Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected

techno-vampire writes with word that a long-accepted model of deep ocean currents is inaccurate. Deep Sea News has a summary of the research, to be published in Nature. The Woods Hole press release has more details. "A 50-year-old model of global thermohaline circulation that predicts a deep Atlantic counter current below the Gulf Stream is now formally called into question by an armada of subsurface RAFOS floats drifting 700 - 1500m deep. Nearly 80% of the RAFOS floats escaped the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC), drifting into the open ocean. This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990s, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change."

Comments

The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't accurate? For Gore's sake, what a surprise!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[N1ck0]

Ocean current that might vary in flow and not exactly match models that are decades old...sheesh. Don't they teach kids how to do fluid dynamics calculations with billions upon billions of variables all of which change over with time and depend on a multitude of other models which themselves have varying levels of accuracy to their data these days.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot so I'll just assume you didn't RTFA. Here's the original article:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm

In summary, this finding just makes it harder to measure the effects of climate change. No where does it invalidate climate change you dumb ass. Instead of just measuring the cold return current as they previously thought, the water takes a diffuse route back to the tropics.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[hey!]

sheesh. Don't they teach kids how to do fluid dynamics calculations with billions upon billions of variables all of which change over with time and depend on a multitude of other models which themselves have varying levels of accuracy to their data these days.

My wife went to grad school in physical oceanography (at WHOI, it turns out).

One of my MIT buddies was this guy who pretty much finished up course 18 (Mathematics) undergrad requirements at the end of his sophomore year, and spent the next two years studying these really thin, expensive, and badly printed books of what looked like the output of a line printer on the wrong parity setting. I knew my then girlfriend was in trouble when I told this guy what she was studying and he was impressed.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Calculations! Huh! In my day, we solved Thermodynamic Navier-Stokes equations analytically or we didn't solve 'em at all. Yes sir, if you wanted something done right you had to solve it by hand! None of these razzle dazzle calumalators. We derived systems of diffeo-integral equations from first principles, solved them using power series with Bessel's Functions and we liked it!

Boundary conditions!? Hah! We used elliptic integrals and n^th order polynomials to generate our boundaries. None of your hoi polloi "splines" and "fractals". What good's a function that's not 10^th order continuous, I ask yah?! Bunch of whippersnappers! Let's see how your spline deals with my 4^th order constraint! Hah!

Floating point?! What luxury! In those times, if you wanted some numerical results, well sir, you had to generate an asymptotic series out to fifteen terms, and calculate your answer using surds and continued fractions, uphill both ways. In the snow. Course if you were lucky, you might get your 5 minute turn with the shared slide rule. That is, if it wasn't rusted up from the damp and cold. Great days.

"Billions upon billions of variables". You youngsters and your numerical models. Nothing gained that couldn't have been got from one afternoon with a fluid dynamics problem set. No wonder the world's gettin' warmer with all the HOT AIR comin' out you an all your bippity-boppity, hankly-pankly, good for nothin' electromonic computers !!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ksheff]

The place I used to work at 15 years ago created global land cover classification maps based on satellite data. When they started creating their 1km resolution maps, a few GC scientists got pissed since the data broke their climate models. It seems their assumptions of what the land cover was like for different areas of the planet were quite different from observed reality.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[b4upoo]

Conversely it may confirm that climate change has already disrupted ocean currents that were studied in the 1990s. Global warming models predicted that ocean currents would be altered.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Toonol]

So... it's harder to get the right answer than previously though, but the previous calculations done the 'easy' way are still correct?

I'm struggling to reconcile this...

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Arcane_Rhino]

But global warming (what? oops) climate change is FACT FACT I TELLS YA! We are all going to be underwater in a decade! Cap and trade! Taxes to the UN! Billions of extra dollars to be spent, now, NOW, NOW!

That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue. Of course the science needs to evolve and of course scientists are refining their models. But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness from those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering that this issue has and is enabling.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Shadow Wrought]

So... it's harder to get the right answer than previously though, but the previous calculations done the 'easy' way are still correct?

I'm struggling to reconcile this...

I am not a scientist, but I know that you can us eNewtonian mechanics to figure out where a planet is going to be on any given date time. But if ylou want to slide a satellite into orbit around that planet you need to bust out Einstein. I'm guessing it might be something similar in that this doesn't affect the general trend, but it will change the rate of the trend.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

If you can't measure it (or quantify it in some way) it didn't happen. So yes, while this in no way invalidates climate change models, I would consider it to substantially weaken them.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[SEWilco]

Yes. It's easier to calculate that 1+1=1, so just use that answer. Bender thinks he once saw a 2, but he was hallucinating.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Beyond Opinion]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't get it.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[hey!]

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't get it.

It's the subtle way I slipped in the absurd notion that a slashdotter knows any females. The way that we refer to the opposite sex as "females" is in large part responsible for this.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[JWSmythe]

Of course 1+1=1. Schrödinger only had one cat in the box. 1 living cat + 1 dead cat = 1 cat.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Analytical solutions? Bah! We knew the solution was 42. Unless it was a Wednesday, then it was 12.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[imric]

It IS fact. That part's easy. It's what effect it will have that's hard. Considering the implications of climate shift on food and energy supplies, panicked responses are understandable, if not helpful.

OK now both the so-called 'sides' (the conservative "we can always do what we've always done, no big change to God's earth is possible" partisans and the lefty "zomg humans are unnatural and everything we do that affects the rest of nature is morally wrong" zealots) can come flame away.

Of course, THAT will not help GW.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[The_Quinn]

while this in no way invalidates climate change models

Be careful, get too far ahead of orthodoxy and you will be judged a heretic.

However, you seem to be moving comfortably with the tide. Oh that comfortable groupy flow.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[MrHanky]

Sure, we can forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness if you can forgive us for not paying too much attention to a group of people who think this kind of rambling and incoherent strawman bullshit is "insightful".

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Toonol]

You're right, and if this is just a slightly more accurate but complicated reformulation of the old method, that may be the situation. My skepticism comes from the fact that climate models are simulations of chaotic systems, which often have the effect of amplifying very minor deviations in unpredictable ways.

In other words, Newtonian physics will allow you to predict a planet's orbit with 99.9% accuracy; but add a bunch of planets that interact in complex ways, and let them orbit for a million years, and see how close your prediction is.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[sumdumass]

It IS fact. That part's easy. It's what effect it will have that's hard. Considering the implications of climate shift on food and energy supplies, panicked responses are understandable, if not helpful.

How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply? The ocean currents play a very deep and integrated part into the weather/climate of the planet. There was a study done in colorado which claimed that all of earths recorded warming can be attributed to changes in ocean temps. There was another claiming that the decadal oscillations have more of an effect on the climate and temperatures then Co2 has. Then there is the idea that the decadal oscillations have something to do with the solar cycles and the magnetic effects on the earth's magnetosphere and the solar storms we see.

Now we are being told the ocean currents are completely different then once believed. it's a matter of time before the differences are connected or disconnected to the other works but we are seeing the possibility that Global warming or climate change as they like to call it after the warming stopped, is completely founded in erroneous information and needs to be reexamined. We cannot in good faith claim that global warming is fact today given the severity of this claim. It's simply impossible to do so.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[rfolkker]

Of course 1+1=1. Schrödinger only had one cat in the box. 1 living cat + 1 dead cat = 1 cat.

I need that on a shirt:)

GEEKWARE FOR ALL!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[The Spoonman]

But global warming (what? oops) climate change is FACT FACT I TELLS YA

First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT. They will tell you there is sufficient evidence that supports the models and predictions. Science is about collecting evidence, not establishing facts. Sometimes, new evidence comes along that completely contradicts previous evidence (rare), but more often than not it simply guides "tweaks" to the models to incorporate new data. This new data is of the latter type. It does not in any way invalidate the previous research and data, it simply sheds new light on it.

That is the problem and why it is always a hot button issue.

No, it was made into a hot button issue, that was the problem. That's not the fault of the science, that's the fault of the ignorant media leading the even more ignorant populace.

But you will have to forgive a little cynicism and snarkiness

Why? If the cynicism is justified, that's one thing, but you're comporting the effect the media has had on sensationalizing the issue with the science behind it. The two are intertwined, but distinct.

those who do not approve of the grabs to power, money, and social engineering

Ya-huh, so who exactly are the people getting rich and powerful off of this? I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Overzeetop]

But to extend your analogy, the answer is still positive. If the question is whether the answer is positive of negative, or within a certain range (as such models tend to only answer in confidence ranges), then even wrong can be right, as long as the answer is "close enough".

The question left to be answered is "how much does this change the climate modeling results?" Right now, it does not appear that the data has been entered, and the authors are only speculating that this particular change in a parameter may change the answer. Being sensational gets you a lot more press than saying you've increased the precision by another half a digit.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[imric]

*sigh*

The atmosphere IS collecting energy.

Our climate IS self-regulating, as well - at least within boundary limits. That we don't know what those boundaries are should terrify you. The implications of climate change can de-stabilize the socio-economic patterns we depend on - perhaps not as a species, but certainly as a civilisation.

I see the disbelief climate-change deniers as being similar to 19th century disbelief that it was impossible for species to go extinct. They all had scientific rationales as to why it simply couldn't happen - until the fate of the Dodo was documented. One difference is that there are fewer GW/AGW deniers in the scientific community than there were extinction deniers, of course.

Now tell me - how many scientists are saying that the fact that we don't understand our deep-ocean currents as completely as we thought we did means that there is no GW? How many are saying that this invalidates AGW? None? No - there are the fraction of scientists that lobby for fossil-fuel industry, or the specialists in other fields and even non-scientists whose faith in their own opinions _are_ their qualifications to speak up. How many of those who 'doubt' GW/AGW do so out of ideological reasons? At least those who give credit to the idea of GW/AGW have the opinion of most scientists on their 'side'. What do deniers have?

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore is doing pretty damned well it seems.

And if they pass Cap and Trade, then the government will clean up.

But then, it has always been more about taxes and revenue to the government than it has been about saving the earth.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[lessthan]

Your example is incorrect. A correct example would be that the equation is 1.0005351651351 + 1.006546513541346 = 2.007081678676446, but 1 + 1 = 2 is close enough.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[pseudorand]

Isn't it funny that the more one knows about computers the less one trusts the answers they bring us? To all those climate-change advocates out there, where's your healthy mistrust of the unknown?

I've coded an evolutionary model that predicts that this loss of fear of the unknown has a >95% chance of causing the extinction of all human life on earth within the next 3 decades. Someone's got to do something about that.

Oh, wait, Gore already did. When people realize CO2 isn't making WaterWorld a reality, we'll all stop trusting science. That will be just about the time when we get the computer models right and they tell us we're headed for an ice age due to decreasing solar input. But all the funding for atmospheric research that might have helped us figure out how we COULD use CO2 to maintain the planet's temperature will be cut due to our newly rediscovered mistrust of the unknown, so it looks like we're doomed either way.

Quick! Everyone start having lots of end-of-the-world sex!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll tell you exactly why those floats drifted out of the current...

I WAS BUSH AND HIS EVIL CONSERVATIVE OIL COMPANIES!

They hired submarines and divers to interfere with the truth behind global warming! It's all a conspiracy!

Do not read the report above, because then you'll just be brainwashed by that propaganda! OMG!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Bemopolis]

How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply?

Because the warming has been observed. The problem of the ocean currents summarized here is not one of causative mechanism, but of energy transfer. In other words, this is more about the pattern of global warming, not the existence of it.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ardle]

I had to re-read a couple of times myself but I reckon the point is that a guy who was studying something really complicated was impressed to hear about someone studying oceanography.
BTW were you saying that naive people don't get it?

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[chebucto]

IMHO we don't need accurate predictions of just how exactly the climate will behave in n years to know we need to do something about global warming. We know for a fact that certain gases causes a greenhouse effect, and we know a warmer climate won't be good for us (if only because most of us live on the coast and higher sea levels wouldn't be good). The details aren't important, the big picture is already clear.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[operagost]

One of my MIT buddies was this guy who pretty much finished up course 18 (Mathematics) undergrad requirements at the end of his sophomore year, and spent the next two years studying these really thin, expensive, and badly printed books of what looked like the output of a line printer on the wrong parity setting.

That guy must really be a moron if it took him two years to figure out perl.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[operagost]

First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT.

Then why are people who question the extreme steps being taken to mitigate global warming being lumped in with holocaust deniers? Scientists are doing this-- not just hack journalists.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the summary, shitcock!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

New research resulting in some idiot experiencing some confirmation bias?

What a surprise!

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Beyond Opinion]

I understand the gist of it, but seeing as it's modded +5 funny, I must be missing something. I didn't find it funny at all.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ChaosDiscord]

Yes, it's human nature to be pissed when it turns out you were wrong. Scientists are not ubermensch who think perfectly logically. If Newton were still around today, I'm sure he'd still be holding a grudge against Einstein. That they were pissed doesn't mean that they didn't eventually get over it, dust themselves off, and proceed to refining their hypothesis, or crafting a new one. It's pretty useless scientist whose hypothesises are never invalidated.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Man On Pink Corner]

That we don't know what those boundaries are should terrify you. ... I see the disbelief climate-change deniers as being similar to 19th century disbelief that it was impossible for species to go extinct.

What terrifies me is the idea of rewiring entire economic systems based on science that's this shaky.

I wouldn't get on an airplane, or even drive over a bridge, if it had been designed with nothing but pie-in-the-sky mathematical models and a few conflicting indirect observations. What if those models aren't as realistic as you thought?

Economic interference, on the other hand, will cause suffering and death without question. We don't have to look 100,000 years into the past to see that.

Get the math right, then get the models right, then get the laws right. We're nowhere near done with step 2 yet.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ksheff]

IIRC, some of them basically said "your data is F@#$ED, we're going back to using what made our models work" and did the opposite of what you've mentioned.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

Suck it down, global warming fags.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ildon]

Everyone knows 1 + 1 = 0 with an overflow bit that we just ignore.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Retric]

Best estimate for a 50% reduction in greenhouse gasses from today's level? A 3.5cents per gallon of gas tax. (The HORROR!!!)

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Arcane_Rhino]

If you think it is that simple or will be that cheap you are living in a dream world. Fortunately, we have historical evidence; what was the reduction in greenhouse gases last year when a gallon of gasoline was approximately double what it currently is? I am currently paying $2.49/gal. If $2.53/gal would reduce it 50%, I should think $5.24/gal (the max I saw) would have reduced it substantially above that. I am fairly sure it didn't.

I am not arguing for or against the attempt to curb greenhouse gasses, here. But to portray those who have legitimate concerns about how it will effect the economy as being so small minded and stingy that they will not even part with 3.5 cents/gallon is disingenuous at best.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[mako1138]

You don't need general relativity for most situations. That includes most of the solar system.

You may be thinking of GPS's reliance on relativity, which is only with regards to timekeeping: both the relative velocity of the satellites and their distance from the earth's gravity well result in time dilation.

Standard orbital mechanics works fine for satellites, as long as they are not in a very strong gravitational field. The classic example is the perihelion of Mercury, where results based on Newtonian theory are erroneous, due to Mercury's proximity to the sun.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Fyzzler]

Now tell me - how many scientists are saying that the fact that we don't understand our deep-ocean currents as completely as we thought we did means that there is no GW? How many are saying that this invalidates AGW? None?

How many of those scientists would have their funding cut if they said that there was no Global Warming or that it wouldn't have any serious repercussions?

Personally, I don't buy what anybody says, when they are being paid to say it.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[mako1138]

It sounds difficult to run a 1-km grid simulation on today's hardware, let alone 15 years ago.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[sumdumass]

The warming has been observed but the causation of the warming hasn't. The entire Co2 model rests on the premise that with everything else understood the way it was, it was the only significant difference that a cause and effect could be attached to.

