]

The trouble is that many of the global warming skeptics are True Believers. They have made up their minds, and no amount of evidence is ever going to make them change their minds. I see this on both sides of the debate, but it does seem to be particularly prevalent amongst the people who claim to be skeptics.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[Myopic]

You have posed the question "Is the sun causing our current warming trend?" This is a great question, one which is natural and obvious to ask. It is also a scientific question -- that is, a question which can be verified or falsified by evidence. Your question also has already been asked by scientists, and in fact scientists have already performed science to determine the answer. I'm a little surprised you haven't heard about it yet, but there is a scientific answer to your scientific question:

NO, THE SUN IS NOT CAUSING THE CURRENT WARMING TREND.

Did you really not know that? or are you intentionally ignoring the vast amount of sound science already performed, by repeating questions which have already been satisfactorily answered?

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[ralphbecket]

Nobody has been able to refute the AGW hypothesis because the error bars are so honkingly large that the last decade's distinct lack of warming is still considered to be consistent, despite the IPCC's mid-line projection of 0.2'C. Now I don't dispute that humanity is probably having *some* effect on the climate, but I find it very hard to swallow phrases like "the science is settled" and "the evidence is conclusive" when even some global cooling is consistent with a prediction of disasterous temperature rises. Other fields of science would be rather more circumspect about making strong claims under these conditions.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[Tyrannicalposter]

Well, I for one am amazed that they can be so sure solar variation counts for at most 30% of climate change when they seem so unsure of everything else.

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky?

[shutdown -p now]

And 95% of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is water vapor. That leaves just 4.5% to anthropogenic global warming or about .0315 degrees

The one does not follow from the other. Have you considered what would happen if those natural 95% would suddenly go away - how much of a drop in temperature would we get? I could easily see it being on the order of tens of degrees, which would make that non-natural 5% still large enough to make a serious practical difference.

Also, isn't the presence of water vapor in atmosphere supposed to increase albedo, therefore decreasing surface temperature?

Re:Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

"Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race."

Don't bother to repeat things that trivial Google searches can discredit.

"The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part."

If only some sort of research and statistical modeling technique could be applied to data to analyze situations with greater accuracy than "warming up" and "cooling down", enabling us to compare expected behavior with measured behavior and determine the factors that cause observed phenomena!

Re:Global Warming

[konohitowa]

*green* light bulbs (which emit mercury)

I guess that explains why the Dilbert syndrome is so prevalent. All of that emitted mercury in their cubicles causes them to slowly go mad.

Keep it coming

[lessthanpi]

I have to say I love this global warming. In the Northern Rockies of the USA we had the most snow fall in 23 years. The best year of skiing I've ever had.

Dear Snowgod
Please make ppl drive S.U.V.s, burn coal, melt plastic idc just as long as this "global warming" continues

Amen

Re:Keep it coming

[jgtg32a]

So far from what I've noticed in the last couple of years, is the summers aren't as hot winter's aren't as cold and there is more snow on the slopes.

Why is GW a bad thing?

Re:Keep it coming

[BlackSabbath]

You are kidding right? Let me introduce you to two new words: regional variability

Check out the following paper where solar forcing is specifically looked at:
http://www.yale.edu/yibs/Solar%20Variability%20Program/2008_Yale_solar_Shindell.pdf

In it they conclude that:
"Proxies suggest solar forcing can induce strong
regional climate change"

Since you can't be bothered to even Google for information however, let me make it nice and easy for you. (Please note, this is my nice simplistic, climate-change-in-a-paragraph explanation. Since I've compressed an entire body of science into a single paragraph, there may be some glossing over of details)

The earth is a ball hanging in space, irradiated by a big glowing ball. This forms our energy input. Some of this energy is radiated back out and some is kept in - trapped. Increasing the amount of CO2 traps more of the energy in. Energy is exactly that - it shakes things around. Heat is just one expression of energy. As a result of having more energy in the system, the climate gets more variable and more "extreme" as well as hotter (averaged globally). So, we either start radiating some of this back out into space (by reducing the "greenhouse" effect i.e. reducing the atmospheric CO2), or we learn to live with increasingly erratic and hotter (globally averaged) climate.

There, better now?

Re:Keep it coming

[unapersson]

That's a perfect example of why that horrible "Climate Change" phrase was introduced, people getting confused about what global warming means. It just means more energy is introduced into the system. So when it's warm it's warmer, and when it's cold it's colder.

Re:Keep it coming

[repvik]

You are glossing over quite a few details. I'll add one. The Earths energy input is the sun. But it also has a tremendous amount of energy just sitting around, in the form of heat right below our feet.
That can't possibly affect the climate either, can it? There can't be any changes in heat output?

The whole climate debate is full of idiots and failed scientific method. There is no proof, and little correlation, yet it is preached like gospel.
There is no doubt a good thing to be reducing our emissions. But at what cost?
<rambling>
Currently, here in Norway, the government is going crazy taxing car owners. If they actually cared about the environment, there's a bunch of things that could be done to reduce emissions markedly. Yet, they are not interested in those. Because that would mean less money for the state, even though it would improve the environment.
</rambling>
My point is... Both "sides" claim to have irrefutable proof, and are unwilling to even consider the possibility of an error. Assumptions are thrown about as the one and only truth. This is worse than organized religion for fucks sake!
It even rakes in more money!

Total Solar Output

[TufelKinder]

What about total solar energy output?

Re:Total Solar Output

[geoffrobinson]

I read a Philadelphia Inquirer (not a hot bed of global warming deniers) article from April of 2003 that reported that scientists weren't taking the Sun into account.

But I have been assured that's not the case. The whole global warming project has my b.s. detector on full alert. Way too many variables and "unknown unknowns" to be dogmatic that we know it is CO2.

Now that we've been in a slight cooling trend since 1998, it seems the global warming backers are getting a tad panicky.

Re:Total Solar Output

[bunratty]

If we've had a cooling trend since 1998, isn't about time someone told the Arctic ice so it can stop melting?

Re:Total Solar Output

[geoffrobinson]

Ice melts and refreezes. When they were reporting on the melting ice there were other stories talking about unusually cold winters around the globe.

Re:Total Solar Output

[bunratty]

Yes, even with global warming some winters will be unusually cold. But if the overall trend is warming, the overall trend will be for Arctic ice and glaciers to melt. And that is exactly what they have been doing.

Re:Total Solar Output

[geoffrobinson]

Maybe not. Global temps haven't been rising since 1998. That's just the way it is.

So if you want to say ice is melting is proof of warming when average temps aren't warming, that doesn't follow.

Re:Total Solar Output

[geoffrobinson]

Yeah, temperatures haven't been going up since 1998.

Re:Total Solar Output

[bunratty]

But the temperatures are warming. You can read the other posts that show the warming. But because some people somehow doubt the accuracy of the instruments, I point to the Arctic ice. How could it continue to melt at an increasing rate if it isn't getting warming?

Re:Total Solar Output

[geoffrobinson]

Oceans may lag in terms of the amount of heat they hold. So hotter years from the 90s may be more of an affect now than the cooler years since '98.

Re:Total Solar Output

[bunratty]

You're confused because 1998 was an unusually warm year. The globe is still warming. You can read this article that explains in more detail. Of course, it would have been the news century of the story if global warming was over. Wouldn't we have all heard it already?

From the office of Senator Enhofe.. Say no more.

[Beelzebud]

This guy never met a polluter he didn't love.

Is that why ice shelves are melting?

[Beelzebud]

Is that why it's getting warming in Antarctica and the North Pole? Because it's getting cooler?

Re:Is that why ice shelves are melting?

[Janeshat]

It is getting cooler in some places and warmer in others. Guess what, that is normal!

The global warming scientists changed the name of "global warming" to "climate change" so that they could continue to get their grants even though the entire globe was not warming. But hey, the middle east used to be a jungle and we had nothing to do with that change.

Yes it is snowing and vegas and antarctica is melting. That is change but it is not global warming! To be global warming it has to be GLOBAL!

Not Falsifiable

[geoffrobinson]

You can fit any weather into "change". It goes up or down. That's change! Cooler, warmer: change!

How about making a prediction that actually comes true.

Re:Global Warming

[roc97007]

> 2. The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part. If we were going into an ice age, I'm sure Al Gore would be saying "Save the dingos from the ice" instead of "Save the polar bears from the heat".

In the seventies, that's pretty much what they were saying.

Worldwide Warming

[hardihoot]

How did this leak out? Lies, all lies! Global Warming is real and true and happening and people are the cause of it.

It is true because I need that Global Warming Grant Money so I can study climate change from a necessity-based laboratory in the Bahamas.

Guess my senator didn't get the word to keep fanning the flames on global warming. Maybe a bigger donation will help, donation size contingent upon the size of the grant money...

Re:Worldwide Warming

[BlackSabbath]

Have you heard of Occam's Razor?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

Please be warned that the following may contain sarcasm.

You are essentially comparing the likelihood of two scenarios:

1. a global conspiracy of the majority of climate scientists involved in leeching (absolutely HUUUGE amounts of) grant money from unsuspecting taxpayers,

2. a global conspiracy by oil (and related industry) companies involved in sustaining their ever-so-slightly lucrative business models through the use of media manipulation underpinned by very little actual science.

Hmmmmmm. I wonder which is more likely?

Re:Worldwide Warming

[hardihoot]

It is possible both are true to a slight degree, not so much a grand conspiracy but as a means for a few folks to prosper behind exaggerated claims swallowed by the gullible.

Re:Worldwide Warming

[jc42]

You are essentially comparing the likelihood of two scenarios:

1. a global conspiracy of the majority of climate scientists involved in leeching (absolutely HUUUGE amounts of) grant money from unsuspecting taxpayers,

2. a global conspiracy by oil (and related industry) companies involved in sustaining their ever-so-slightly lucrative business models through the use of media manipulation underpinned by very little actual science.

Hmmmmmm. I wonder which is more likely?

Actually, if you look at the money flow, you'll find that both do happen quite a lot. However, 2 is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude greater than 1.

There's a running semi-joke in many scientific fields, in which it is observed that the most important part of any scientific paper is the paragraph near the end in which the author states that "further research is needed." This is, of course, a blatant case of scenario 1. And it's a nice example of the "Ha, ha, only serious" sort of joke.

(But I did like the sarcasm. It's best when done lightly. ;-)

Re:Cosmic Particals

[JamJam]

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated

To clarify cosmic "rays" are really energized particles. These particles arrive individually and not in the form of a "ray" or beam.

Does Not Clear Cosmic Ray

[ryanvm]

Unfortunately, the culpability of Cosmic Ray is still undetermined.

Re:Great question.

[santiagoanders]

Al Gore, is that you?

Re:Global Warming

[Plekto]

Except that we ARE heading into an ice age. But before that happens, the ice caps have to melt.(ice age being triggered by excessive heat).

How it works is that when the planet gets too hot, all of the ice melts and dilutes the oceans. This causes them to get much colder and stop flowing. Basically they just sit and get cold. Very quickly. The last ice age was triggered by this sort of event.

According to scientific data(look it up if you want to), the Earth would have entered a natural ice age cycle in 400-500 years. All humanity has managed to do is accelerate the process down to another 50-60 years. Once the ice in Antarctica melts, the planet will act to cool itself down.

http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/list.php
It's apparently melting very quickly now.

Realization

[AstrumPreliator]

You know I think if Global Warming is any indication, science is going to get even more politicized in the near future. People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets. Before anyone calls me a shill for whatever organization they hate most and mods me down let me make clear that I'm not pointing at the vast majority of scientists who are doing honest work using the scientific method. I am pointing at both parties who have politicized this issue for their own gain.

The thing that bugs me is that the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings, instead they listen the political figure heads and corporations and news reporters, all of which have an agenda to push. I think what I'm beginning to realize is that science is ultimately going to suffer from this nonsense. I don't think it will matter if the results are peer-reviewed anymore, I think the public won't trust them anyway.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Re:Realization

[kenjay]

I think I'm depressed. :-(

Re:Realization

[east coast]

You don't even need to look as far as politics. Just look at some of the moderations around here and you'll see a clear agenda behind some of them. If that can drive us at this level there's no telling where things will go when there is money and real power behind the same kind of thinking that gets totally valid posts modded down as over rated.

Seeing some facts being shot down around here because they're not in line with someone elses way of thinking has made me a cynic about geekdom in general. All of the mouths yammering on about truth via scientific reasoning are completely drowned out by those who feel the need to push their ideas on other regardless of the truth being 6 inches from their faces.

Re:Realization

[daver00]

I totally agree, and already posted a lengthy comment on this same idea. This issue really troubles me very deeply.

Re:Realization

[RoffleTheWaffle]

Pardon me for replying to two posts at once, but I'm going to get both the parent and grandparent posts at once here.