Now there has been studies that indicate that For any given area on the ocean's surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. If the thermal capacity of the ocean is this strong, then we have to look at the effect of currents straying from our assumed paths and the heat transfer this caused. Granted, we still could have Co2 as a mechanism here because the oceans are giant carbon sinks and the cooler they are, the more carbon they can hold verses releasing it when they warm.

Anyways, here is how this can effect the global temperature which is why it needs to be carefully examines. If warmer parts of the ocean effect cooler parts, and with the top 2.6 meters of the ocean carrying all the heat potential as the entire atmosphere, then three things could happen, one is a release of Co2, the second is abnormal evaporation in which the relative humidity increases, the third is an insignificant increase in heat in the areas effected that weren't previously known to have been interacting with the currents. Well, we have observed all three of those inside the climate models for Co2. But here is a kicker that suggest the interaction is more prevailing then we are giving credit for, Hansen claimed the GISS heat models were wrong because the ocean was action like a sink for the excess heat. The heat deficit calculated for 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. was actually blaming the anthropogenic Co2 in the global warming model but a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al stated that in 2005 the steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects which is an effect of heat) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly which contradicts the global warming model in play right now.

We have had a fundamental given turned upside down here. When you look at a lot of the other works which don't quite fit and need some explaining, then take this into consideration, it's obvious that we need to go back to the beginning. And this time, it should be done by someone not pushing an agenda. The biggest problem with the climate change debate is that it was hijacked by politics and you have some who created a religion out of it. The effects the entire premise of the understanding of the effects of anthropogenic global warming and the effects it maintains on the numerous failed predictions being thrown out to scare people.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Arcane_Rhino]

First, no scientist worth his paper will tell you anything is FACT...

Based upon this statement alone, my previous post was not clear. Every scientist I have spoken with, including the ones who are "substantially confident" that humans have had "significant contributions" to global warming recognize that there are areas of weakness in the modeling. (Hence the quoted caveats of my last sentence, which are in fact quotes.) And, at least the scientists I know, are genuinely excited to have "new" information to refine their knowledge base.

Consequently, I never intended to imply that scientists made it a hot button issue. I was thinking of environmentalists, chemical energy producers, and especially politicians - but your point about the media is well taken.

Finally, concerning coin and power, the evidences are all around. One could point to international balances of trade via treaties and trade programs, corporations that allow you to offset your "carbon foot print", environmental groups who have radically altered what we can accomplish for the costs involved, and the UN justifying their ability to levy taxes because of global warming. To suggest that the global warming scare, legitimate or not, hasn't caused a shift in economic priorities or shifts in political power is the only weakness to your response. And, if you cannot see how climate change has been used for social engineering (um, political social engineering, not black hat social engineering), from the cars we drive to the washing machines we use, to the recreational activities that "thinking people" approve of, to the taxes we pay... well, you are just not looking.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[sumdumass]

What gets me is that these people who think raising the costs of everything is the answer, totally ignore the fact that it raises the costs on essential items like food, transportation to and from work, police and fire services, and so on.

They don't seem to care that the 3.5/gallon (*which I strongly think was supposed to be $3.50) will only decrees GHGs because it deprives people of their funding and ability to do what they want, their freedom, and sets the precedence of a rich class entitlement because they are the ones who now can afford things. The entire mortgage meltdown and banking crisis came to a front because energy costs went sky high and people had to make decisions over driving to work or paying the mortgage. Sure, there were some fundamental flaws built into the situation that would have eventually needed to be ironed out but the energy costs a year ago, brought it front and center and created the problems we are seeing today. It caused the price of food, clothing, transportation to and from work, taking care of your family and many other things to skyrocket and make a good portion of the people uncomfortable financially.

And the worst part is that they want to do this again under the guise of saving the world from something that is on as shaky grounds as this.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[NoMaster]

So... it's harder to get the right answer than previously though, but the previous calculations done the 'easy' way are still correct?

Yup, pretty much the point, but you'd be better off summarising it as "but the previous calculations done the 'easy' way are still largely correct". It's the difference between "the exact right answer" (e.g. 100.0097) and a "good enough for fairly accurate predictions answer" (e.g. 95 +-10%).

Mathematical models, like Penthouse models, are idealised representations of reality - you start with what you've got, and refine it until you get near the right answer. The big difference is that, in a scientific mathematical model you have historical data to show you what the right answer should be - once you build a model that takes reliable historical data and can reproduce an observed answer, you can then feed it current data and start extrapolating future answers.

In this case it seems that, for a given level of accuracy, the detail of how the water in the current returns to colder climes doesn't particularly matter. It's a black box; stuff goes in one end and, after a certain amount of processing, comes out the other in a certain pattern. That's enough to give you a certain amount, e.g. +-10%, of accuracy. To achieve better accuracy - say, +-5% - you need a better idea of what's going on in that black box.

Now we're looking into that particular black box, saying "oh, we were largely right about the inputs and outputs, but inside it's not at all how we thought it worked!". The next step is to create a better black box.

Think of it in terms of library functions. If you're doing integer math, you largely don't care if your multiplication library returns results +- 0.4, 'cos the results are rounded to the nearest int. Once you start wanting the better accuracy of floating point math, however, you'll need to fine-tune that function...

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Dun Malg]

I see the disbelief climate-change deniers as being similar to 19th century disbelief that it was impossible for species to go extinct. They all had scientific rationales as to why it simply couldn't happen

I think you mean pre-19th century, and the scientific rationales amounted essentially to "we can't know for sure they're all gone until the entire world is explored", coupled with a lingering belief that God would not allow any of his creatures to go extinct. Acceptance of the fact of extinction had little to do with the Dodo, but rather was an outgrowth of the rise of modern science in the late 18th century and the concomitant decline in religion as an authority on the nature of reality.

In other words, it's not even remotely the same thing. The extinction thing was part of a vast historical "sea change", and the climate change thing is just a bunch of bickering over the accuracy of collected data and computer models.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[clint999]

This is slashdot so I'll just assume you didn't RTFA. Here's the original article:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htmIn summary, this finding just makes it harder to measure the effects of climate change. No where does it invalidate climate change you dumb ass. Instead of just measuring the cold return current as they previously thought, the water takes a diffuse route back to the tropics.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[jackchance]

yes, climatology is complicated. It is a non-linear dynamical system

The warming of the planet (which is agreed upon - the only controversy is whether this is a natural cycle or man-made) is just putting more energy into this system. When you add energy to a dynamical system 2 things can happen.

1) You can stay in the same regime, but increase the variance in the oscillations. In layman's term, we will have the same kind of weather but it will fluctuate more than we are used to, storms might be a bit more severe, we'll have hot days and then cold days, etc.

2) The other possibility is that we shift to a new regime. In other words, we cross some energy barrier and move into a landscape that is totally new for humans. For example, a world without polar icecaps. A hot earth. If this happens... well, things will be interesting. probably not in a good way.

I can say with some confidence that no one knows what will happen. But it is unequivocal that we are poisoning the earth. Pollution is destroying our food and water supply. It is giving our children asthma. It's wiping out some species and mutating others. This is something we can see happening now and yet, we still can't get people to change their behavior. what is it going to take to get people to realize that our current lifestyle is not sustainable?

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[hitmark]

Remove the human element from the equation, and it will be easier to see if the change is from that element or not.

That is, when humans take out as much as they put in, the rest must be from other sources in nature.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

But if ylou want to slide a satellite into orbit around that planet you need to bust out Einstein

No, not really; the corrections between Newton's law of universal gravitation and General Relativity are almost always so small that they can be completely ignored. Newtonian calculations are much easier in most cases, and you can validate your work easily enough with the PPNF (parameterized post-Newtonian formalism). Human-constructed objects are simply not energetic enough to require significant correction. (That is, the error from all other sources, like leaking attitude control jets or dust occluding a solar panel or a microscopically sticky gyroscope, will dwarf the error from the conflict between Newtonian and Einsteinian equations of motion).

Special Relativity became relevant in orbital communications in one area, however, namely the Lorentz contraction, which induces a doppler shift among fast-moving orbiting objects (and, of course, observers at rest on the ground). This introduced some precision problems in interferometry and other techniques for ground mapping. Moreover, the Lorentz contraction makes the relative part of relativity apparent: a clock ticking in a satellite will always tick as expected, but any other observer moving at high speed relative to that satellite may conclude through measurement that the satellite's clock is running fast, or slow, much like a train whistle's pitch or the pitch of an airplane's engines is low or high depending on whether the train is approaching at high speed or receding at high speed.

In communications where the clock is important, such as with GPS, this needs correcting.

Where General Relativity comes into it is that listeners the ground are much closer to the centre of Earth's mass than a satellite, and so have a lower gravitational potential. They experience a gravitational time dilation as a result; to us on the ground, our high precision atomic clocks tick away normally while a similar clock in geostationary orbit would appear to tick fast.

For high precision measuring, one has to compare one's local clock with the clocks of different GPS satellites. All the GPS clocks above you will be ticking at peculiar rates; there is a large correction made for doppler shifting (relativistic time dilation), and a small correction is necessary for gravitational time dilation.

Absent the need for highly accurate clock comparisons, all of the objects (satellites, GPS receiver on ground) move in a pretty straightforwardly accurate Newtonian fashion. Introducing precise time comparisons strikes at the heart of what Lorent'z initial work and then Einstein's special relativity was all about. That different objects are in different proximities to massive Earth involves General Relativity.

As to knowing where a planet is on any given day, yes, even the Newtonian error in the precession of Mercury is tiny (43 arcseconds per century of error, so the error is less than a degree when projected across the whole of recorded history). The Newtonian error is caused by Mercury's proximity to the sun's centre of mass. If Mercury's orbit were further out, the error would effectively vanish beneath other sources of measurement error. However, it is precisely the measured location of Mercury differing from a purely Newtonian/Keplerian theory of planetary motion that offered one of the early strong proofs of General Relativity.

In the case of putting a satellite around Mercury, the difference is too small to be noticeable; other factors (unpredictable small changes in solar wind output, for example) would contribute much greater uncertainty of position of the satellite in terms of scheduling orbital transfers and insertions.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Raffaello]

We have had a fundamental given turned upside down here.

Not so much. What this finding challenges is the simplistic notion that the entire counter-current to the Gulf Stream runs along the Western Atlantic continental shelf. It turns out that the deep counter current is much more diffuse and spread out under the open North Atlantic.

This finding does *not* challenge the notion that the ocean currents are a mechanism for global heat transfer. It only shows that the exact workings of this mechanism is more complicated than thought, and that climate models need to incorporate this greater complexity to improve their accuracy.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Raffaello]

Ordinary Occam's Razor parsimony says that it is far more likely that multi-trillion dollar financial interests in fossil fuel use are actively manipulating public perception and government science (read Bush Administration), than that nickel and dime enterprises profiting from trading carbon credits have managed to dupe the overwhelming majority of scientists, the public, and all of the world's governments.

"Who benefits?" When we ask this simple question we see that the bias is very strong for denial of climate change because so many benefit so largely from denying that CO2 is involved.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[sumdumass]

I can say with some confidence that no one knows what will happen. But it is unequivocal that we are poisoning the earth. Pollution is destroying our food and water supply. It is giving our children asthma. It's wiping out some species and mutating others. This is something we can see happening now and yet, we still can't get people to change their behavior. what is it going to take to get people to realize that our current lifestyle is not sustainable?

I was with you until this part here. We don't know with any confidence that we are poisoning the earth. We know that we are having effects on it but we simply don't know if any or all of those effects are poisonous.

You see, pollution is only effecting part of our food and water supply and to that extent, only a small portion of it is inedible because of it. I'm not concerned that it isn't completely natural anymore because Cyanide and Strychnine (two seriously potent poisons) are found naturally and found in some of our foods. Not all things natural are good for you and not all things potent are bad for you in limited quantities.

As for giving out children asthma, I have never seen a causation study blaming pollution for the cause of asthma. I have seen studies that show pollution activates predispositions and aggravates asthma but that isn't exactly a cause.

As for wiping out species and mutating others, this is more or less a probability but evolution predicts this so I'm not to concerned with it.

In short, you have a couple of good points until you went the religious route. I share a concern for the environment, I'm an avid hunter and fisher, I donate my time to wetlands restoration projects and I look at the situation from a perspective many wish they were in. So don't take my dismissal of your poisoning complaints as some nonchalant words in passing. I'm just not convicted into the religion of environmentalism and I'm able to see things for how they really are. You may not be a religious environmentalist but your repeating some of the same unsubstantiated claims they have.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Teancum]

*sigh*

The atmosphere IS collecting energy.

Our climate IS self-regulating, as well - at least within boundary limits. That we don't know what those boundaries are should terrify you. The implications of climate change can de-stabilize the socio-economic patterns we depend on - perhaps not as a species, but certainly as a civilisation.

The issue here isn't that the climate is changing or not.... anybody who studies geology notes that the climate has changed in the past and will in the future.

IMHO, the issue here is the demonizing of political viewpoints and not speaking the language of those who might be useful allies on environmental issues. Tying environmental concerns to completely irrelevant issues like social economic equity and abortion rights only paint those supporting concerns for the environment as Marijuana smoking, tie-dyed shirt wearing, anti-establishment hippies not worth serious consideration. Yes this is a broad stereotype that is not true in reality (although a few self-professed genuine hippies from the 1960's and 70's are involved in the environmental movement with some very gray hair now). Having Al Gore as the patron saint of the environmental movement doesn't help either and only further polarizes and makes the issue a partisan plank.

The largest complaint that holds legitimacy is that many of those promoting the "green movement" for concerns about the environment... including Al Gore... have an economic stake in the game that is going to get them quite wealthy if the rest of the world "goes green". The carbon cap and trade system, if implemented, is going to make Al Gore a very wealthy person.

The point that isn't addressed either is the need for massive economic restructuring of societies and dismissing hidden costs in that restructuring to make us less polluting. Furthermore, that economic restructuring has additional political agendas to promote things beyond environmental concerns... and forces those who might favor protecting the environment with having to choose to act against those changes.

I believe you can be pro-environment and conservative. You must talk about stewardship and personal responsibility for the environment. At the same time, you need to show people that it is in their self interest to reduce their impact on the environment. Also, those who think that environmental changes don't need governmental solutions need to be given a chance to succeed as well, and perhaps to show that non-governmental approaches may work better than government-sponsored nightmares like the carbon tax credit system.

I also think it is wrong headed to think that the Earth is a closed system, and ignores that there are economic, mineral, and energy sources that can be tapped elsewhere in the Solar System.

There is an unfortunate (to me) segment of the environmental movement that would like nothing more than the massive genocide of most of humanity (about 99% of us or more) and the economic suppression of the remaining survivors into a feudal society lead by a few enlightened individuals and the rest of humanity living like 10th Century European peasants. It is this that I am fighting against, not a concern for the environment. Be honest here and admit that the ultimate goal of many extreme environmentalists is to push humanity into that scenario.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Your trying really hard to protect the status quo but it isn't working. The finding doesn't challenge anything, it invalidate understood principles that other things were built around.

It means that if you build a building on what you thought was a stable foundation to find it's not as you originally thought, you need to go back and recheck the foundation, make changes if necessary, examine the structure of the building to ensure it's strength, and you need to be prepared to tear the building down and start over if neccesary.

Now, replace building with the current anthropogenic global warming model and you will understand the point. And yes, this is as serious as a foundation in a building not only because of the way we interpreted the thermal interactions of the ocean currents has changed but because the entire premise of anthropogenic global warming is being used politically to limit freedoms and manipulate economies. There was a study a year or two back which said all the earth's measured increases in warming could be attributed to variances in ocean temperatures. When we know how much thermal content is in the first 2.6 meters of the ocean, then we can start to see where variances in currents can compound this.