Grandparent:

Science is already and has always been deeply political. Since well before the days of the great philosophers of ancient Greece, it's been tradition if not human nature to politicize, emotionalize, spiritualize, and pulverize science along with reality itself for one's personal gain. If you have an agenda, one of the best ways to support it is with pieces of information that you can refer to as facts. It doesn't matter if they're actually true or even partly true, they just need to be believable and consistent enough to fool whoever you're pitching your point to. Remember that statistical research of every kind also falls under that very same umbrella, and - if you're willing to believe the figure - 42.7 percent of all statistics are pulled out of thin air. When was the last time you heard someone start tossing unverifiable percentages around to support a claim about something?

Everyone's at least a little stupid. Most people are very stupid. Average intelligence doesn't mean that someone is moderately smart like they're in the middle of the road for functionally intelligent people, it just means that they're a few IQ points away from a mental disability. In a world of believers, appeals to emotion and the ability to convince will always be more powerful than facts and the ability to provide proof. If you really want to do yourself and the world a favor and deliver some cold hard facts, you have to be a better reality salesman than anyone who might have an interest in preventing you from doing so, because to - if you're willing to believe the figure - at least 50 percent of the people out there it doesn't really matter how right you are. (But don't quote me on that.)

Here's a great example for you from the dawn of the electric age: The War of Currents, during which Thomas Edison demonstrated his science hating, emotionally appealing, fact-phobic barbarian side when his fortunes in direct current power transmission infrastructure were threatened by superior alternating current technology. Edison's infamous and baseless FUD campaign against alternating current dates back to the 1880's.

And the parent:

How long ago did you become cynical about geekdom? Once upon a time, being called a geek or a nerd implied that you actually knew something. Just ten years ago it at least meant that you could fool people into thinking you were more computer literate than you actually were. Now it's just a shitty fashion statement that says to the world, "Look at me, I relish electronic entertainment and can build MySpace pages unassisted," while allowing you to wear ratty and mismatched business casual clothing, your old high-school duds, and inch thick 'Emo' glasses in public. For reasons I could only explain as infernal, the vulgar tackiness of the socially impaired nerd caste has been refined into a tasteless yet widely desirable template of appearance for effeminate young adult males.

The modern so called geek, especially any flavor of self identifying dweeb, is usually just someone who thinks that they're smart who overindulges in one or more highly niched indoor hobbies. Whether or not their claims of intelligence bear out in reality depends on the idiot in question.

Re:Realization

[ElectricTurtle]

It's funny but some of the early momentum that got 'global warming' out of the fringe theory category and into the mainstream came from Margaret Thatcher wanting to undermine the political power of coal miners' unions in the UK. I wonder what she thinks of her gambit now...

Re:Realization

[gishzida]

Three Items to note as I write this:

1) Your post has been modded up to 4. This indicates your post is part of the agenda you seem to be complaining about or that those that modded you up have voted you into their conspiracy.

2) Claiming to be cynical about "geekdom" indicates you were never a geek in your life and only hang out in places like /. to make you feel like you "get" technology and that "science like stuff." Apparently you don't.

3) The open season on "facts" is proportional to your actually understanding the hard data and not what someone telling you the hard data means. So far all I've heard is a lot of yammering of "this side says this" or "that side says that". Seeing media conspiracies or business conspiracies is not science it is politics. As far as the issue at hand I'd say that Clarke's first and fourth laws apply:

1)When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

4)"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."

This is the way *real* science is done. Just remember that if the global warming folks are wrong, there is no real harm done... but if they are right you and all of your decendants (if any) are screwed. Think about that. What kind of world do you want to give to your children? The same kind os !@#$ kind of world your parents gave you?

Re:Realization

[east coast]

1) Your post has been modded up to 4. This indicates your post is part of the agenda you seem to be complaining about or that those that modded you up have voted you into their conspiracy.

Actually, my post doesn't offset an agenda either way. Please reread my post and learn what I'm talking about.

2) Claiming to be cynical about "geekdom" indicates you were never a geek in your life and only hang out in places like /. to make you feel like you "get" technology and that "science like stuff." Apparently you don't.

Care to back up this correlation in any way shape or form? Just because I am disillusioned by geek culture it suddenly means I'm clueless about tech and science? Huh? Where do you come up with that kind of nonsense?

That's like saying that a Christian who becomes disillusioned with the organized church is automatically an atheist.

3) The open season on "facts" is proportional to your actually understanding the hard data and not what someone telling you the hard data means. So far all I've heard is a lot of yammering of "this side says this" or "that side says that". Seeing media conspiracies or business conspiracies is not science it is politics. As far as the issue at hand I'd say that Clarke's first and fourth laws apply:

1)When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

If this were the case than why aren't people discussing the facts instead of trying to bury them with an unmeta-modable moderation? Please, re-read my post again and understand what I'm saying. If you had you wouldn't have said most of this.

4)"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."

This is the way *real* science is done. Just remember that if the global warming folks are wrong, there is no real harm done... but if they are right you and all of your decendants (if any) are screwed. Think about that. What kind of world do you want to give to your children? The same kind os !@#$ kind of world your parents gave you?

What does this have to do with my post at all?

Re:Realization

[dachshund]

I am pointing at both parties who have politicized this issue for their own gain... the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings, instead they listen the political figure heads and corporations and news reporters, all of which have an agenda to push.

Well, what is that agenda? Clearly there are massive profits to be made from extracting and selling fossil fuels. CO2 reduction measures place those profits at risk, so that agenda is obvious, linear, and grand in scale. But what is the agenda for the other side?

Fame? Fortune? Glamour? I'm sure there's a little bit of that. I just don't see how it can amount to a tiny fraction of the motivation for the "anti-GW" crowd.

Re:Realization

[BCGlorfindel]

People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets.

You've hit the nail on the head. Mankind is following the exact same trend we see all through history. Previously populations would pontificate on the meaning of religious texts and justify their positions on their own interpretations of them. Scientific journals and articles are the current religious text of choice. Not surprisingly the source material doesn't matter one bit, it's the way that people interpret it and history shows us pretty clearly that the vast majority interpret things the way they want to them to be.

Re:Realization

[TerranFury]

the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings,

Unfortunately, they can't... The papers are all published by people like Springer (and the like), and it costs money to get access to their databases. The only people who have easy access are at universities, whose libraries purchase subscriptions. The point is that the output of scientists is owned by large publishing companies, out of easy reach of the general public.