And something to note, I have never seen nor have I had anyone point me to a strict accounting of Co2 increases that can be quantified without making some assumptions. In other words, the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere doesn't match the total amounts emitted by man nor does the amounts of increases nor are they predicable to any certain degree of accuracy. So something else is at play if not in addition to the Co2 effect. The problem in only blaming Co2 is that it may not be enough to effect any difference yet we are about to embark on the process of depriving people of their freedoms and turn their lives into hardships though tax and cap/trade systems and we better be damn sure about it. It would seem that we aren't at present.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Teancum]

Ordinary Occam's Razor parsimony says that it is far more likely that multi-trillion dollar financial interests in fossil fuel use are actively manipulating public perception and government science (read Bush Administration), than that nickel and dime enterprises profiting from trading carbon credits have managed to dupe the overwhelming majority of scientists, the public, and all of the world's governments.

"Who benefits?" When we ask this simple question we see that the bias is very strong for denial of climate change because so many benefit so largely from denying that CO2 is involved.

I don't get it. If there really has been peak oil production as claimed, and that oil production is going down world-wide, it would seem to me that it would be in the best interests of "big oil" to engage in energy production technologies that will help them out when that oil finally stops flowing. Furthermore, there are a great many chemicals and substances created from petroleum (and from coal) that have absolutely nothing to do with energy production and distribution... and in fact are far more valuable as well to be used in non-energy related areas.

IMHO, it is the "multi-trillion dollar financial interests in fossil fuel use" that stand to benefit economically if the carbon credit trading takes place.

QED, it is obvious that "big oil" is financing the environmental movement... if you use the same logic as described above. It is "big oil" that will benefit the most... or at least will still make billions of dollars in profit regardless of what political philosophy wins out in the end.

This isn't a grand conspiracy, but rather a pure political issue that should be debated in political terms. Also, don't be so critical of the Bush administration until after you've seen the garbage being produced by the Obama administration and the sewage that left the Clinton administration. The differences might not be all that much in the long run anyway.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[jackchance]

I appreciate your position. I may have overstated somethings. I am providing external references for your (and others) perusal.

We don't know with any confidence that we are poisoning the earth. We know that we are having effects on it but we simply don't know if any or all of those effects are poisonous.

Really? When the recommended allowance of some fish is ZERO servings, i think it is pretty clear that we have poisoned the waters. http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=17694

Beluga whales are toxic waste

As for giving out children asthma, I have never seen a causation study blaming pollution for the cause of asthma.

It is probably because you haven't looked.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10674285
From the abstract: "...In asthmatics, epidemiological studies generally show a positive correlation between the particulate fraction of air pollution and increased morbidity, although roles for other co-pollutants (for example, ozone) are implicated as well. Direct experimentation using air pollutants, especially particles, to investigate their effects on humans or on animal models of asthma provides corroboration of the epidemiology and has begun to identify the pathophysiological mechanisms involved...."

Am I a "religious" environmentalist? Maybe. I don't really know what that means. And when i mentioned destruction/mutation of species, I should have been clear, that i also don't really care about the species pre se ... during the Cretaceousâ"Tertiary extinction event about 3/4 of species were extinguished. I just mentioned it as evidence of the poisoning of the earth.

I am not worried about the earth. The earth will be fine. Long after humans are gone, the Earth will still be around. I am only an environmentalist because I want to preserve the current beauty of the planet for future generations of humans.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[EricTheO]

This finding does not mean that the outcome of a new more accurate model of the Ocean's currents will lead to a significant change in findings related to Global Climate Warming. Until a new model is developed and tested... please stand by.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[fygment]

Yes. You're right. And if it's so hard to do, and admittedly inaccurate, doesn't it seem foolish to base global government policies and spending on them? Just saying.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

How do we know it is fact when one of the fundamental premises behind it has changed so deeply?

Observations?

And a fact, isn't that an observation? The things you can measure?

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[AnfieldSierra]

But it is unequivocal that we are poisoning the earth. Pollution is destroying our food and water supply. It is giving our children asthma. It's wiping out some species and mutating others.

Whoa! Hold on there cowboy. Them's fighting words. You went from some almost rational points to complete incomprehensible babbling without stopping to pick up a shred of evidence on the way. You even managed to slip in a "think of the children" plea. Were you trying for extra credit from other AGW lemmings ?

In one breath you say "no one knows what will happen" and then, without pausing to stop and think, say "our current liefstyle is not sustainable". Well which one is it ? Either you know our current lifestyle is not sustainable or you don't know anything about our current lifestyle.

Maybe some remedial classes in critical thinking are in order.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[phantomfive]

Ya-huh, so who exactly are the people getting rich and powerful off of this? I've yet to get an adequate answer to that question

James Hansen gets a lot of funding from the government for his research, and he gets a lot of attention for it (from congress, various presidents, the press, etc). He also has a way of saying sensationalistic things, and getting in the center of attention. His science is the type I don't trust without actually verifying it, and his computer models may be thrown off by this new discovery (among other things).

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[Retric]

It would pay for the cost differential between coal and the other options, it could also pay for the move from fossil fuel based home heating. Which would let the US decommission all coal power plants over the next 25 years and remove most oil based home heating. (Alaska and highly remote sights would probably stick with oil for as long as possible.)

The transition from gas powered cars and airplanes is another issue, but they are only part of the picture. And a lot of their carbon is released in the fuel manufacturing process which can be cheaply dealt with.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[ksheff]

None of this was done on 'desktop' hardware.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[MrResistor]

The entire mortgage meltdown and banking crisis came to a front because energy costs went sky high and people had to make decisions over driving to work or paying the mortgage.

I'm on board with the rest of what you said, but this is simply wrong. The spike in energy costs was inconveniently timed, but the vast majority of foreclosures would have happened without it.

The real problem was the lending practices. There were a variety of loan types that were basically designed to fail, but the worst were the ones that came with a ridiculously low interest rate for the first 2-5 years. People bought houses they could barely afford at those rates, assuming that when the real interest rate kicked in they could refinance and enjoy the low rate for a few more years. However, when that time came, they couldn't refinance for a variety of reasons, including that their home was often then worth less than what they owed. Consequently, the monthly payment they already could only barely afford shot up, in many cases doubling or more.

Energy costs had nothing to do with it.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[MrResistor]

There is an unfortunate (to me) segment of the environmental movement that would like nothing more than the massive genocide of most of humanity (about 99% of us or more) and the economic suppression of the remaining survivors into a feudal society lead by a few enlightened individuals and the rest of humanity living like 10th Century European peasants.

Is there really such a movement? I keep hearing this claim from a variety of conservative sources, yet I see no evidence of any such group. I have no doubt that there is at least one group that has such beliefs, but I challenge you to show me one that has enough influence to give credible cause for concern.

FWIW, I personally know some extreme environmentalists, and I cannot with any honesty "admit" that they have such a goal.

Re:The global (computer) models of climate change

[sumdumass]

I'm on board with the rest of what you said, but this is simply wrong. The spike in energy costs was inconveniently timed, but the vast majority of foreclosures would have happened without it.

don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that energy costs was the only reason, I'm saying it multiplied those effected.

The real problem was the lending practices. There were a variety of loan types that were basically designed to fail, but the worst were the ones that came with a ridiculously low interest rate for the first 2-5 years. People bought houses they could barely afford at those rates, assuming that when the real interest rate kicked in they could refinance and enjoy the low rate for a few more years. However, when that time came, they couldn't refinance for a variety of reasons, including that their home was often then worth less than what they owed. Consequently, the monthly payment they already could only barely afford shot up, in many cases doubling or more.

Your creating a false dichotomy there. This is other options to refinancing which caused people to purchase sub-prime loans. One of those options was that normal raises and promotions would make the higher interest rates easier to afford and they could sack some of the extra money away to repairs and renovation. I personally know at least 5 people like this, two of whom lost their homes, 2 were ok, and the fifth has another year before shit hits the fan. He is considering partitioning part of the house off and renting it out if he can plumb and wire a kitchen for a reasonable amount of money. I probably know more people but this isn't something most people talk about.

Now there is another aspect to this outside of sub-prime loans. Its spending all your disposable income on inflated energy related costs like $5 gasoline, or the food bill that increased 30% in two years means less money is going to other places which means less work for other places which means that people who were perfectly fine paying their mortgage were now out of work and losing their homes.

Sure, you can blame it on the mechanics all you want and ignore the wrench that got thrown into the gears, but energy was a very big factor in the meltdown. It all cascaded and was as bad as it was because of inflated energy costs. You can't exclude high energy from the situation because it effects not only the person paying the mortgage who probably did purchase too much house (or the right amount of house for too much money) but the people working too which also effect the person paying the mortgage. High energy costs screws America period.

deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

global warming deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

I do enjoy the irony.

This confirms suspicions that have been around since the 1990's, and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change.

So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.

Hence the label, 'denier'.

That is not what I understand to be science.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[maxwell demon]

There is no global warming. It's just the surface. The core temperature is unaffected.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Shakrai]

The core temperature is unaffected.

Just wait until some crazy Romulan with a scary looking CGI drilling device comes along ;)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[wisty]

I'm not a denier, but I'd like to see more source code. The Royal Society worked because people were able to reproduce results. Even a worthless bookbinder like Faraday was able to reproduce experiments, if he was curious. Calculus worked because Leibniz published his methodology, and not just his initial assumptions and final results, rather than sitting on it like Newton.

I know there's a few models with published source, but it's a rare thing to see the method and apparatus (i.e. the program that produced the results) displayed in all it's gory detail. The usual excuses ("the code is just research quality", or "nobody would understand it") just don't seem to be in the spirit of science.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Mod parent up. Global warming isn't science, it's politics.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tgibbs]

The perennial war cry of the crank is "If this one thing is wrong, then nothing they say can be trusted!"

Of course, in the real world, all data has flaws, and all interpretations are subject to revision. So a demand for absolute perfection gives the crank license to engage in cherry-picking, rationalizing away the data he doesn't like, while accepting that which feeds his obsession.

Real science doesn't work that way. When new data comes in, or errors are found in old data, the scientist carefully reassesses conclusions in the light of the new evidence.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[hardburn]

The ultimate goal of these models is to make solid predictions on the effects of climate change. As of yet, few if any are much more than toys. They're useful toys in so far as they help move us towards a good model, but toys just the same.

However, the fact that climate change is occuring and directly related to human activity is based on empirical data. The models being wrong do not change that conclusion.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

Ocean Circulation doesn't affect the *global* temperature directly. It simply redistributes the heat around the planet. Hence the name CONVEYOR.

The down side is that if the 'conveyor' belt doesn't work as we expect, global warming may actually end up being WORSE. The (now questined) premise of the conveyor belt is that if the northern Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.

This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice, etc. Which in turn reflects more sunlight lessening the effects of global warming.

So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.

Or at least that was the theory. If the conveyor belt doesn't work as we thought, it might just mean we will feel the full effects of global warming.

Some of the deniers will jump on this as a natural cycle. Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Shakrai]

and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.

Does the Gulf Stream actually have much of an impact on North America? Wouldn't the typical weather patterns (i.e: west to east) suggest that the heat moved by the Gulf Stream would wind up making most of it's impact on the Atlantic Ocean and Europe?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Mod parent up. Global warming isn't science, it's politics.

No, it's actually science.

What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?

Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.

Unless, of course, your contention is correct and they are not scientists - then they will simply ignore the new data, right?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

I agree completely. Where, though, are these practitioners of 'Real science'?

It isn't my field, but this seems like a big deal to me. Years of work would need to be reassessed in the light of this sort of a discovery.

It seems a tad soon to break out the "denier" and "crank" handles to me.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[jhw539]

"That is not what I understand to be science."

What I see is the scientific establishment diligently working to identify flaws in the existing theory of climate change and freely publishing any flaws found. The FACT is that the scientific community is vigorously collecting data to challenge and correct where necessary climate change theory, and has been for over two decades now. Note this is the same scientific community that has endorsed the current climate change theories and it's predictions - which include pretty fat error bars you know.

I understand that to be science and is why I respect the consensus of National Academies of Science (or equivalent bodies) across the first world in this matter (and not Mr Gore or Exxon or the headline of the week).

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[FooRat]

So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.

Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that. This doesn't call that "conclusion" into question; at best it implies we have even less understanding of why the planet is getting hotter, which suggests we need *less* calm, not more. Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[SnarfQuest]

Real science doesn't work that way. When new data comes in, or errors are found in old data, the scientist carefully reassesses conclusions in the light of the new evidence.

That's right. Whenever the global warming science is shown to be questionable, you just need to dive right in and blame the problems on the deniers. It's all their fault that the science doesn't ever work out, so they need to be reassessed to a pole, with a large fire build around them, for a very hot conclusion, then you'll have your new evidence of warming by roasting marshmallows on their frying butts!

Global warming has to be real, otherwise how would someone like Algore have gotten a Nobel Prize for making a movie about it?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

However, the fact that climate change is occuring and directly related to human activity is based on empirical data. The models being wrong do not change that conclusion.

Based on what work?

You can already say that misrepresenting how the ocean currents work will have no impact on the conclusion?

How?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[inviolet]

What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?

Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.

That's all well and good, and as it should be. The ONLY problem here, is that some folks want to make trillion-dollar adjustments to industry all over the world based on these models which are still in such a preliminary state.

(The trillion-dollar adjustments involve increasing everyone's cost of living in order to internalize costs that may not actually be negative externalities, and include the imposition of a very expensive administrative layer atop everything carbon-related.)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[4D6963]

That may be true now, but it used to be science, a long time ago, back in the 1990s, back when only journals and magazines such as Science or Nature would talk about it and that no one else cared or listened. I grew up in the 1990s in France reading Science & Vie, global warming was there all along, back then we called it 'climate warming', but then suddenly the American public started caring, and that's when the shit went down and it all became controversial and hysterical.

You damn kids and your newfangled climatological hysteria, get off my lawn!

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

There are two separate issues here. On the one hand there are certainly serious scientists working on climatology and climate change. I have no doubt they will incorporate the new information and work to improve their models. However, they are also much more careful about their certainty of the future, than...

The other side of the debate, which is political; it deals with what policies (if any) should be put in place to combat climate change. And in this realm, we are being bombarded by "it's settled science", "it's going to happen", "we have to act in ten years or it'll be too late", etc. ad inf. And the unseriousness of these positions is made clear by radical flaws in models such as the one referenced in this article.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[DoofusOfDeath]

war cry of the crank

OMG. Best. Game. Title. Evar.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GargamelSpaceman]

Yeah, I think the gulf stream bypasses any warming of the northeastern US. This is more of a problem for Europe.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GeekWade]

You and agree on this. The paid shills with science degrees may too, but most will still produce pretty diagrams that look a lot like the political leanings of their sugar daddies.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the perennial war cry of the crank is "They didn't believe NAME_OF_GENIUS_HERE either!"

The implication being that as geniuses were considered crazy in their time, so people who are crazy must really be geniuses!

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ColdWetDog]

Does the Gulf Stream actually have much of an impact on North America?

Pretty darn likely. (Neat picture, BTW).

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Bemopolis]

That's all well and good, and as it should be. The ONLY problem here, is that some folks want to make trillion-dollar adjustments to industry all over the world based on these models which are still in such a preliminary state.

No, there are TWO problems — the one you mention, and another one, where the people who make their coin on the status quo (and the politicians that they own) will ignore all evidence that the current way of doing business might make the planet unlivable. Or, at a minimum, cost a trillion dollars to adjust to as it changes.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[0xdeadbeef]

It equally implies that the evidence underpinning the "denial" is incorrect.

So lets face it, there is very little science and an awful lot of jealous hatred of Al Gore motivating the deniers in this thread.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MozeeToby]

That global warming is occurring is based on empirical data I'll grant; but how is the human cause based on empirical data? In order to make an empirical assertion about a cause you would need a control group, which is pretty much impossible with a sample size of one.

We think that the cause his human activity because its the simplest explanation for such a rapid rise in temperatures, that's not the same as saying we have direct experimental evidence that says the same thing.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

Or, it could also make global warming somehow better than it was predicted. It could be either worse or better, and those studies that predicted the end of the world if Kyoto wasn't ratified will need to be redone.