And that is why hell froze over

[alfrin]

Las Vegas gets record snow fall

Re:And that is why hell froze over

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to stop any confusion the term Global Warming doesn't mean it's always warmer but that it's a trend over years and it actually even means that there will be more extremes in temperature.

Grammar police: mass nouns vs count nouns

[mamono]

Sorry, but this bugged me. Less is a mass noun, the tag should read "onefewerexcuse" or, even more appropriately, "oneexcusefewer." Now back to your regularly scheduled postings

Re:Study says: CO2 not a greenhouse gas

[jgtg32a]

Venus

Re:Cry me a frozen river

[wclacy]

Wow, that story about where snow comes from is almost as far fetched as global warming.

Re:Great question.

[enharmonix]

I strongly recommend Michael Crighton's State of Fear. Well researched, cites sources, and a plain good read on top of everything. It may not change your mind, but it might at least shed some light on why some of us ostriches are not so Chicken Little about temperature fluctuations.

Dumbest Headline Ever

[Bryansix]

I guess these guys never heard of the seasons? Like Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall? Obviously solar variation DOES affect the warming of the planet and why is it such a stretch to think that there are other longer term seasons as well?

Re:Dumbest Headline Ever

[bonifatius]

The seasons of the earth aren't caused by solar variation! Here is a quote from wikipedia:

"Seasons result from the yearly revolution of the Earth around the Sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season

Re:Dumbest Headline Ever

[Bryansix]

Dumbest post ever! Yes, the tilt is what causes less sunlight to fall on a certain hemisphere of the earth. So the Wikipedia entry actually backs up my claim. In addition variations in the orbit of the earth account for solar variation on a longer scale.

Re:Study says: CO2 not a greenhouse gas

[gnalle]

This article is a weird. Prof. Gerlich doesn't even discuss the formulas that you will find in the first chapter of a book on athmospheric physics. How can he be a professor of physics?

NSFReading

[smoker2]

Global warming

I am not a believer in anthropomorphic global warming. At least not to the extent that I think we are in totally responsible for it. But I accept we are playing our (very small) part. None of this addresses the greater issue. Global warming (climate change) is a natural and inevitable force. While we are running around like headless chickens squawking about CO2, we seem to be forgetting the *other* scientists who established years ago that we were in the middle of a brief warming during an ice age. The graphs showing the gas content of ice from other ice ages show a steeply rising curve of temp. and CO2 just before a huge drop of both, as the ice age resumes.

Hopefully, those in charge know this and are just keeping the masses occupied - it can't do any harm - can it ? But still, think about how long humans have been around as intelligent beings then compare that to the length of time between major geological events in history. History has not stopped, these changes are going to happen. It is up to us to adapt, not retreat in the face of adversity and restrict ourselves for fear of retribution.

I had hoped to be off the planet before now, but I'm stuck here with a bunch of whiners who would rather restrict themselves and worry about every last gas molecule, than get off the planet and find more resources. There is a definite rift opening up in humanity. Those who question and those who don't. The gap has been wider in the past, but now it has started to widen again. Let us get off this planet before we lose the will. Imagine a flowering plant. Its whole purpose in life is to grow as big and strong as it can, then flower and produce seed that fly away on the wind to who knows where. We are strong, we may get even stronger, but we are being browbeaten into "conserving our energy" ! What sense does that make to a plant who wants to spread and needs that energy now, before it dies.

-1 : Stoned

And why so boolean in your logic?

[ChePibe]

Why must it be that every person who dares question the "climate change" movement wants worse environmental conditions?

Is it not possible for one to question the amorphous "climate change" hypothesis and work for a better environment? Or is the world so simple that we are all either Prius or Hummer drivers in your view?

There are a great many people - myself included - who do take measures to use less energy (I have a virtually all CFL home, just redid all the insulation on the doors and windows, etc. and try to be as environmentally friendly as possible - I live in a valley, the air sucks, and it should be cleaned up) without buying into the "climate change" argument?

Even if it's not man made, I'm doing my bit. But I'm not a believer. What, I ask, is so wrong with that?

Sceptical

[bytesex]

I accept global warming, but this seems like a very difficult thing to prove. Just intuitively - I didn't read the article (hey, this is Slashdot) - I just don't think we've been measuring cosmic rays for nearly long enough to prove anything about their variations.

Re:Sceptical

[clam666]

I think one big problem is that everyone seems to accept that the globe IS warming, and then argues for or against the causes.

Personally, I have a very VERY hard time believing that the earth has "warmed" in the first place.

I mean, are we really basing our analysis of past temperatures to be actually accurate? What equipment were they using? Do we measure temperatures using the exact same device as the people did a hundred years ago? Not just "sure, we use mercury thermometers", but the actual same one? Do you judge a clock running incorrectly by getting a similar clock and making theories about what it's doing? Who measured these things 100 years ago. Were they an novice who got the short straw and just made up numbers because he hated his job? Maybe he just stuck the thermometer out the window and a tree cast shade on it.

For anyone in IT that's had to run reports on databases, know it's garbage in garbage out. Is the temperature inputs accurate? Are they basing the "warming" on the numbers or are they taking averages of averages? Did they have worldwide sea level temperature readings a hundred years ago across all oceans or did ships just stick a thermometer in the water when they felt like it and made up numbers when they didn't?

Scientists all seem to agree that an Ice Age took place thousands of years ago, is it possible that things can be a major variable in climate that we don't understand? Should we base global climate untestable theories from people whose basis of analysis uses the same guesswork and computer models that can't tell me if it will rain tomorrow or not outside of a statistical percentage?

How come all the arguments to a scientific problem don't envision scientific solutions? How come the solutions all seem to involve a redistribution of wealth or creating a secondary energy market scheme which allows you to pollute at the same rate if you're wiling to buy some carbon offset credits?

If the earth, according to scientists, has had variations in carbon dioxide, oxygen, methane, nitrogen, ammonia, and a host of other gasses, how do we even know what the right one is?

If I fill a jar with ice and water to the top and let it melt, the jar doesn't overflow and send out tidal waves. If the polar icecaps melt, which have already displaced the water in the ocean like ice in the jar, why would their melting make any change in height of the oceans by any appreciable degree?

If the oceans rise and fall by meters based on the tide, would a few inches make a real difference?

If global warming is true, and the earth raises a few degrees, wouldn't that allow for more land to be used for humans? Wouldn't many plants grow more plentiful and with increased warmth, consume more CO2 and provide more food for us?