This will take time.

Shoring up conclusions today without considering that these original assumptions were false is NOT science.

And, on a side note, I like these sorts of statements:

Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.

As if humans have the capability of creating matter from thin air now...

Every molecule of carbon on Earth was here before we were aware of it, and it will all still be here long after the race has ran itself out.

You can reasonably blame human behavior if you like, but placing the blame squarely on 'carbon' is a fashionista tactic, and little else.

Personally, I wonder why we're not considering the impact of all the little heat pockets we need to survive on this planet. Think about it - we warm our cars, our homes, our beverages, we use electrical devices that ALL radiate heat, and we're actually producing a fair amount of thermal energy just by walking around and breathing...

For that matter, what about all the concrete/asphalt in the world? That stuff gets HOT in the sun light, and there's a lot of it. Could that not warm things up a bit? There used to be trees there, you know...

All that heat, and yet we blame poor little 'carbon'. :D

But seriously, I do fear that an all-electric world will produce more net heat than an oil-powered one, if for no other reason than oil has a far greater energy density than we can currently achieve with electricity.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Or at least, they remain as valid or invalid as they were before.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up. Global warming isn't science, it's politics.

How true! I invented the physics of greenhouse gasses when I was running for mayor of Peoria.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.

Absolutely true.

And yet I understand that the Earth warmed and cooled periodically without the intervention of humanity.

Correlation does not equal causation. Ever.

Humanity is so prideful that we insist we understand every tiny nuance of a vastly complex system to the level where we understand which actions we need to take in the short term.

We're so infallible that we absolutely know that these are the correct courses of action despite when we discover that 50-some years of climate science have been using the wrong data.

This is what separates us from the animals, and I am grateful for it, to be sure. But it does make me chuckle from time to time...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

So long as we're willing to concede the opposite as well, in reverence to intellectual honesty...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[maxwell demon]

Just wait until some crazy Romulan with a scary looking CGI drilling device comes along ;)

Why does it matter if they control the drilling device with a CGI script?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Maxo-Texas]

What I would like to see is some more data before we start passing laws that are ruinous economically.

However, since we are doomed in 30 to 50 years anyway, it's a bit of jerking off anyway.

Gather ye rosebuds while ye may.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

No, there are TWO problems -- the one you mention, and another one, where the people who make their coin on the status quo (and the politicians that they own) will ignore all evidence that the current way of doing business might make the planet unlivable. Or, at a minimum, cost a trillion dollars to adjust to as it changes.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

But more importantly, there's a philosophical point to be made. When faced with a possible problem, should you always make a radical change to the status quo? Well, what do you do in your personal life? Most people don't do this, unless the potential problem is both very serious and has a high probability. The ones who want to effect massive changes know this and want to convince us on both counts.

Ultimately, though, broken models like this one do damage to the radical policymakers. Those policy choices are dependent on not just climate models, but economic models based on those climate models. If we can't even trust the climate models, where do you think we are with the economic models? And how can we possibly justify spending such massive sums with that much uncertainty as to the outcome?

We might end up impoverishing ourselves to such a degree that we don't have the technology to handle whatever the climate does throw us. And that would be just as disastrous. So there are risks either way. I say stick to the status quo until we know we can't.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BCW2]

The fact that temperature has been dropping for a decade doesn't change the warming theory?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

No, it really isn't. The very historical charts that Mr. Gore laid out in his "An Inconvenient Truth", when superimposed on one another, show that the atmospheric CO2 concentration trailed the temperature increase. When people point to current trends, they fail to account for the fact that there are natural cycles in climate that go on over tens of thousands of years.

Global Warming is a science the way String Theory is a science, which is to say that it makes no testable predictions. Well, that's a bit harsh, it says that if CO2 goes up, then temperature goes up, but it is untestable because the effect is below the signal to noise ratio when you factor in long term climactic cycles. Basically, it's JUST A MODEL. When a major factor of your model is destroyed, it puts to lie ALL of the assumptions based on that model. Since you obviously aren't going to do that, nor will the politicians, I guess that makes it a matter of who makes the choices.

That is to say, it's politics. Another flamebait moderation in 3..2..1..

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Thaddeus]

Please. Researchers ignore data that break their theories all the time.

It may be worst in the medical world. For example, why do you think that cholesterol is targeted as enemy number one for heart health? There is no study that has ever demonstrated causality; 50% of people with heart disease have "normal" cholesterol; nearly all studies on the subject show that all-cause mortality is higher with low cholesterol; much better working theories exist.

So why is that hypothesis still treated as correct? Because reputations and huge amounts of money would be lost. Prominent people and institutions may even be found liable. Good science goes out the window in the face of that.

Regarding the subject at hand, you might want to look at what an ad hoc hypothesis is.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BlackSnake112]

If the gulf stream was to just stop, the NE US would lose the moderation the ocean does. As the ocean water gets cooler and cooler, the temps will go down. The Europe really gets screwed. As this ocean current affects it a lot more.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[jhw539]

"Correlation does not equal causation. Ever."

What? Every case of causation I've ever heard of also showed correlation. Correlation does not PROVE causation, but it is a big flashing sign with a buxom topless girl waving pom poms jumping around it pointing in the right direction.

Note that at this point, the link between smoking and lung cancer still doesn't have a definitively proven causation.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[cyberchondriac]

The perennial war cry of the crank is "If this one thing is wrong, then nothing they say can be trusted!"

Y'know, everyone pretty much does this. I'll bet you've even used that argument at one time or another, might've been a different subject, maybe not.
It doesn't make someone a "crank", although it is a logical fallacy.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Whenever the evolution science is shown to be questionable, you just need to dive right in and blame the problems on the deniers. It's all their fault that the science doesn't ever work out, so they need to be reassessed to a pole, with a large fire build around them, for a very hot conclusion, then you'll have your new evidence of evolution by roasting marshmallows on their frying butts!

Evolution has to be real, otherwise how would someone like Darwin have gotten a year named after him for making a book about it?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ArcherB]

Let's see if I understand this correctly:

Atlantic ocean becomes less salty (due to melting Greenland ice), the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.

OK, so ice melts, the conveyor stops... got it!

This in turn produces more snowfall in the northern latitudes, thicker ice , etc.

More ice? WTF?!!? You just said there would be LESS ICE due to ice melting, then you say that will cause THICKER ICE?

Wouldn't this restart the conveyor and return everything to normal?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me guess, you live in Asia?

I'm a Londoner, and it's cold enough already damn you!

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

CO2 does not warm the atmosphere. It is a myth thats widely accepted to be true by the general population.

This'll probably come as a surprise to you, but do some research - there is not a single bit of scientific evidence that CO2 warms the atmosphere, the only link proven is that a warmer atmosphere brings more CO2 - usually 200-300 years later than an initial rise in temperature.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[chris mazuc]

Much of the east coast, especially the southeastern coast would be much colder without the warm waters of the gulf stream. This is something of a limited case but an example would be eastern North Carolina in the wintertime; Eastern NC south of Cape Hatteras trends warmer than would be accounted for by latitude alone. Here is an example of the way the Gulf Stream looks for much of the winter (though this image is from April) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gulf_Stream_water_temperature.jpg.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MadKeithV]

I say stick to the status quo until we know we can't.

The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?
The risk is that the "bullet has already been fired" so to speak. It won't hit for another 50 to 100 years, but it's on the way, and it'll cause damage when it finally does hit.

We don't know for sure if that's the case, but there certainly is a risk.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ArcherB]

So, in the AC's world, the entire underpinnings of ocean circulation can be incorrect, yet the conclusions are NOT to be questioned.

Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that. This doesn't call that "conclusion" into question; at best it implies we have even less understanding of why the planet is getting hotter, which suggests we need *less* calm, not more. Our temperature measurements aren't wrong, and still remain valid.

Your "facts" rely on accurate measurements.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Ragzouken]

I guess if the truth sounded anything like what you're saying then, yes, it would change the warming theory.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

Note that at this point, the link between smoking and lung cancer still doesn't have a definitively proven causation.

That's also absolutely correct. There's a strong correlation, but we cannot scientifically say that tobacco kills people. Something in it certainly seems to be fatal, but no one has the foggiest idea what.

Rewind your mind two or three hundred years. Understand that we will know more tomorrow than we do today. Humble yourself before the true vastness that is knowledge and try and accept the reality that all a human will ever be capable of grasping represents a thimble in the ocean.

Humans jump to conclusions. It is part of who we are. Ignoring that part of our nature just seems silly to me.

I find it prudent to accept that ANY conclusion could in fact be false. I'd advise the rest of us to do the same.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

What empirical data?

I've seen ice core temperature graphs that go back several hundred thousand years and it appears to me that we're in roughly the right time period to experience a warming. Correlation not implying causation, and whatnot. You can look at CO2/temp graphs since 1800 and come to the "clear conclusion" that it's humans, but you'd have to ignore a lot of other historical evidence where temperatures naturally behave in this manner.

Not to say that it's impossible that 6+ billion people can't change the climate when, in theory, a butterfly can have a net effect all over the globe, I'm just wondering what this empirical data you speak of is based on. Like some other poster said, a lot of the "science" in this area is political.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[WindBourne]

The ONLY problem here, is that some folks want to make trillion-dollar adjustments to industry all over the world based on these models which are still in such a preliminary state.
Really? What makes them preliminary state? The simple fact is, that the majority of data that feeds these models ARE known. In fact, it was because of these models that this experiment was done. Will it change the models? I would think so. Would it change them DRASTICALLY? I seriously doubt it. The simple fact is, that these models have been being developed for over a couple of decades. The real problem is that they do not appear to match what is going on. They all seem to indicate that we have MUCH longer time. Every time they make a prediction of things to occur in 20-30 years, it keeps happening NOW.

As to the trillion dollar adjustments, had America followed Nixon/Ford/Carters lead back in the 70's, and pushed for being off oil/coal, we would not be in Iraq, likely not be in afghanistan, and not have the exchange deficit that we have. The vast majority of the wests security and economic issues can be tied DIRECTLY to our being dependent on the same price fuel that other countries are on.

Actually, we pay more than most because we clean it up more. While China surpassed us in CO2 emissions several years ago, they surpassed us nearly a decade ago in major pollutants. The west MUST get off of importing fossil fuel and skip this garbage about Cap/Trade. Instead, we need to put in place a cap at TODAY's amount (i.e. no more), and then put in a time progressive co2 tax on all goods, esp. imported goods.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

al gore has too many conflicts of interest to listen to. That he repeatably fails to disclose his offshore investment operation that he helps run should concern all that are for transparency.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Botia]

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

I'd rather wait the fifty years as well. In fifty years a trillion dollars isn't going to buy much. Maybe a loaf of bread at the local convenience store. It's a much better bargain waiting than spending now.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

As if humans have the capability of creating matter from thin air now...

Uh, does the guy who opens the flood gates at the dam 'create' the water that flows out of it? not hardly. But that doesn't diminish the effects of LOTS more water downstream does it?

Humans have clearly and measurably increased the carbon dioxide in the ATMOSHPHERE. That comes from burning MILLIONS of years of carbon sequestered in the oil. This is the problem and the 'unnatural' influx of which I spoke. it would not have happened this much this fast without us actively digging it up and burning it.

As for the other sources of heat you mention, the solar aspects are the most reasonable to affect global temperatures since its the basis for just about all life in the first place ;-)

However, global warming is not because we are producing more heat than the earth can handle. It is because we are retarding the rate at which it sheds heat into space. How much heat we as a species produce is probably actually pretty measurable as is the amount of heat added by the Sun (Sun heated asphalt would be in our bucket not the Suns). I'd be willing to bet we don't hold a candle to the Sun in that department.

But generally those wonderful thermodynamics laws really do prevent us from 'increasing' the heat on the planet. The rate at which it moves (into space) however is something we can and have readily affected. That's where the vast majority of 'extra' heat is coming from. Without the extra CO2 blanket, transfer rates would simply go up in response to any larger heat concentrations we've caused, still reaching a reasonable equilibrium.

But as you say, by paving over fields and forests, and then reducing the rate at which the extra heat can leave (through processes producing yet more heat) we aren't helping ourselves.

The main problem is still the 'greenhouse' effect.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[vulture13]

Either way, here comes Cap and Trade...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

The "fact"?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

You're citing stock climate change deniers' arguments. They were refuted looooooong time ago. Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?

Specifically:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php

From the long list of:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Botia]

Whatever happened to global cooling? Wasn't that the rage just 10 years ago? We're in an ice age, right?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[squizzar]

You're suggesting that we have somehow set off a chain of events that will result in the entire planet being inhospitable to humans, and it will occur in as small a timescale as 50 years?

There certainly is a risk. I can't see it being much greater than the risk that a solar storm is about to wipe out all our electronics, or that a large meteor will land in my garden next week and the resulting dust cloud will block out the sun (hey it wasn't my garden but this has actually happened - we should definitely be more worried about meteors than climate change).

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

"However, they are also much more careful about their certainty of the future."

Nope. Almost all bona-fide climate scientists agree on anthropogenic global warming. Mostly they argue the details now.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

I'm obviously being cheeky with you. But the point remains - without Earth2, only hindsight will tell us for sure who is correct.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

Where to start...shesh...

No, it's actually science.

No, first and foremost it is politics. The fact the gp was modded "flamebait" does a wonderful job of underscoring that fact. LOL. Seriously, think about it.

What do you think is going to happen now? Either scientists will ignore this data or they will incorporate it into their models... wanna bet they incorporate it?

Yes, some science is being done but its goal orientated science; which is the worst kind. In other words, the goal is to prove global warming so politically they can get yet more funding. The absolute best of climate models are well known to be worthless. The only reason these models match historic data is because they fold in historic data into their models. Once they no longer have historic data, the models become worthless. Yet these same models are used to predict gloom and doom for global warming.

Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.

Oh there is zero doubt CO2 warms the atmosphere. That's never been a point of contention. The contention is, is man responsible. The simply FACT is, no one knows. The FACT is, anyone who says otherwise, is at best dishonest.

The models we current have; and I mean the best of models, is at best is a tonka toy. They provide no real science and absolutely provide no credible evidence. Say it again ten times fast. That's the facts!

he only thing these models do is stir the political pot to garner yet more funding. To date, the models are only good for estimating and approximating historic trends using historic data. Once you get more than a couple years out or so, these models are nothing but a toy to gain more funding. Period. They are constantly having to add yet more historic data to make it even match the year or two before - and they are trying to project decades and centuries into the future. That's what sane people call political bullshit.

Should we research "Global Warming"? Sure. Should we react to it? Sure, only if your a fool of the worst kind. Again, the simple fact is, we have no proof man is behind the current warming trend. None.

And the bottom line is, are you prepared to play god with the climate? Realistically, if the doom and gloom profits are right, that's the only option we have on available on the table. And if their wrong, playing the only card we have may actually screw things up far, far worse than the worst of the doom and gloom projections.

So what should we do? React to models we know to be 100% worthless bullshit?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Morphine007]

Basically, it's JUST A MODEL.

I challenge you to name a set of "natural laws" or really any aspect of current scientific research or long established dogma that isn't just a model at heart.

I'll grant you that it may not be fine-grained enough to allow for testable predictions within natural cycles, but it does show that there's a correlation between CO2 and temperature. Whether that means that CO2 changes cause temperature changes, or that temperature changes cause CO2 changes, or that some other process causes them isn't really all that relevant. The model is sufficiently robust as to state, quite clearly, that increasing CO2 emissions is potentially a bad idea, and that reducing them is potentially a good idea.

The question isn't "is the model fine grained enough that we can make large predictions based on it?".

The questions are "what are the risks associated with the possible courses of action/inaction provided it's right/wrong?

It's a factor in a risk assessment, plain and simple. Not to mention the fact that there are likely hundreds of thousands of business opportunities involved in becoming more green. It's all a matter of how it's done.

Disclaimer - I'm a meat-eating, V6-driving, ex-military hunter who is completely addicted to technology. ie. A far cry from a tree-hugger. That being said, if you can present me with green alternatives to the energy-hungry devices I RELY on, that aren't 150% the cost of the non-green versions, I will happily take them.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tgibbs]

The other side of the debate, which is political; it deals with what policies (if any) should be put in place to combat climate change. And in this realm, we are being bombarded by "it's settled science", "it's going to happen", "we have to act in ten years or it'll be too late", etc. ad inf. And the unseriousness of these positions is made clear by radical flaws in models such as the one referenced in this article.

So in the crankosphere, an improvement in a model that was previously acknowledged to be an approximation has already mutated into "a radical flaw."

Of course, if you want to find out what the settled science says, you can always consult the report of the International Panel on Climate Change, or the reports of independent elite scientific societies such as the US National Academy of Science.

But just as, to a crank, any improvement of a model becomes "a radical flaw" that invalidates all conclusions, the science is never "settled" so long as there is some scientist, somewhere who disagrees (and of course, on any topic, there is always someone who disagrees)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

Thank you for disclosing your idiocy club membership. In 50-100 years the cost will not be the same, it will be MUCH MUCH higher even adjusted for inflation. Damn near everything costs more the longer you wait to address the problem, why would this be any different?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

the water stops falling to the ocean depths, and since no conveyor means no warm gulf steam to warm the northeastern US and European continents, they will get colder.

Just tossing this out there - this is believed to be at least partly responsible for the last mini-ice age.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[rev_sanchez]

Cost isn't always just the money you spend, it's also the consequence of what you don't do. We're already seeing the economic consequences of global warming and there is no reason to believe that this won't continue to be a more serious problem.

What climate change critics often say is that the science isn't good enough yet. What they mean is migrating away from burning billions of barrels of petroleum and billions of tons of coal for cheap energy is hard, expensive work that we can kick down the road until it's someone else's problem.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

Yes. The Gulf Stream helps keep much colder polar weather from migrating further south. Think of it as a giant blower at the front of stores which keeps cold air inside and warm air outside.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[andy1307]

You might be willing to spend money and burden your economy for global warning but there is no way India and China are going to do anything that impacts their growth.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[NatasRevol]

Plus some of that heat blows on shore.

And makes it too damn hot to live in the Carolinas. At least if you're from up north.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

Perhaps that's because the fact that the planet is getting warmer is, um, a *fact*. We measure that.

And its a fact that it's also normal. The Earth has long gone through these phases.

Look, the global warming crackpots would have you believe that those that doubt deny the climate is changing. That's simply not true. Those that question are simply asking if man is behind it. The simple fact is, no one knows. The simple fact is, the best of data which indicates man is behind it is known to be full holes - bullshit in layman's terms.

The only conclusion anyone can actually have at this point is that we need more research and that we absolutely don't know if man is even partly responsible. Anyone who says otherwise is at best being dishonest - or more likely is up for a research grant.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[jhw539]

"I find it prudent to accept that ANY conclusion could in fact be false. "

Personally, I find it prudent to not smoke, listen to my doctor, and not test the conclusion that licking a frozen flag pole is a bad idea. Accepting that any conclusion could be false - a fundamental aspect of the scientific method - is radically different than asserting that any that you don't like could be false and can therefore be ignored.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[decoy256]

Nothing has assured me of the accuracy and correctness of my stance than the ludicrous terminology that associates me with those who deny that the holocaust happened.

Indeed, no one who uses the term "Global Warming Denier" can call themselves either a scientist or even a friend of science. It is a bold-faced appeal to emotion to use such idiotic terminology.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[phoenix321]

Is that your own opinion or that of "we run out of oil and arable land in 1970"-Club of Rome?

We don't know much about the weather ten days from now and you think you know about the general climate a hundred years in the future? Are you serious?

Your "bullet fired" analogy has serious flaws, because it leaves us with a small batch of options, all of which point AGAINST combating "climate change" today:

- bullet is fired, ducking away is possible
we now have a hundred years of time to duck, which is an eternity given current speed of technological progress. Another 50 or even 100 years can might have the Technology Singularity or Grey Goo scenario - everything else is utterly trivial compared to that. Either way, we're terraforming Mars within several decades, if we can avoid some impending World Wars. Cooling or heating a runaway climate will then be an engineering task, not a catastrophe.

- "bullet is fired, ducking away is impossible"
Improbable, given the climate change speed which is whole orders of magnitude slower than "The Day After Tomorrow", but other than that, we could just sit down and pray. No need to impoverish everyone when they everyone dies in the end without escape.

- "bullet is not fired, ducking away or preventing firing is possible"
same as the first one: preventing the firing now is a million times more expensive than ducking away later, given technological advances and even simple compound interest over that time period.

- "bullet is not fired, but ducking away is impossible, preventing firing is not possible"
improbable, as the second one, and riddled with assumptions, hypotheses and hard factual errors. We're not betting the farm on this.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

did you miss this part of my post:
So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.

We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to point B to point C and back to A in a massive generalization.

My point was that if the conveyor theory is wrong, the 'brake' I described might not exist or only work at a reduced rate, thus allowing more effect from global warming to be experienced.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me until "LOL"

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

You'll find no disagreement here.

On the other hand, there's not necessarily any impetus to take any specific actions either. Just because a certain conclusion might be correct doesn't necessarily mean we all need to be stocking up on sunscreen.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

Actually I live just outside Washington, DC so I'm somewhat experienced with 'hot gaseous emmisions' ;-)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, this conversation highlights exactly why this will work... In all reality tremendous instantaneous changes are not really required to mitigate some of the risks and damage by global warming.

I *thank* the crazy environmentalist nutjobs for providing a solid shove in the needed direction.

I *thank* the crazy conservative nutjobs for refusing to budge.

The net result of all of this discussion? More general awareness and many more people making small changes to help cut energy use and find cleaner means of producing energy. Slower change, still effective, and much more manageable.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[phoenix321]

It was meant more like "$FACT doesn't change the warming theory" (except for a cooling theory, which is also admissible and probably equally valid)

Truth is, we're not getting any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has never been there before. IF carbon dioxide is heating up the planet, it's not going to be warmer than what we once had. This might be bad news for penguins and polar bears, but humans who thrive from equator to polar circle probably have not much to worry about as a whole.

Building dams in the lowlands and combating moskitoes and deserts should be the first line of defense, because that's where it will be needed, if ever.

Are people really claiming that *the* single most effective AND efficient method to prevent a flood is burning less oil? It's only a few steps above Voodoo, but I personally can think of several hundred things that can prevent future floods much better than stopping today's cars.

In terms of actual flood protection per dollar spent, carbon dioxide reduction is totally ridiculous.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

You're citing stock climate change deniers' arguments. They were refuted looooooong time ago. Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?

Specifically: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/historically-co2-never-causes.php

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/geological-history-does-not-support.php

From the long list of: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

Ummm, your links agree with me. Temperature rises preceded CO2 increases. It then goes on to claim that somehow the CO2 STILL causes it. Apparently CO2 moved faster than the speed of light and violated causality back in those days. The second link admits that CO2 levels are not well correlated with historical temperature (he blames this on a lack of comprehensive data--meaning that he recognizes that they don't have data, but he's somehow still right).

There is a lot more to the story of climate change than CO2, but governments around the world would shut down civilization rather than hear that.

You and I must have wildly different understanding of the word "refute".

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[inviolet]

As to the trillion dollar adjustments, had America followed Nixon/Ford/Carters lead back in the 70's, and pushed for being off oil/coal, we would not be in Iraq, likely not be in afghanistan, and not have the exchange deficit that we have. The vast majority of the wests security and economic issues can be tied DIRECTLY to our being dependent on the same price fuel that other countries are on.

You understand that there is no energy source that behaves differently than what you decry about oil and coal?

If we moved en masse to fission, for example, then uranium mines and spent-fuel reprocessors would become the new OPEC. If we made a serious move to wind/solar, then solar-panel fabs and battery chemicals and wind corridors would become the new OPEC. (E.g. Bolivia's recent moves regarding its lithium deposits.)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?"

In other words, "repent, the end is near".

Sound familiar?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[simonloach]

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do?

I think you've got the wrong idea.

The Stern Review came to the conclusion that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change considerably outweigh the costs.
Waiting fifty years might be the worst thing we could do.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Hawat]

"majority of data that feeds these models ARE known"

It would be nice if the models using that data could predict, umm, even the past?

Climate modeling can't account for the effects of clouds, but the data's good.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

The lie that temperature has been dropping for a decade doesn't change the warming theory?

There, fixed that for you.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Hey, 50 years from now it'll be cheap, because we'll have nuclear fusion!
Luckily for us, 50 years from now never gets here.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pleappleappleap]

Shown to be questionable != said to be questionable.

I don't have a problem with anyone getting behind either side of this issue, as long as they're willing to back up their contentions with evidence.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[WindBourne]

First, we have plenty of nuke fuel in America to handle our needs for hundreds of years (and that would be if we move to 100% nukes, which would be a mistake). Secondly, Australia and Canada are major holders of Uranium as well. As to lithium, Bolivia does currently have the largest found deposits, but we have only recently started looking. I have little doubts that more and bigger will be found. OPECs can be created out of anything. BUT, energy generation is what is important to ALL COUNTRIES. Once the west no longer imports large amounts of fuel, then our economy comes back, the invasions/occupations stop, and political blackmail stops as well. You have noticed that the west DOES pay attention to what Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and even Russia wants and does. Russia is a major player in many areas, but if not for oil, both Saudi Arabia and Venezuela would have ZERO abilities to blackmail.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

An explanation of this. No it would first trigger a massive warming that would kill off many cold tolerant creatures then swing radically the other way to an ice age environment killing many of the heat tolerant creatures and causing war due to lessening space for human habitation and crop failures. It's kind of like a pendulum. It take radical steps each way back and forth over time to equalize. Let's be clear about the real issue of climate change, the issue is not whether or not the planet is warming, that is happening. The question is the cause and how fast. The rate of melt in the ice caps has significantly and progressively increased, pictures show this well. The fact that currents exist is also not at debate, sailors have known this for years and anyone who goes ot the beach can tell you that the water generally follows about a month behind the air in temperature. This report does not significantly change anything about what we know about global warming and climate change and it isn't about saving the planet, the planet will get on just fine. It's about keeping the planet habitable for all humans for as long as possible.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[daveime]

The simple fact is, that the majority of data that feeds these models ARE known

The majority of THIS equation is known, but the missing bit (n) makes a hell of a difference in the final result (r).

r = 12345678^n^n

The result of any model is only as good as the accuracy of ALL the data fed into it. Garbage in, garbage out.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[deesine]

Yes, warmer. Not everywhere, but certainly not where we've been led to believe.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/arctic-non-warming-since-1958/

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/13/the-skeptic-that-wasnt/

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[CorporateSuit]

Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data? We won't know for sure until they incorporate the new data, but I'll take that bet.

They haven't bothered to scientifically test to see if CO2 warms the atmosphere -- they've only shown that correlation exists between increased atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide content. They've also seen that when temperatures increase, carbon dioxide and methane is released in greater quantities from natural sources. They've shown that carbon dioxide blocks heat rays as well. If taking these 3 observations and using them to say "It's a scientific fact that CO2 warms the atmosphere" then you are operating under a different definition of "science" than I do.

What makes you think they'll "scientifically" incorporate this model? Despite popular belief, making a documentary and pretending it's a NOVA special doesn't make something science. Neither does appearing on public broadcasting.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[credd144az]

At least Bruce Willis is still around. We'll be fine.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[andy1307]

That would be the logical fallacy Falsus in unus, falsus omnibus

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pleappleappleap]

This is a straw-man argument.

hardburn's conclusion was that climate change is occurring and is directly related to human activity.

The conclusion to be determined by the models of ocean currents (and which are probably highly impacted by the implications of TFA) are what the effects of that climate change are.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it wasn't for my horse, I'd never have spent that year in college." -Lewis Black

yeah, that how i felt after reading this tripe.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pleappleappleap]

Actually, one good way to determine causation would be to repeatedly modulate the human output of greenhouse gases and look for a corresponding climate change.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[geekoid]

Waiting to know every single variable to be known nothing gets done.
Start now and adjust as new observation and facts come in.
I would rather start now and have it be for nothing them wait and it have catastrophic results and be running around in a panic.

Simple risk analysis tells us to prepare.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

it's also a theory as to why there was a 2nd prolonged cooling period during the last major ice age. A massive ice damn broke releasing millions of tons of fresh water that flooded the north Atlantic.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[WCguru42]

Either way, we're terraforming Mars within several decades, if we can avoid some impending World Wars.

Really, we haven't even sent people to Mars. We haven't even got a clue on how to control our own environment, what makes you think we can create an entire environment on a far away planet?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pleappleappleap]

I thought it was more like 30 years ago.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Rockoon]

In my experience the trouble begins when the AGW-Believers over-state their case, but are then left without actual evidence which they can cite for it. They will try to point those questioning them at evidence which does not support their case, but instead support only a much more general idea such as that "its waming."

When their horseshit citations don't work for them, in my experience, they call in the logical fallacies such as labeling the questioners as "deniers", "fanatics", or "shills."

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

Well that and models which when applied to the data we have from 30 years ago, predict what we're seeing now.

The problem is the models we have, actually *understate* the problem. They predicted LESS effects than we're seeing now. As we get better data and models, hopefully we'll be more accurate but when you predict your mark and reality overshoots it by significant amounts, its time to adjust your models to be *more* aggressive.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pleappleappleap]

His experiments obviously proved that Faraday wasn't "worthless".

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

And the bottom line is, are you prepared to play god with the climate?

Isn't that what we've been doing? If we don't understand what we're messing with, wouldn't it make sense to cut back on the degree to which we're messing with it?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ppanon]

The basic theory behind global warming and the models is sound. While we might not be able to predict exactly which parts of the planet will be affected and how severely, there's already plenty of confirmation from melting eons-old glaciers that global warming and climate change are happening, and that it's primarily human caused. Sure the last 2 years have been a little cooler compared to 2007 and earlier, but we're also at a minimum in the "11-year" solar cycle and when you take that into account the overall trend is still climbing. So your comments are like someone arguing that there's no cause for alarm on the Titanic and we should just sit and listen to the band - the engineers can't tell exactly how many minutes before the ship sinks so there's no need to worry about the big hole in the bow. Teach the debate.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?

Glad you asked. I can't prove that all climate change catastrophists are idiots, but may I suggest that they are not very bright scientists, at least?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Elder Entropist]

Truth is, we're not getting any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has never been there before. IF carbon dioxide is heating up the planet, it's not going to be warmer than what we once had.

Might be true, except as our star ages it gets more luminous by about 10% every billion years. Having the same CO2 concentration as at a time in the distant past would certainly make it warmer now due to this.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[evanbd]

The fact that CO2 causes warming does not mean that it is the only cause of warming. Sometimes large models with many variables require more effort than a quick glance at a couple graphs to understand, let alone "prove" or "refute".

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth is, we're not getting any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has never been there before. IF carbon dioxide is heating up the planet, it's not going to be warmer than what we once had. This might be bad news for penguins and polar bears, but humans who thrive from equator to polar circle probably have not much to worry about as a whole.

First off, we as a species didn't exisit when the carbon in fossil fuels was sequestered from the atmosphere. Therefore the extra carbon may not cause global temperatures that haven't happened before, but these conditions certainly weren't experienced by humans.

Building dams in the lowlands and combating moskitoes and deserts should be the first line of defense, because that's where it will be needed, if ever.

Are people really claiming that *the* single most effective AND efficient method to prevent a flood is burning less oil? It's only a few steps above Voodoo, but I personally can think of several hundred things that can prevent future floods much better than stopping today's cars.