Re:Sceptical

[bunratty]

If the Earth hasn't warmed, why is the Arctic ice continuing to melt? Remember that ice sheets in Greenland are also melting, and the water pouring into the ocean will cause sea levels to rise. In addition, as sea water warms, it expands. This will cause sea level to rise by about a meter in this century. One meter sea level rise could flood many urban coastal areas. Other effects of climate change include droughts, which will lead to shortages of fresh water and food, particularly in developing countries.

Environmental consciousness always carries a cost

[Fished]

I don't think anyone wants to keep dumping crap in the air. I'm not the OP, but I am more than a bit skeptical about global warming. However, I would consider myself a conservationist, especially since I suffer from serious asthma that gets triggered whenever I have to spend a night in an urban shith^H^H^H^H^H area. Believe me, waking up in the morning completely unable to breathe after one night in a Washington hotel will make you a believer in emissions controls.

However, "cleaning up the environment" and "limiting CO2 emissions" are not the same thing. For example, if the goal is to cleanup the environment, clean coal is a wizard idea. If the goal is to limit CO2, then not so much.

My problem with the environmental movement (as opposed to conservationism, which is the label I choose for myself) is that environmentalism seems to elevate the environment to an almost religious position. Taking care of the planet is seen as a religious obligation, which must be undertaken irrespective of the merits, irrespective of the cost, no matter whether it makes sense, no matter who gets hurt. So, we end up with insane situations where badly needed development--development that will give people jobs, save lives, help keep the US out of foreign wars, etc.--is blocked because the environment is elevated above everything else.

An excellent example would be a controversy in the are where I live, where environmentalists are trying to block the construction of two more reactors at Lake Anna Nuclear Power Station since said reactors will raise the lake temperature and change the ecology of the lake. Never mind that the lake was BUILT for cooling those reactors, and is in fact owned by Virginia Power (literally), and was originally designed for four reactors! As far as environmentalists are concerned, the status quo is sacred, and must be preserved at all costs.

Examples could be multiplied... from ANWR to off-shore drilling, the environmental movement always regards the environment to be more important than people.

Global warming is the worst example, because rich nations can afford to retool to avoid emitting carbon dioxide, but the third world cannot. Now, if global warming were really the threat that it is made out to be, then everybody needs to retool. However, if its not, then forcing the 3rd world to retool is just plain cruel.

But you don't seem to care. All you seem to care about is "The Environment." Try thinking about "The People" first, and you may come up with a different answer.

An observation

[vladilinsky]

What I find interesting, is when I read through the comments on Slashdot a year ago there was virtually no argument that global warming was happening and was man made. Even on sites like fark the majority of people were under the "human caused global warming" banner. Yet now there seams to be a resurgence in the "its not caused by us" camp. What has changed?

/don tinfoil hat

I have noticed a lot of marketing aimed at denying global warming. Is it possible that the marketing is working?

/remove tinfoil hat

Re:An observation

[bunratty]

Its not the marketing, its the reality that the the Global Warming crowd has painted but that has not come to pass

Given that it will take decades for most of the predictions of global warming to become obvious, I think the conclusion that they haven't come to pass is a bit premature. The most obvious short-term predictions are that global termperatures will rise and the Arctic ice will melt, and they have been. So exactly what predictions do you think were made that have not come to pass?

Re:An observation

[bunratty]

Yes, of course, there will always be hurricanes, storms, and droughts. Yes, they will get worse with global warming. Do you have evidence that they are not getting worse? It's pretty hard to tell so far, because we have just recently been able to see the first of these effects. Let's wait thirty years or so before we can conclusively say that the predictions are wrong. I guess people were expecting some kind of Hollywood disaster right around the corner, and when it didn't happen immediately, people thought the predictions didn't come true. It's going to be fifty years or more before things get really bad. That's the point about global warming. We need to reduce emissions now to avoid a disaster in the future.

Re:Study says: CO2 not a greenhouse gas

[expatriot]

It's sad how this site has become so extreme in denying global warming.
It will be obvious to everyone soon, even to deluded nerds, but possibly too late to change.

Try recommending a non-fiction book.

[Beelzebud]

Have any books written by scientists and not by a ficton writer with a clear track record of painting scientists in the most negative light possible?

Re:Try recommending a non-fiction book.

[enharmonix]

Fiction is easier on the both of us. It's a good book, and Crighton was only critical of bad science. Seriously, just try being open-minded about it. Like I said, it might not change your mind, but it will at least offer you some perspective.

Bigger problems

[cdrguru]

The bigger problem is that no matter what, "climate change" is a fact of life that we have yet to deal with. It is upon us for whatever reason.

Personally, I do not believe it is all human-caused and therefore cannot be stopped or deterred by any human action. I might be wrong, but it seems an awful lot like someone observing that each morning when they awaken the sun rises and therefore believes that it is their awakening that causes the sun to rise. Somewhat arrogant, perhaps?

The problem is that we have not built things in the last 100 years or so to account for even the possibility that the climate might be variable. Reluctantly we have begun to acknowledge that it might not be a good idea to build fragile structires in the path of hurricanes. We have yet to begin to acknowledge there might be a risk to building certain types of structures in areas frequented by tornados. The thought that sea levels might change is even further from anyone's mind.

The reality is that the climate has been remarkably calm and forgiving for the last 400 years or so. Much further back than we have detailed history of. What was the climate like in 1200 AD? How about 150 AD? 2500 BC? Sorry, but all we can do is guess from some very indistinct records. We have some evidence in ice cores, some historical documents and some biological evidence. As to where the sea levels were 4500 years ago we have no idea. Clearly, there have been changes because we know, for example, that the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe some time in the past.

Humans have been around for perhaps 4.5 million years, in one form or another. The Earth's climate has a history of hundreds of millions of years before that and again, we have only the faintest idea of what it was like.

Assuming the climate is going to be the same tomorrow as it was today is a reasonable expectation. Things do not change on that scale very quickly. However, assuming the climate will be the same in 100 years as it was 100 years ago is provably false over periods of time where we have pretty decent records. George Washington dragged heavy sledges across the frozen Delaware River which is impossible today because the river doesn't freeze.

Trying to terraform the Earth to keep the climate the same way it was before is a pointless and futile exercise. Beliving that humans can control the climate is an arrogant statement that is provably false. The climate is going to change and there is nothing we can do to change that fact. If you build your house at the beachfront, do not be surprised when the water level rises.