News flash, people in different parts of the planet face different challenges from climate change! Just because its more cost-effective in North America and Europe to build levies around settled areas doesn't mean the same is true in Southern Asia or Polyonesia. Unless of course you take the view that only the wealthy societies matter...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

Maybe you could try to actually _read_ these links?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[starrsoft]

I say stick to the status quo until we know we can't.

The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event? The risk is that the "bullet has already been fired" so to speak. It won't hit for another 50 to 100 years, but it's on the way, and it'll cause damage when it finally does hit.

And that's ultimate irony of the most hysterical proponents of human caused global warming. They believe that we're already irreversibly doomed and that no matter what economic devastation we wreak on the developing world (read: starvation exacerbation), all we will do is the equivalent of attaching a few life vests to the Titanic. So if we were to believe and heed them, what's the point?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[crmarvin42]

There is scientific evidence for Global Warming Climate Change. Very few of the skeptics (myself included) doubt that the evidence exists and is legitimate. However, there is also evidence that it's not OUR fault, that it was going to happen anyway, and that nothing we are planning on doing about it will actually work becuase we are placing the cart in front of the horse in blaming CO2.

The problem IMHO is that those who believe the current theories to be correct, believe with the certainty of a religious zealot. You cannot question them or else they accuse you of working for big oil, the republicans, or some other group with a vested interest. They've taken the science out of the equation and made it a SIN to question them. Sounds more like the Catholic church than the scientific community I like to consider myself a member of.

Here is more evidence that their models are incorrect. Maybe the flaw is not fatal, and the model can be saved, I'm not a climatologist so I don't know. However, there will be those on this message board that insist that having the wrong assumptions in these models, somehow isn't a problem. That's not science, that's faith. What those who've never done scientific modeling need to remember is that all models are wrong, but some models are useful

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

Wrong!

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php

Temperature _trend_ is still "up", even though we have fairly large year-to-year fluctuations.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

Your notion that what I put forth was a straw-man argument is in fact itself a straw-man argument.

For what I said to be disingenuous, one would have to discount that the ocean has any effect on the climate.

Always so hasty with the labels...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the EU is supposed to follow the Precautionary principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

In my opinion, it is not a question of spending a trillion dollars now or later, but spending a trillion dollars now, or maybe wipe out the entire human race. The probability may be low, we don't know that yet, but the consequences are big enough that it is still a significant risk.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

To what end?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

some folks want to make trillion-dollar adjustments to industry

Say hello to the US Banking Industry - how is the US economy anyway - and the trillions lost there. And don't forget the odd trillion or two spent on the GWOT.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Umm, I did. He agrees with me on the data, then goes on to draw conclusions that don't match his data.

For example: "During the glacial/interglacial cycles, CO2 concentrations and temperatures show a remarkable correlation. Closer examination reveals that CO2 does not lead the temperature changes, but actually lags by many centuries. Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2. Though this period does not demonstrate greenhouse gas initiated warming, it does lend support to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat."

The data disproves what he is saying, but he says it supports it. This person must be a mental gymnast.

Next link: "While there are indeed poorly understood ancient climates and rather controversial climate changes in Earth's long geological history, there are no clear contradictions to greenhouse theory to be found. What we do have is an unfortunate lack of comprehensive and well resolved data. There is always the chance that new data will turn up shortcomings in the models and unforeseen new aspects to climate theory, and I guarantee you scientists in the field are working hard to uncover such things - every scientist relishes the thought of uncovering new data that overturns current understanding. But it does not make any sense at all to reject CO2 as a primary driver of climate change today because it looks, through the foggy glasses of time, like CO2 has not always completely controlled climate changes in the past."

Basically he says that there is no historical correlation, but that because the current CO2 is produced by humans, there suddenly is some sort of correlation. Also he questions the strength of the data, which when you question it from the other way you are called a "denier". Why would the Earth get warm when people produce CO2, but not when it rises naturally?

Again, it's all politics.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

one thing

Little things like the entire basis for popularized alarmist scenarios about sudden and dramatic changes in circulation (Day After Tomorrow...)

The naive 'deniers' leap as though the king stepped outside naked, forgetting that politically favored climatologists specialize in subsuming each new discovery into the giant tapestry of bullshit that is anthropic global warming. They spin each new 'fact' however they must to produce intended outcomes. Doubtless the new circulation model will be even more prone to sudden and catastrophic changes. All the feedback loops will clearly lead to Venus by 2029 unless we Do Something Now (tm).

Contemporary climatology is the new astrology; politically conformal 'science.'

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

perhaps the same end that lets us now reasonably predict the weather a few days ahead and generally even a week ahead of time? We didn't used to be able to do that much more than a day.

maybe the science that is starting to predict when volcanoes will erupt?

If we can predict something with accuracy, we can take actions appropriate the the situation *before* the situation becomes reality. This is critical when the issue is prevention of catastrophe.

you don't get better at predicting without trying out ideas and seeing how they work. In this case the models have predicted less change than we've already seen. It's clearly time to make the models act more aggressively.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[hardburn]

Even if you could get all of humanity to agree, it would be difficult to correct the data against other events, like volcanic eruptions and sun activity.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

Isn't that what we've been doing?

No. Aside from hurricane research, I'm not aware of anyone doing that. And that's really playing with weather rather than climate.

Can you cite some specific examples?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying evolution is causing climate change?

Seems a totally unrelated issue to me.

Moron.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[BobMcD]

We still can't accurately predict the weather, nor volcanoes...

And fundamentally, you're talking about shifting a global paradigm away from more than a hundred years of energy practices. This is more than whether or not to pack along an umbrella.

The need to be correct goes up exponentially. So, then, should the need for open debate.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

You should work on your straw man arguments. It works better when the bit you quote (e.g., "certainty of the future") actually has something to do with the straw man you argue against (e.g., "anthropogenic warming").

To be clear: there probably is some anthropogenic warming. Its extent is subject to some debate. The future of the climate is subject to a lot of debate. The future of the global economy given climate change (and at this stage we are out of the realm of climatology and into the social sciences) is so cloudy that we might as well not even make projections.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[The_Quinn]

I agree with your statement about it being a matter of risk-assessment. Unfortunately what most people miss in the debate is that all the things man does to impact the environment are generally life-enhancing, allowing people to live longer, healthier, safer, happier lives.

So the biggest risk of environmental regulation is that it will make people live shorter, less healthy, less safe, and less happy lives.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia this paper seems to disagree with you.

Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55â000 vascular deaths

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[hardburn]

We're actually overdue for a new ice age cycle. In fact, our CO2 output may have broken the cycle. Which is probably a good thing, but that doesn't mean that even more CO2 is still a good thing. We've overcompensated.

While it's possible for the climate to change quickly, it's usually due to some specific event, like an asteroid impact. The Earth by itself would change over the course of thousands of years. Since we can rule out asteroid impacts and pretty much any other drastic climate event, our own activity over that time period is the only thing left.

Further, in the 1970s (before this issue became politicized), the only debate between climate scientists was if the albedo effect of particulates would drive temperatures down faster than CO2 would drive it up. By the '80s, many countries had put limits on particulates (such as mandating emissions on cars), thus guaranteeing that CO2 would win the tug-of-war on tempature. I'm happy that particulates are at least limited (since they have a direct effect on the human respiratory system), but CO2 needs to be delt with, too.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

Where does he say that data disproves him?

Author just points out that the _current_ warming period is unprecedented, because it's caused primarily by greenhouse gases emission.

Also: "Even so, the full extent of the warming can not be explained without the effects of CO2. "

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tgibbs]

And yet, cardiovascular death rates have dropped with increased effort to reduce cholesterol, just as predicted.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one that this stuff reminds of the ID sites where they teach people how to defend their faith based ideas?

Granted, this site is using actual science to form an argument, but the mere appearance of needing this sort of site just gives me the willies.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

"Basically he says that there is no historical correlation, but that because the current CO2 is produced by humans, there suddenly is some sort of correlation."

Let me clarify: geologic history shows that CO2 rarely was the _trigger_ for global warming. However, geologic history shows quite well the effects of CO2 _once_ _it's_ _in_ _the_ _atmosphere_.

The whole situation is pretty complex, but climate scientists are well aware of that.

"Also he questions the strength of the data, which when you question it from the other way you are called a "denier"."

Because you are. You cherry-pick favorable data to support your position.

"Why would the Earth get warm when people produce CO2, but not when it rises naturally?"

It can, of course. But we can't explain current warming using other sources. On the other hand, model of AGW fits data quite nicely.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ArcherB]

did you miss this part of my post:

So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames.

We have the problem of warming temps melting more ice. This means less salty northern waters. As such the 'conveyor' stops running (based on previous theories). This stops the transfer of heat from the tropics to the northern climates which in turn causes a cooling of the northern climates producing more ice. It is indeed a cyclical process so point A leads to point B to point C and back to A in a massive generalization.

My point was that if the conveyor theory is wrong, the 'brake' I described might not exist or only work at a reduced rate, thus allowing more effect from global warming to be experienced.

Thank you. I didn't link "So the conveyor belt may act as somewhat of a coarse 'brake' on global warming over longer time frames" to mean that it is a cycle.

Still, that's one of the better explanations I've heard. Most are like that moronic "Day After Tomorrow" movie where they say make the argument similar to yours, but skip the last step.

1) Global warming causes ice melt at the poles
2) Currents stop due to no icing at the poles
3) Currents no longer bring warmer water to poles
4) Poles freeze
5) There is no step 5 except to show the catastrophe caused by the poles freezing (??)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

Nope.

It's more like http://www.talkorigins.org/ where whole lists of stock creationists' claims are gathered with stock refutations.

PS: I'd be curious to see such list for ID supporters.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

I'm not sure I should respond reasonably to someone who immediately calls me an idiot, but let's try. First of all, the post to which I was responding itself posited that the cost would be a trillion dollars, and the GP used the same cost. I was merely adhering to the standard applied by those posts.

Second, you assert that the cost will be "much, much higher" without any data. Let's look at environment protection in history; the Clean Air Act might be a good example. Suppose we had required 2009 emission standards back when Ford was producing the Model T. Do you think that car would've been economically viable using turn-of-the-century technology? No way - would've been much too expensive, or lacked power, or had some other major flaw. Later, as technology improved, we developed catalytic converters, fuel injection systems, etc., and brought air pollution from cars way down for much less cost. Furthermore, air quality improved drastically once emissions standards rose. The cost of improving air quality via auto emissions controls was thus dramatically lowered by waiting than by insisting on it from the get-go.

Suppose in thirty years we develop a cheap carbon-sequestration technique that allows us to completely control global ppCO2? Or we develop an cheap method of cooling the atmosphere, maybe some variant on this notion of spraying seawater into the air? That would pretty dramatically change your cost assumptions, wouldn't it?

One last point: while I'm well aware that the "no-tech-improvements" cost of doing nothing now would probably be many trillions (not just $1T), you also have to admit that the proposals now under consideration don't cost just $1T right now and then nothing else later. Rather, they would cost trillions per year, forevermore. That's pretty expensive. It might be perfectly rational to wait 50 years and spend $100T at that time instead (especially since we might develop technology that requires us to spend much less).

These are all debates worth having. What pisses me off more than anything else is when people want to curtail debate by calling other people idiots or saying that these issues are all settled. They aren't.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

"To be clear: there probably is some anthropogenic warming. Its extent is subject to some debate."

OK. Let me clarify: almost all climate scientists think that we need major economic measures _yesterday_. With some minority thinking that we need some form of global engineering. And another small minority thinks it's already too late and we should just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

What economic consequences of global warming are we seeing?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Colonel Korn]

Please. Researchers ignore data that break their theories all the time.

It may be worst in the medical world. For example, why do you think that cholesterol is targeted as enemy number one for heart health? There is no study that has ever demonstrated causality; 50% of people with heart disease have "normal" cholesterol; nearly all studies on the subject show that all-cause mortality is higher with low cholesterol; much better working theories exist.

So why is that hypothesis still treated as correct? Because reputations and huge amounts of money would be lost. Prominent people and institutions may even be found liable. Good science goes out the window in the face of that.

Regarding the subject at hand, you might want to look at what an ad hoc hypothesis is.

Nutritionism is only pseudo-science. Go read In Defense of Food for a really nice metanarrative of nutrional memes, and the most respected nutrionists pointing out that the entire field has still basically determined nothing practically useful so far.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Waffle Iron]

Truth is, we're not getting any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has never been there before. IF carbon dioxide is heating up the planet, it's not going to be warmer than what we once had.

It wasn't in the atmosphere all at once. Most all of the carbon in the earth's limestone deposits has also been in the atmosphere at one time or another. However, if it were somehow all released into the air at the same time, this planet would look a lot like Venus.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[rgviza]

Not to mention that we are making judgements about 100000 year temperature (and composition) cycles based on 200 years of data, completely ignoring the other ~4.55 billion years. These judgments fly in the face of paleological evidence showing the earth has been much hotter than now in the past, in a repeating cycle, long before man existed.

All we really know is that the global temperatures are rising. We have no idea why. Anyone that claims they do has a political agenda or hasn't bothered with the paleological record or the Milankovitch cycle.

I'm all for green energy etc, but predicating it on global warming is fallacious and misleading. "Because we will run out of oil in less than 100 years, need sustainable energy, we fight wars over oil, fossil fuels are filthy, and hydrocarbons cause cancer" are much better reasons, factually correct, and are scarier because we have valid evidence to support them as opposed to "Wolf!", which is based on a data set tailored and limited to fit the "man caused global warming" argument and political agenda.

Nobody is denying climate change. What is at issue is the cause of the climate change. The only acceptable answer is "We don't really know, but the *evidence* says it's been much hotter and much colder in the past, and climate change is part of the earth's natural processes".

That's all we can prove.

It's very irresponsible (in many ways) to misrepresent a theory as fact before it's been proven.

I don't think any climate scientists are idiots. However a lot of them are supported by government grants, so they have a conflict of interest. There are many cases where scientists that disagreed with the bandwagon have had their funding cut.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/climate_scientist_consensus_global_warming_real_other_scientists_not_so_much

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[htdrifter]

That was pushed aside by the Beanie baby bubble which was replaced by the Dot Gone bubble and the Y2K bubble. Those were forgotten when Wall St invented monetizing liabilities. That bubble extinguished itself by consuming all the wealth on the planet. Now they are working on monetizing CO2. It will probably be known as the Green Bubble.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[greenbird]

Thank you for disclosing your idiocy club membership. In 50-100 years the cost will not be the same, it will be MUCH MUCH higher even adjusted for inflation.

You must be president.

And you know this because of the climate computer models that were just invalidated?

The cost could be insignificant 50 years hence due to technological advancements or due to naturally occurring events. Since I'm guessing neither of us are psychic that's as likely of a prediction as your's is. One thing's for sure, you can only be as green as you can afford to be. Destroy the economy because of completely wrong models based on a misunderstanding of the most complex system man has yet encountered and the consequences will be much sooner and much more predictable. It won't be pretty and green won't be anywhere in sight. Hmmm...unless you'd count the death of billions as green. Actions have consequences and not understanding the environment those actions are taken in means the consequences are unpredictable. What you think may help may actually cause much worse damage than if you had taken no action.

I'm always amazed that people in a computer based technology forum put so much faith in computer models. A computer model only models what the programmer coded it to model (not even accounting for bugs). On top of that the people doing the coding either aren't the experts in the system being modeled or aren't experts in coding. Why the hell do people put that much faith in computer models that are attempting to model something as complex as an entire planet?

Cow farts have a significant effect on the climate. How do you measure the methane produced by a cow fart? You take samples. What a cow eats can have a major effect. So now you have to both get data on what cows eat everywhere in the world and how each diet effects there farts. Then you have to add this information to the model. This is one relatively small factor that significantly effects the planets climate. There are trillions of trillions of these many of which (like ocean currents) we don't even have an understanding how they function much less how they effect the climate. But we can make a model that not only predicts the climate for centuries but also accuratly determines all the factors that effect the climate.

Short of huge reductions in the world population, a strong world economy and rapidly advancing technology are the best bet for both understanding and effecting our environment positively. This has been historically and scientifically proven over the last couple centuries.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

Let me clarify: almost all climate scientists think that we need major economic measures _yesterday_.

I don't think that's true, but even if it is, they're not in a position to make that call, are they? They're not economists, for one thing, and while they may be expert in climatology, they are not expert in macroeconomics. A climatologist can tell us, "If you want to avert X degrees of warming, you'll need to reduce CO2 emissions by Y." But - as experts - they cannot make the call of how much X degrees of warming is likely to cost, how much a reduction of CO2 emissions by Y is likely to cost, or what trade-off should be made between those extremes.

Finally, while climatologists have just the same vote that I do for making these trade-offs in a democratic society, they don't have more votes than I do. Ultimately, it's up to voters to decide where the trade-offs should lie. The alternative is basically global tyranny*, which I (for one) consider a cure worse than the disease.

* I'm not even being hyperbolic here. The scale of measures being proposed is massive and there would be a huge incentive to cheat. Therefore, the only way to enforce these measures would be to subjugate every nation to a global power capable of enforcement.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

"Not to mention that we are making judgements about 100000 year temperature (and composition) cycles based on 200 years of data, completely ignoring the other ~4.55 billion years. These judgments fly in the face of paleological evidence showing the earth has been much hotter than now in the past, in a repeating cycle, long before man existed."

Another 'armchair climatologist'...

First, we know quite a lot about earlier climate. For example half a billion years ago, Earth was much warmer than now even with noticeably cooler Sun. Guess why?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[phoenix321]

If we survive the coming world wars of find ways to avoid them altogether, we probably will send people to Neptune and farther. And we will one day regard it as trivial and snicker about times when old farts like us rambled and dreamt about it.

I'm curious how some of the /. crowd still cannot grasp the speed of technology after the last, well, ten years, maybe 12. To get a sense of it: Roll back to the year 1909: do you think anyone could've ever imagined even a fraction of the technology we now regard as trivial?

Heck, people living in 1959 couldn't have imagined what living was in 2009, people in 1979 could not.

Can you remember or imagine what life in an office environment without email, photocopier or telephones actually looks like? No one does. I asked a dozen friends and family members who actually worked in an office with no email and one telephone for the entire floor - yet no one could clearly describe what they filled the day with back then. Everyone has their feelings about the past, rose colored glasses and all that - but the specifics are gone quicker than you can flip the calendar.

What I'm trying to tell is that we've only got a faint idea what the past was like, even if we have movies, books, pictures and living memories. How on earth should we have a clue on what the future brings?

The only thing we do know is that it probably brings things we couldn't ever imagine lest smoke crack.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Thaddeus]

Deaths have decreased because emergency treatment at the hospital has improved and people are less likely to ignore the warning signs of a heart attack. Heart disease rates have actually increased.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Of course HE doesn't say it. He says the same thing that I said (that warming started before the CO2 started rising), then he went on to say that CO2 caused the rise, when HE JUST SAID that the temperature started rising before the CO2.

Just because he can't explain it any other way doesn't mean that that CO2 is what caused it. You can't see the other possible causes because there is no record. It could have been caused by any number of events, such as solar cycles, Earth passing through some galactic radiation belt, bombardment by ice/methane microcomets, etc etc.

When did I cherry pick? I took HIS DATA and interpreted it in the way that my scientific training dictated (I'm a chemist). I might be wrong, but his evidence certainly doesn't support his conclusion. If the Earth started warming, and the CO2 rose centuries later in response, and both kept rising thereafter, that is absolutely not proof that CO2 causes warming! Unless he can identify what caused the initial warming, and show that it didn't continue throughout the period, then his "evidence" is worthless.

When scientists discuss science, the is ALWAYS argument like this. Critics, me in this case, poke holes in the theories that are presented until the theory is strong enough to withstand attack. When people start talking about global warming, rather than a give and take, they simply label critics "deniers" and write them off. THAT IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. Therefore, this is POLITICS, not science.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

Sure, climatologists are not experts in the economy.

However, stating that we need major CO2 emissions reduction is well within their competence. So they're stating that.

How we're gonna tackle it is a task for economists, engineers and other scientists.

Number of votes is irrelevant. Do you want to abolish CDC and FEMA because virologists have only one vote too?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[hardburn]

We don't know much about the weather ten days from now and you think you know about the general climate a hundred years in the future? Are you serious?

Yes, because I understand the implications of Chaos Theory. Namely, the Butterfly Effect prevents you from making specific predictions a month from now, but still allows you to make more general predictions years or even centuries in the future. This is why Climatology and Meteorology are separate disciplines.

The Club of Rome misunderstood how an increase in the price of oil due to shortages means that some reserves suddenly become profitable to exploit. That doesn't mean we won't eventually run out or that we won't cause other problems along the way.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[hardburn]

If that's the case, why did many of those same people decry the stimulus bill as generational theft?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Duradin]

Any sufficiently powerful entity will be invested in both maintaining the status quo and making sure that any adjustments to industry will be ones that favor their solutions.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

"If the Earth started warming, and the CO2 rose centuries later in response, and both kept rising thereafter"

Temperature growth usually exhibits a 'hockey stick' shape. A slow initial warming (due to various reasons, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles ) and then rapid warming. The best explanation for rapid warming is rise of CO2 concentration.

Do you _really_ think that climate scientists are stupid?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

on these models which are still in such a preliminary state.

Really? What makes them preliminary state?

The fact that they haven't been validated. These models, which have existed for 30 years, make predictions of a massively nonlinear system going out hundreds of years. They could be off by three orders of magnitude, and we wouldn't know the difference until 2100. Go dig up some of the 1980's climate model predictions of 2010 and let me know how close they are.

If you want to put in political controls to manage future climate change, you really need to know, with a fair degree of precision, what the long-term system gain is. If the deep current changes the rate of heat transport from the poles to the equator, or from the surface layer to the bottom, we need to know how sensitive the future century extrapolation is to this flux. Does it push catastrophic warming off by 1000 years or draw it in 2080? But none of the existing models has been validated. They check fine against the past data from which they were created, but that really doesn't tell us whether they will accurately represent the future.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

No, that is not what he said. He said: "But it does not make any sense at all to reject CO2 as a primary driver of climate change today because it looks, through the foggy glasses of time, like CO2 has not always completely controlled climate changes in the past."

He's saying that it doesn't make any sense to look at past data to help us draw conclusions about current trends, which is utter madness! If you want to shut down the engine of the world, you damn well better be SURE, BEYOND DOUBT that you are right, and be aware that millions if not hundreds of millions of people will DIE because of it. The fact is that there IS doubt. To say that all scientists agree is WRONG, because I'm a scientist, and I do disagree, thank you very much. I also don't take kindly to politicians lying about what I think about ANYTHING.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Thaddeus]

The data in the Framingham study does agree with me. And so does the data in every other study out there - there is not a single one that demonstrates causality.

The meta-analysis you link to does no better - it shows only a correlation (their word: "association") that is useless to any practitioner. Meta-analyses are always suspect because the input studies and parameters are cherry-picked to have the desired outcome.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[greenbird]

Really? What makes them preliminary state? The simple fact is, that the majority of data that feeds these models ARE known.

Ahhh...the faithful. Even in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence that the models are flawed and based on untested assumptions they cling to the conclusions. But we know that every OTHER factor used in the models are absolutely correct. It was just this one little thing we hadn't tested. Just like yesterday this was absolutely known.

GP was correct that we shouldn't cause major disruption of the global economy based on a problem so little understood that our attempts to correct it may actually make it worse. Should we try and shift away from a fossil fuel base economy? Sure. But slowly and surely as technologies that allow it come online. Not forced such that we have no idea of the consequences either economically or environmentally.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

I KNOW politicians are stupid. If they start the fear-mongering machine, it means they are lying. Think about the bailouts, and the "stress tests".

Show me the actual charts (the link you posted had broken pictures), and if the temperature takes off as CO2 concentration ramps up, I'll concede that you may be right.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

How about freons? Do you remember that scare?

Well, it turned out to be as bad as it was predicted. Only we managed to stop it just in time.

"Show me the actual charts (the link you posted had broken pictures), and if the temperature takes off as CO2 concentration ramps up, I'll concede that you may be right."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Satisfied?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[WindBourne]

Ahhh...the faithful. Even in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence that the models are flawed and based on untested assumptions they cling to the conclusions. But we know that every OTHER factor used in the models are absolutely correct. It was just this one little thing we hadn't tested. Just like yesterday this was absolutely known.
Actually, the evidence is overwhelming that we are in global warming; Glaciers melting at a rate unknown. GLobal temp for 100+ years obviously climbing. Heck, I have been watching watching weather.com and comparing the actual to predicted daily temps and for the last 5 years, more than 98% of the time the actuals are ABOVE predicted. What I find interesting is that there are ppl that still claim that we are not undergoing global warming. Heck, just 10 years ago, nearly ALL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY said that it was not occurring. Now, the majority accept that it is occurring, but just not man made.

Now, as to the models, there are many factors in it. Things that are unknown have experiments being designed for it. This was one of them. There was underlying assumptions here that lead to others to design experiments to confirm it. And it did not. BUT, other aspects of the models have held up. I am sure that within a month, we will see what the models show.

In the end, does it really matter about the climate issues to you? Would you rather not be more concerned about the west depending on other ppl that want kill us (or at least control us)? WOuld it not make more sense to FINALLY get the F*&^ off of imported fossil fuel from countries that are actively working to control all other countries? And are you not concerned about the future for your kids if we continue to have massive economic deficits (trade deficits, not even counting fed. deficit)? This is in NOBODIES best interest. So skip all the garbage about climate and just look at this from a pure economic POV. It is in all of our best interest to quit burning fossil fuel, and use it for better items; Fertilizer; plastics; base chemicals; etc.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

However, stating that we need major CO2 emissions reduction is well within their competence. So they're stating that.

No, it isn't. It's within their competence to say that to reduce temperature by X degrees requires Y. That's doesn't mean we need Y, although they might think so. (And I'm eliding here a point about the degree to which they can draw even the direct relationship between X and Y - I don't think it's as exact as you seem to think.)

Same deal with virologists. Sure, we need them to tell us that we need X doses of flu vaccine to protect against the possibility of Y. But whether we think Y is a serious enough threat to be worth buying those X doses is not their call.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Absolutely not. I want the charts showing temperatures going back at least a hundred thousand years, and I would prefer ten million. That data is less than a thousandth of a blip on the geological time scale.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

>The Club of Rome misunderstood...

Of course, the Global Warming Acolytes understand everything.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the Gulf Stream actually have much of an impact on North America?

It has a profound effect on the fisheries of the Grand Banks. That is a significant portion of the world's fish catch. So yes, it does have an impact, though not perhaps in quite the way you meant.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

"No, it isn't. It's within their competence to say that to reduce temperature by X degrees requires Y."

Yes. And the methods for these are mostly within the bounds of climatology. I.e. questions like 'by how much we must decrease CO2 to stop the warming' or 'would stratospheric aerosols help to reduce greenhous effect'.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Cyberax]

Moving goalposts already?

In any case, you're welcome: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/data.html

Also: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3090279.stm and http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/icecore.htm

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

>Do you think all climate scientists are idiots?

No, they just love grant money.

You can't "refute" his arguments btw, just trying reveals a hidden agenda on the part of the refuter. He's completely right about the SNR, the long term trend and the correlation problem.

But I don't expect any of your "scientists" to properly argue their point without name calling.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[jbengt]

You are ignoring the possibility of positive feedback:
Rise in temperature (among other things) causes a rise in CO2.
Rise in CO2 causes a rise in temperature.
Lather
Rinse
Repeat

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[greenbird]

Actually, the evidence is overwhelming that we are in global warming; Glaciers melting at a rate unknown.

"at an unknown rate" is great scientific evidence.

GLobal temp for 100+ years obviously climbing.

What temperature readings are you using from 100+ years ago? They were using satellites to take accurate complete temperature measurements 100+ years ago?

Heck, I have been watching watching weather.com and comparing the actual to predicted daily temps and for the last 5 years, more than 98% of the time the actuals are ABOVE predicted.

Huh...that's strange. Did you know that most global warming models predict that global warming will actually cause temperature to drop in a number of areas. So you weren't watching the temperature in those areas? So not being able to predict the weather is actually evidence in support of accurate global warming models?

Heck, just 10 years ago, nearly ALL THE REPUBLICAN PARTY said that it was not occurring.

Ahhh...so the republicans caused global warming. According to my faith it's the pirates but pirates, republicans, it's all the same to the democrats.

Now, as to the models, there are many factors in it. Things that are unknown have experiments being designed for it. This was one of them. There was underlying assumptions here that lead to others to design experiments to confirm it. And it did not. BUT, other aspects of the models have held up. I am sure that within a month, we will see what the models show.

So every other aspect of every model showing global warming has been tested and there was just this one little thing they hadn't gotten around to yet. Don't you see the idiocy in that? Can you even begin to grasp the complexity of whet they are trying to model? Who created the model? Were they an expert in every scientific area that effects global climate? Were they also an expert in programing that they could recreate all those interactions accuratly in a computer model? even the experts in one given area will tell you that we really don't understand to the point of exactly mathematically modeling their area of expertise much less every interaction of the area with every other area. But you have 100% faith in those models.

In the end... ...Fertilizer; plastics; base chemicals; etc.

Now this is all reasonable. (except that I don't have kids. I'd be in jail for child abuse these days. I believe in spanking.) But even more I want an advancing economy and technology. And both are an absolute requirement for getting off fossil fuels. One thing that has been historically and scientifically proven over the last few centuries is that short of greatly reducing the world population economic and technological advancement are the most effective tools for improving the environment. That's the point the GGP was making. Don't try to force radical changes and disruptions on a system (the economy and environment) that is far more complex than we can possible currently understand. The results, while they may include some of those you predicted, are certain to include many that were never even imagined and it's pretty much guaranteed that some of those will be bad likely to the point that you're worse off than when you started.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Pearls before swine by friend, pearls before swine.

I wonder sometimes what these discussions would be like if the teenagers, hippies, those who don't bath, and Democrat activists were blocked.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tgibbs]

Deaths are the most accurate indicator. Disease rates are unreliable, because they are so strongly influenced by changes in diagnosis.

So you are arguing that emergency treatment in hospitals just coincidentally improved around the time that doctors begin to push patients to reduce their cholesterol levels? Do you have any evidence? For example, can you show that deaths have been reduced as much or more in patients who do not reduce their cholesterol as in those who do?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

As if you are not just another 'armchair climatologist'.

The very fact that you use the term "Deniers" shows you are just another partisan hack pushing your agenda.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

The post you 'quoted':
...Or, at a minimum, cost a trillion dollars to adjust to as it changes.

Your post I called you an idiot for: If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

The OP implied paying the trillion 'now' by definition of as adjusting to changes. You implied that if we just waited, the cost would be the same; a wholly different position. Sorry that's not a reasonable assumption based on *known* factors.

As I said in my post, mitigating a problem/catastrophe is cheaper than waiting for it to fully develop and then try to remedy the situation. Your example of the automobile doesn't work since when the Model T as invented carbon dioxide emissions weren't known to be a problem, nor were the emissions from the vehicles even a remotely measurable portion of human emissions. So no problem known, no action required, no costs increased. Your examples of catalytic converters and such I claim as perfect evidence of my strategy. A problem was noticed and they attempted to solve it before it became overwhelming, and as you say it worked. Certainly cheaper than if we had done nothing until it became worse.

You're next point:
Suppose in thirty years we develop a cheap carbon-sequestration technique that allows us to completely control global ppCO2? Or we develop an cheap method of cooling the atmosphere, maybe some variant on this notion of spraying seawater into the air? That would pretty dramatically change your cost assumptions, wouldn't it?