Re:Bigger problems

[Grym]

Trying to terraform the Earth to keep the climate the same way it was before is a pointless and futile exercise. Beliving that humans can control the climate is an arrogant statement that is provably false.

Is it? Do you think if we exploded every nuclear weapon in the world all at once that such a human action would not have any effect upon the global climate?

Assumptions such as yours are antiquated and, quite frankly, foolhardy. Human technology and industry has progressed to the point where our activities can affect the world as a whole--including the atmosphere.

-Grym

Re:Bigger problems

[LingNoi]

You haven't done anything apart from prove the GP right.

If you explode every nuke on the planet it wouldn't keep the climate the same.

Not only this however it would only be a temporary effect not a permanent one.

Re:Bigger problems

[Grym]

My point was not that the climate should or will stay the same. I'm refuting his claim that we have no control or influence whatsoever over the climate at all.

Humanity has the ability to affect the global climate. It's a very basic point that everyone needs to agree upon in order for any sort of discussion on environmental policy or analysis of anthropogenic climate change can begin.

-Grym

Re:Bigger problems

[Coryoth]

The reality is that the climate has been remarkably calm and forgiving for the last 400 years or so. Much further back than we have detailed history of. What was the climate like in 1200 AD? How about 150 AD? 2500 BC? Sorry, but all we can do is guess from some very indistinct records. We have some evidence in ice cores, some historical documents and some biological evidence.

Well, actually we have ice cores, tree ring data, data from corals, and from sediment records, all from various locations all over the word, which can be cross referenced against one another. Yes, that means we have a "guess", and each individual record is indistinct, but in combination they provide a fairly good record.

some good videos

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate Change -- the scientific debate
http://youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo

Climate Change -- the objections
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI

That is only true if you ignore the rest

[aepervius]

CO2 is not produced cleanly alone. Usually it is produced with a host of other stuff. Like fine particule dust, SOx, NOx, CO, and even unburnt CxHy. So saying that CO2 is not a polluant is true but a small white lie as in reality it is only one of the cocktail of chemicals left after incomplete burn. The point of the GP was just that : by reducing our consumption of burning based energy toward something else, we benefit as our water / air / whatever get less polluted than now. You missed the point by concentrating of only 1 component of the cocktail and ignoring the whole rest.

That said, there are other method to reduce those other chemicals like gathering / catalyzing them at the exhaust. Whether we have some margin for new research or even if it is feasable for ALL sort of exhaust, I dunno I am not a specialist.

Re:That is only true if you ignore the rest

[timmarhy]

this is the reason i'm a global warming skeptic and yet i support initatives to clean up industry. i work in process plants so i know exactly what comes out and it's not pretty. carbopn taxes are bullcrap though, they shouldn't focus on carbon, it's the wrong approach.

Re:Global Warming

[Zarquil]

May I make a slight correction?

1. Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race.

sure do. and for a long time, before the advent of industrialization, the climate has experienced only moderate fluctuations even with all that volcanic co2. then along came escalades and coal plants and massive human-engineer deforestation projects that when added to all that volcanic co2, it tipped the balance to a general warming trend.

Actually, volcanoes eject less CO2 than human activity. Considerably less than 1 percent of anthropogenic CO2 levels. The Hawaiian Volcano Observatory has actual numbers posted http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

Volcanic activity also puts out a whole bunch of pollutants such as SO2 that cause localized effects but may or may not influence global climate change.

It's a bit nit-picky, though, and shouldn't take away from your point. You are completely correct that volcanic CO2 has been variable in the past and has not demonstrated the climate fluctuations we're seeing now.

Re:Study says: CO2 not a greenhouse gas

[bonifatius]

I think this work has not been published yet. The authors say that it is in preprint here:

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/DEFINITIVE_DEATHKNELL_to_CLIMATE_ALARMISM.pdf

Re:Study says: CO2 not a greenhouse gas

[Beelzebud]

I'm sure the free market will solve the problem.

Re:I thought Slashdot was Atheist?

[ThePeices]

Youre missing one major thing AC...unlike 'God', we have this thing called empirical evidence. The 'Faith' he was talking about is faith that the scientists know what they are talking about...something that *can* be tested and proved/disproved. With religious faith, its simply beleiving something that cannot be proven, simply based upon human wishes, hopes, dreams, tradition, magic and superstition.

*Please* use your brain AC.

Re:Funny That

[TapeCutter]

Funny how climate scientists don't dispute that cosmic rays may have SOME affect on clouds.

Funny how the proponents of the so called "Iris theory" fail to answer the obvious question. ie: There is no observable trend in cosmic rays since we started measuring them, so by what mechanisim does a LACK of trend in cosmic rays cause any trend in cloud cover?

Funny how some people ignore the fact that the role of CO2 in warming the Earth has been demonstrated experimentally time and time again for about a century now.

Actually the last two are sad, not funny.

But carbon emissions have gone up every year

[unassimilatible]

We have more carbon and methane than ever in the atmosphere, yet temps are down? This means there must be another variable in global temperatures than carbon emissions.

So more carbon, yet lower temps. Hmm.

Re:But carbon emissions have gone up every year

[bunratty]

Yes, the other variable is the ever-changing weather. Global warming is a long-term trend in addition to the continuing short-term warming and cooling trends. Winters are cold. Summers are warm. El Nino and La Nina cause temperature variations also. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the only cause of changing temperatures, and no one ever said it was.

Re:But carbon emissions have gone up every year

[Ihmhi]

El Nino and La Nina

I always thought it was kinda lame that we let a couple Spanish kids have a say in what our weather will be like.

Re:But carbon emissions have gone up every year

[DeVilla]

So more carbon, yet lower temps. Hmm.

Well I guess you can't argue with the data. Stop Global Warming! Light a fire!

Global Warming a Hoax

[reidiq]

Global warming is nothing but fabricated lies with a purpose to destroy capitalism. It's pretty freaking cold this year, I blame global warming!

Re:Global Warming a Hoax

[bunratty]

So explain exactly how this hoax will destroy capitalism. From what I can see, reducing carbon dioxide emissions will help us stretch out our diminishing fossil fuels and allow us to transition easily to alternative energy sources as fossil fuels run out, thus saving world economies.

Who said it's a bad thing?

[uarch]

I realize change is scary to most of you but how do you KNOW a little warming or cooling is a BAD thing.
Who are you to say that the current temperature is the ideal one?

Re:Who said it's a bad thing?

[bunratty]

There isn't necessarily an ideal temperature. But if temperatures increase, sea levels rise. If sea levels rise, people who live on the coasts will have to move. The cost of moving those millions of people will be billions of dollars. So warming in this case is bad, but only because of the millions of people living on sea coasts.

Re:Who said it's a bad thing?

[uarch]

There are pros and cons of the temperature going either way and you could just as easily take the opposite view.
A temperature increase would allow us to grow more food. So warming in this case is good because it could help stop global hunger.

As a side note, it would definitely cost quite a lot to move millions of people. Thankfully we would have several decades to do so if it was needed. We currently spend more than that in a weekend stimulus package.

Re:Who said it's a bad thing?

[bunratty]

Global hunger is not caused by not enough food. It's caused by the food not getting to people who are starving.

But, yes, there are some benefits to global warming. We are safe from an ice age for hundreds of years, unless there's an event that throws huge amounts of aerosols into the upper atmosphere, such as huge volcanic eruptions or a large asteroid or comet impact.

You're underestimating the costs of moving people. Even one strong hurricane that temporarily floods an urban area can cost billions of dollars. Now multiply that by all the coastal urban areas around the world. That's enough money to make the current financial bailout look like a drop in the bucket. It's not the amount we spend on a weekend stimulus package. If it were, it wouldn't worth all the effort to reduce emissions.

Re:Well, DUH....

[bunratty]

Yes, the sun is making it hotter. But the increased carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is having a larger increase. There is a consensus among scientists that there's a 90% probability most of the global warming over the past fifty years has been due to excess carbon dioxide due to humans burning fossil fuels and forests. Increase in solar output is thought to account for about 30% of the warming.

Re:I thought Slashdot was Atheist?

[SnEptUne]

Yet, science is created on faith. We accept scientific model not because it can be proven to be 100% truth, but because no other feasible model is developed. If every scientific theory is created based on raw data alone, science will not exist.

Even if we are trying to be objectivity by creating procedures and checklists, the process itself is not without bias; we have not taken into account what we do not know.

Re:The Infallible Scientist

[alexibu]

Science is not about the scientist, whether they are infallible, reputable or anything else.

Science is based on rational arguments and has equal value whether the work of a six year old, Al Gore, Jim Hansen, God, or anyone else.

I doubt that people are shocked at your ignorance, they are more likely shocked at your irrationality.

All of the science behind the IPCCs findings are there for you to read. So is volumes of litrature on evolution. You could contribute greatly to the worlds knowledge by finding errors or extra information that refutes either. Until then expressing baseless opinions ultimately sourced from irrational religious belief systems will not win you any arguments or respect on matters of science.

Three Little Problems = Bunk?

[fygment]

a) study was local to "pristine" Southern Hemisphere ocean regions. Which are _not_ the same as the rest of the world. They were simply where it was easier to measure cosmic rays. Therefore bit of a stretch to extrapolate globally;

b) time frame for study was 2000-2005. Precise cosmic ray measurements are a recent thing, as are pretty much all climate measurements. No mention of error for extrapolations over any longer time frame when such errors must necessarily be huge.

c) emphasis in article about how conclusions agree with majority of researchers AND how the theory they were testing was adhered to by a largely unsupported minority. Does that matter? Science isn't a democracy eg. Thomas Gold & Pulsars.

As in all climate studies the margins of error are large and the sources for error are unreported.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Um, but the study does show clouds...

[tjstork]

Are effected.

"Indeed, following some of the events we could see a reduction, but following others there was an increase in cloud formation. We did not find any patterns in the way the clouds changedâ, Kristjansson explains.

But, the clouds changed following the event...

Conservation is poverty

[tjstork]

Whenever you have less of something, that means you are poorer. By definition, global climate regulation reduces the available energy to people, impoverishing them. If Global warming proponents seriously wanted to manage CO2 in the atmosphere, they would be bigger proponents of nuclear power, and they don't. So f--- them. IF global warming is not so urgent that we can wait for windmills and solar panels to get better, rather than just switch to nuclear now, then, what's the hurry to do anything about it at all?

Re:Conservation is poverty

[bunratty]

But will not have less of something. We will use less of something, which is called efficiency.

You're confusing the science of global warming with the policies used to prevent it. If the politicians are against nuclear power, that's their fault. Don't turn to the scientists and say their research is bad because you don't agree with policies to prevent global warming.

No conspiracy

[jandersen]

Well, I think we all knew this, really. What this kind of research should tell us, which is much more important, is that there is in fact no global conspiracy of fat cat climatologists, who holds on to government funding and keeps the good, honest climate sceptics out. Because, as we can see, even these more obscure and border-line absurd hypotheses actually do get researched - ie. they too get funding and their ideas are tested seriously.

Back To Square One.....

[IHC Navistar]

Scientists find relation between global warming.

Scientists find, at the same time, no relation between global warming.

Keep in mind, that regardless of the 'discoveries', this study against the cosmic ray/global warming relationship theory is absolutely no more conclusive that the studies that found a relationship.

Conservation is not efficiency.

[tjstork]

But will not have less of something. We will use less of something, which is called efficiency.

Efficiency is something the markets can already address. If it is more efficient, it costs less, and therefor, you have more resources for other stuff. Global warming technologies are not efficient, unless you invent artificial costs. Believe me, I want alternative energy companies to succeed because I own stock in some, but right now they simply can't compete. They are less efficient.

Any scientist that has any sense of reality who argues that carbon taxes and combatting global warming will result in an improved standard of living for people is lying. That's pretty much the point. It's something that it has to be done but the public is being fed a lie by the academic community. Solving global warming is going to make people radically poorer, lead to more unemployment and even death at the margins, because, any imposed energy reduction beyond what the markets can provide is in fact a force rationing and impoverishment. Whenever you reduce someone's economic freedom, you make them instantly poorer.

Travel will get worse. We are looking at a regime where cars are going to get worse, and more expensive. There is no battery even conceptually on the horizon that approaches the energy density of a gallon of gasoline. You can knock gasoline as much as you want, but you really can't get much better than a carbon hydrogen bond for energy storage. Gasoline also stores reasonably well, is liquid at human temperature ranges, can be piped. There is no battery that can beat gasoline. IT just doesn't exist. For that reason, simple physics, something has to give in the design of the car and its usually a mix of acceleration, range, or weight, and usually all of them, and with a higher price.

As a result, cars will be more expensive, travel less distance, and not as quickly, comfortably, or as safely. They just can't because the energy density isn't there. It's funny that people hail the increasing expense of the car as a victory of a sorts. It's not.. its a reduction in options for people that need to travel. Wheras with $5,000 cars and gasoline at $1 a gallon, some people could work, and now, with $25,000 cars and $5 a gallon, they won't, or are limited to where the rails run.

Outlet energy and home energy use will get worse. Any increase in energy costs at the wall outlet is going to translate into some hardship somewhere. Everyone hails fluorescent lighting and LED lighting, but incandescent lighting doesn't give me headaches and emits on a pretty broad spectrum, feels warm and inviting. LED lighting is clinical and depressing and fluorescent lighting is a headache making terror. And of course its all going to cost more to operate, leading to cities to have less lights outside and an increase in crime or laws and curfews to combat it.

Conservationists say that homes should be heated at 68 rather than 72, or air conditioning should not be used during the summer. That's obviously worse.

I mean, everyone looks at the 1.6 gallon toilets, versus the older water wasters, and says, look at how good the 1.6 gallon toilets can flush, using less water. But, they don't flush perfectly, and, one has to ask the question, how good could a 4 gallon of water per flush toilet flush. I would bet that with today's technology, I would never even need to clean the bowl. That would be what richer is.

Instead, we're spending more money just to do what we do now, and that's poverty. We're spending more on travel, heating, and lighting, and, with CO2 caps, we're going to spend even -more-, and the most that we can do is spend more to have the same level of service that we have today. Consequently, we won't be investing in new things, just hanging on, and, as gradually more people lose their grip and let go, they will realize what I've realized. Environmentalism makes you poorer.

It just does. If scientists want to tell the truth, then tell it. But pretending that the new e

Yeah but scientists are acting politically.

[tjstork]

That's my point. Most scientists, I agree, once they lock in on a problem throw politics out the window and go where it leads. But these are the more rank and file that do the real work of science. In the public eye, you have a lot of scientists that are the climate equivalent of Teller. You have guys like Hansen lobbying for something like a Kyoto, or a solution to a problem, and you have economists, some of them whom won the Nobel prize, arguing for carbon caps, and at the end, what those people aren't saying is that a) the public will be poorer at the end, and b) many of them who are invested in that technology comes to mind. Those are political actions, not scientific ones.

And, like it or not, the general public now thinks Al Gore is a scientist, which I think is laughable to any scientist, regardless of political persuasion. They see people like him, with tons of stock and tons of money in all of this green movement stuff, and they think it might all be a racket. Given that this country has gone through plenty of rackets already, I think some skepticism about the green racket is warranted. That's what I'm saying.

Re:Study says: CO2 not a greenhouse gas

[bonifatius]

Venus is closer to the sun and has a denser athmosphere than our earth.

my 2 cents

[RageBot]

When I am not wasting my time on slashdot I sometimes waste my time observing the sun through a HA solar filter (which I paid way too much for) on a telescope (which I paid way too much for). I also waste my time reading books by guys like Willie Soon or books with titles like "The Sun Kings". Not to mention I have been reading astronomy books and mags with articles on stuff like planet climate issues since way before Al Gore invented the internet. It is clear to me that all the climate models we have now are crap. When NOAA released the code for their models guess what kinda criticism they were met with. First the models had poor documentation, variable names were too short and did not always describe the variable accurately, and there was lots of spagetie (sp) code. Wait a sec, that is what my boss said about my last program; never mind. Not to mention that the models were very time specific and could not be applied over long time periods or time periods in the past. Lets face it we can not say if it is gonna rain tomorrow or not most of the time; how can anyone say what the temp will be 10 years from now. But the real problem I have with the GW guys is no one really says just how much CO2 has increased in percentage terms over the last ten, twenty, one hundred, or one thousand years. This is because it is less than 1/10 of 1%. You really need very specialized instruments to measure such a small increase; not to mention the CI when measuring such small changes. Then there is the fact that we have great pix of ice sheets decreasing in size over the past 10 years or so. Problem is these ice sheets are on Mars (and the moons of Jupiter); so we really cant blame this on man made warming. I definitely think we need to clean up our act; but am not sure if every one rode a bike to work the temp would change at all.

Re:Greenland. Antartica.

[sumdumass]

If it is ice in the water, then it is the same, when it melts, it will only displace the volume that it expanded despite it being 20 miles high unless it is sitting on land. If it is on land or some structure artificially elevating it in the water, then it will cause an increase in ocean levels. But if no land or atlas many is holding it up, it's all already accounted for.

Re:Grammar police: mass nouns vs count nouns

[TerranFury]

Thank you sir! This bugs me too. I still remember Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0's installer used to say, "Develop code with less bugs," which made me cringe every time I read it.

I also mourn the death of the subjunctive. "If I were a rich man" may be the only song that gets it right. (Side note: The other day, somebody was playing pop-star Gwen Stefani's cover of this song; it's called "If I was a rich girl." For Christ's sake, she intentionally changed the verb from the original to make it ungrammatical.)

You have to face the facts.

[tjstork]

Saying we're going to be poorer at the end is ridiculous.

You aren't facing facts. Energy is wealth, the more you have, the richer you are. The less you have, the poorer you are. Since you are saying now that people have to use less energy, they will be poorer. All efficiency is, for the average joe, is spending more money to get what you already got, when the resource was cheaper, and all global warming solutions do, is force the average joe to spend more, to keep some of the lifestyle that he has. That's making someone poorer.

It's pretty simple really. If you can't travel like you used to, you are poorer. If you can't run the heat like you used to, you are poorer. If it costs more to go some place, you are poorer. If you have to pay higher tax to light a fire, you are poorer.

Another thing that's lost in the debate of global warming action is who benefits and who loses in global warming. Right now, coastal states dominate the world economy and as they stand to lose the most, the debate is skewed towards them. But why should someone in Kansas care about someone in New York City, or, for that matter Malaysia. What if global warming made the weather better in some places? Why do they get screwed out of the coming bounty of GW, just so cities on the coast can stay on top. Of course the whole GW thing is labelled "we", because the coasts that want everyone else on the world to cut back on their lifestyle to save their sorry port towns, don't want us to know that GW might actually be good for us. I mean, if I'm a programmer in Kansas, isn't it a good thing if Mumbai India goes 100 feet under water when Greenland melts?

Re:Can YOU answer it?

[dbrutus]

If you recall, there was an admitted NASA error on the heat data, a y2k type error that when corrected led to 1934 being the hottest year, and 3 of the 5 hottest years on record occurring before 1940.