All nice and good but what about if we don't happen to manage those things? But seriously, where do you think your 30 year down the line solutions come from? They come from investment *today*. That's the trillion now versus later.

I will agree the 'trillion' figure is just a reference to the OP and your postings. Any number will do frankly. My point is that the costs of after the fact correction just about always dwarf the mitigation/prevention costs and that includes any 'ongoing' costs. The costs also include a forecast 200 million climate refugees as sea level rises. A trillion dollars annual ends up looking fairly cheap rather than trying to handle that many refugees relocating to new areas. The modern infrastructure to support them alone would be in the trillions.

I will apologize for my tone but as I think I've explained, I think it was a pretty dumb statement to say it would cost the same 50 years from now as it would today. It seemed to me that your comment was intended to curtail the debate precisely by making an unfounded rationalization that its better to just do nothing. I agree with your statement that such inflamatory rhetoric doesn't help the rational discourse and I was, erroneously, responding in kind to what I understood at the time.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

Volcano eruption prediction linky
"A relation between long-period events and imminent volcanic eruptions was first observed in the seismic records of the 1985 eruption of Nevado del Ruiz in Columbia. The occurrence of long-period events were then used to predict the 1989 eruption of Mount Redoubt in Alaska and the 1993 eruption of Galeras in Columbia. In December 2000, scientists at the National Center for Prevention of Disasters in Mexico City predicted an eruption within two days at Popocatépetl, on the outskirts of Mexico City. Their prediction used research that had been done by Bernard Chouet, a Swiss volcanologist who was working at the United States Geological Survey and who first observed a relation between long-period events and an imminent eruption.[1][2][3] The government evacuated tens of thousands of people; 48 hours later, the volcano erupted as predicted. It was Popocatépetl's largest eruption for a thousand years, yet no one was hurt."

Much the same with weather, the farther out we go the less certain the prediction is. But when you see the results of past predictions and realize they are all 'under' the actual results, it's perfectly reasonable to assume future results will similarly be worse than the predictions.

Weather predictions are different in that they are frequently over and under predicted results hence why the appearance of randomness. The climate models have been consistently under what we've actually seen.

As far as paradigm shits, we've seen orders of magnitude change in exponentially shorter time frames in relation to CO2 levels, i.e. 'the hockey stick' graph. Something is going to have to give, and it likely isn't going to be the earth's environment.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

No, I'm not. I wanted long term data from the start (we were talking about historical data from hundreds of thousands of years ago, remember?). If you think 100 years of data is enough, then you are hardly qualified to be either an advocate or a sceptic. Anyways, ahving data from Mauna Loa, an ACTIVE VOLCANO isn't exactly what I would call "average".

In any event, I looked at the data from the first CO2 ice core I saw on that site, and it showed that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere started increasing a little under 30,000 years ago, going up 50% by ~1300AD (assuming I'm reading it right, it isn't very clear), though it was still within the range of other cycles over the past 200K years. Also, the data stops several hundred years ago (about 1300 AD). If you have any sources for the last few hundred years, we can finish painting the picture here.

Just looking at the data may not be sufficient, as it is hard to line up. I'm also not sure how he is calculating his deltaT. If it is a year over year change, the the Earth was quite cold indeed a few tens of thousands of years ago. It seems more likely that it is change from "today's" temperature. With that in mind, when we take a look at the data, we see that at about 121000 years ago, thee was a peak of CO2, where the temperature peaked 10,000 years before that. It seems to me that that says that CO2 is a TRAILING indicator, and does not necessarily contribute to the warming. If it did, the Earth would have still been warming as the CO2 concentration rose a further 8% after the temperature peaked.

So yeah, thanks for debunking that whole "global warming" thing for me!

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Gospodin]

The problem with this is that the Precautionary Principle as normally stated admits no cost/benefit analysis. If effect X causes a cost of Y, the PP would normally state that it should be mitigated if Y exceeds some threshold. But X might also have a benefit of Z which already mitigates Y, or even exceeds it.

I'm not suggesting that public policy be made on strict utilitarian principles, btw. Rather, each case is separate. Costs and benefits can't always be netted together. (Suppose a cost of $1 million brings the benefit of the avoidance of 1 death? Suppose the cost is $1 billion? Is the net cost/benefit positive or negative? We have no - and should have no - dollar/life conversion ratio than answers this question neatly.)

Here's an example of the PP gone awry: DDT. In developed nations, DDT is considered an environmental threat. It's known to build up in organisms higher up in the food chain, it's a human toxin, etc. And - importantly - the benefits from using it aren't all that great: we have other anti-mosquito toxins, and we don't have endemic malaria or other mosquito-borne illnesses anyway.

But there are African countries where this is not the case. The costs are still there, and they are grave. But the cost of not using DDT is arguably worse: they can't afford more expensive toxins, and they have serious disease problems. Hundreds of thousands of malaria deaths a year might be avoided through the use of DDT. I don't necessarily argue that it should be used - I'll leave that for another topic - but debate on the subject should not be curtailed by the PP. There should be debate on whether the environmental, and human, damage caused by DDT spraying is offset by the benefits of reduced disease.

One last little thing: I've read a couple of times that the alternative to expensive mitigation today might be "wiping out the entire human race". But come on, this isn't serious. Even in "The Day After Tomorrow" (which is obviously an implausibly disastrous, fictitious scenario) the equatorial regions were still livable. Is there any plausible scenario involving climate change where the entire human race is wiped out? This is the sort of hyperbole that hurts your side of this debate. If you want to use a bad scenario, use something plausible, like: Billions of people, mostly in developing countries, die from disease, starvation and rising sea levels. That's plenty bad enough, and at least it's possible.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

Only one caveat...the article wasn't about the surface currents like the Gulf Stream, which as you say, any sailor will readily testify to their existence. The article was about the undersea currents that supposedly are the reverse effect of the surface currents.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your informative response.

I am, by no means, suggesting that we shouldn't be trying to affect our environment less. I don't doubt that abnormal levels of any substance in the atmosphere will have some type of cumulative effect on the globe.

What I'm against is portraying the "human activity is the cause" as fact when there's really no way to link data together without some type of control. You say it yourself, it "may" have broken the cycle. Is there some effective way of testing this hypothesis?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[atraintocry]

they fail to account for the fact that there are natural cycles in climate

Milankovitch Cycles have been accounted for since their discovery, as well as solar output cycles. I really don't know what cycles you could be mentioning that a generation of scientists has somehow ignored.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

lets start with the fun stuff.

Cow farts: cows are simply reprocessing carbon *recently* taken out of atmosphere, i.e. grass. This is a 'shitload' (sorry, couldn't resist!) less than the amount of *ancient* carbon we're stuffing into the atmosphere every day. That's the real problem. We're changing the equation significantly with those additions. As for the numbers of cows, how many bison used to exist in the Americas? how many other animals no longer exist because exterminated them. The cows don't reflect that much of a change to the situation.

Now, computer models. So your rationale is that because they can't possibly measure everything we shouldn't try to improve them?

Models are extremely complex yes, but as you say, they aren't anything more than the people who programmed them. So your next point is that obviously people can't do this so we shouldn't even try?

I'm loving your positive attitude ;-)

Next, if you try and estimate how far away something is, and you are continually coming up short, wouldn't you expect that future estimations would be short as well? And alter your estimation process to be more aggressive? This is what has happened with climate models. We've taken data from 30 years ago and asked to see what 'today' would look like. The results indicate less effects than we actually see. The models are too conservative. So when they predict very severe results in the future, its more than reasonable to say wow maybe the actual results will be even worse than that.

Lastly, your argument for a technical solution is actually my very same one. You expect/hope that a solution in 30 years will make things much cheaper to deal with then. A little too hopeful maybe but not overly so; humans are nothing if not ingenious. Where do you think that this 'solution' will come from? It comes from research and testing and monitoring and 'models' to predict things. Money spent *right now* rather than waiting until you *have no choice* but to make changes. At which point it may be too late and/or cost much more to remedy.

Technology is going to be the answer, simply because our culture isn't going to let it go. But that requires time to figure things out; and it's best to start that process earlier rather than later.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[atraintocry]

Nutritionism is only pseudo-science.

Except for preventing vitamin deficiencies. A class of terrible "diseases" was quickly and cheaply wiped out in the first half of the 20th century because of the novel idea that food gives us something besides fat or carbs or protein, something that we need in order to survive.

While I agree that there is plenty of nutrition-based pseudo-science out there, there are some true blue chemists working on this stuff and I think the worst you could say as a generalization is that:

(a) There's still a lot of work to be done. Our bodies are complicated and isolation studies are in many ways a blunt tool.
(b) There's a lot of crap and well-established canards out there because it's an area of study that affects so many. there's also good science, if you know where to look. in most cases the FDA does know where to look. In the periods where they're not gutted by administrations unfriendly toward regulatory agencies, anyway.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[atraintocry]

I know it's popular to blame the US for everything, including (somehow!) lowering scientific standards for the entire world, but I grew up here in the 80s and 90s and I heard plenty about global warming. For instance, Nickelodeon, which was the most popular childrens' programming (on cable tv, at least), would regularly run little cartoons about the greenhouse effect and the need to lower CO2 output.

Also they would run stuff about recycling, conserving water, solar power, you name it.

Going back further you have this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4dAkoV87a0

Sorry to break up the hate-fest, guys.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[atraintocry]

Not only that, the core is cooling! Take that, LIEberal media!

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't claim to know the full scope, but there are couple of important points regarding Gulf Stream, all stemming from it moving heat from tropics into artic.

First: since it essentially prevents significant areas of ocean and land from freezing over, it also increases absorption of sunlight -- snow and ice reflect most sunlight off, ground/ocean water absorb most. Hence, more solar energy gets "captured" within atmosphere, increasing temperature.

Second: independent of total sum of energy being retained, there is the question of human inhabitability of the land areas in question. Much of northern Europe (Scandinavia) would be (even) less hospitable to human and non-human life, if and when local average temperature went down, like it would if not for the conveyor belt.

So it does mean a lot, esp. so locally, but also globally.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Not that they are ignored, but are simply unknown. If you think scientists know everything, I hate to disappoint, but I'm a scientist (a damn good one, you can thank me for the next generation of antimicrobial materials coming to the consumer, medical, and industrial world over the next five years), and I'm not smart enough to understand 1/1000000th of the phenomena that go on in this universe.

For example, I recall reading about an oral tradition among the aboriginal people of Australia that talks about a number of climate cycles, which apparently included El Nino, La Nina, as well as several cycles ranging from 125-625 years in period, and even a 40,000 year cycle. Who knows if there is any truth to it or now, but it does point out that there is a lot we don't know. If we start actively trying to manipulate the climate, we are almost certain to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[jcnnghm]

Blasphemer is more apt for what you're preaching. Denier just doesn't have the same ring.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I wonder why we're not considering the impact of all the little heat pockets we need to survive on this planet. Think about it - we warm our cars, our homes, our beverages, we use electrical devices that ALL radiate heat, and we're actually producing a fair amount of thermal energy just by walking around and breathing...

And THIS gets moderated up as insightful? WTF?

Sweet Jebus christ: the problem is not one-off release of thermal energy, but that the freaking gashouse gases increase absorption and reduce emission of incoming solar energy.
That is: CO2 (et al) will effectively increase retainment of heat from Sun over time. Your releasing of energy is nothing compared to cranking the rate of the solar generator notch higher. If this was otherwise, it wouldn't be very hard to convert/consume "extra" thermal energy to cool off the planet.

Yes, it is fashionable faux pas to antromorphise carbon, with silly catchphrases like carbon footprint. But that doesn't mean that the underlying concern wouldn't exist.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[HiThere]

Then you don't understand science.

In any active science you are going to get continual alteration and refinement. And occasional large changes. You also get everyone overblowing the importance of the thing they've just been working on. And occasional refutations of earlier claims that are sometimes verified and othertimes not.

Science is a messy, chaotic process. Sorry if you thought it was clean and simple. For clean and simple you need a historical retrospective of last century (or earlier). It was never clean and simple while it was happening, I don't care WHAT they claim on TV, Or General Science I. Or any other hagiographical literature.

So... to an extent you're right: If the authors are correct, then the models will need to be rewritten. But as the way they are tested is by validating them by predicting the present from historical records, I don't expect major changes in the predictions. Possibly major changes in the theoretical underpinnings...which might give different values for which variables are more important...and might not. But you should expect that the authors have overstated the importance of their results. They've got to argue that what they did is important, after all.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Anonymous Coward]

...
There certainly is a risk. I can't see it being much greater than the risk that a solar storm is about to wipe out all our electronics,

Whoa. Now I feel MUCH better, now that YOU have estimated the risk to be low. For a while I felt queazy about all those mumbo-jumbo scientist and their complicated words making predictions, instead of your more sane average folks like you.

Question: what, if anything, you base your estimation on? Your contempt of "global warming freaks"? You know, there were a few people who "knew" that warnings about Mt. St. Helens eruption being imminent were just bogus, and stayed. Those exemplary individuals held to their beliefs for the rest of their lives, whole day and a half.

If it wasn't for the fact that we share the same planet (even though seemingly not the same reality), I'd let you fry along with the planet.
Alas, I'm here too: and I will not let you and your ilk ruin it for us; you will cry, bitch and moan, but you too will be forced to reduce your energy usage, you ignorant stupid little brat.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[HiThere]

Unfortunately, those models are going to BE in a preliminary state until long after it's too late to fix things. Based on current event evidence (rather than models) the models have been understating the seriousness of the situation. So fixing the models correctly, when it ever happens, if it ever does... (We still can't make weather predictions good for a month ahead of time) ... will probably just show that the situation is much worse than our current models show. And it will probably take a decade or so to rewrite the models and test them if any basic theories need changing...so by then New York may be under water (probably only a foot or so at that time, but with more on the way). Or you can bet that if we just ignore the problem it will go away... but *I* wouldn't give you good odds.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Sean0michael]

Understand it that is a natural environment *response* to an unnatural influx of carbon dioxide from humans.

I don't think the influx of carbon dioxide from humans is "unnatural". We do think of factories, automobiles, and other sources of pollution as unnatural, but this comes from a wrong understanding of what is natural. For humans, our natural habitat is man-made. While nothing else in nature builds skyscrapers like we do, it is what we do naturally. It may not be in nature, but it is in our nature. Our habitat is our modern lifestyle. Tribes living in huts in South America are not living anymore "naturally" than we are in the developed world.

While I agree that we are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, it isn't unnatural. Most people just don't get that natural doesn't mean "life as it was before humans started mucking up the planet".

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[atraintocry]

That may be true, but you must understand that in a more formal setting the burden of proof would be on the scientist proposing the existence of such a cycle.

If we start actively trying to manipulate the climate, we are almost certain to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Completely agree.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[HiThere]

The only way this could be a species extinction event is if it set off a major war...which, of course, it could. OTOH, it could quite easily be a civilization killer without any hysteria being necessary. Current evidence seems to show that modern plants are pretty well adapted to a narrow range of temperatures (which varies with the species). When the temperatures go outside that range they become much less nutritious. Ditto, but differently, for ease of growth.

E.g., if you grow corn (maize) under conditions of high temperature and high carbon dioxide, then you get plenty of growth, but few ears, and ears that are low in nutritional value. (I don't know what assumptions they made about humidity.) Now high temperature here is about current tropics temperature, which is forecast for the temperate zone (though of course it won't be as constant there) which is where most of the farming is currently done. I suspect that they didn't need to alter the temperature, as they needed to enclose the plants in a greenhouse to control the CO2 levels, so temperature my well be just reporting what happened automatically. I think they were really investigating the reaction of plants to increased levels of CO2.

Also, with increased temperatures, weather patterns change. Moist areas become dry, etc. This means that areas that are currently farming areas can expect to experience periodic crop failures, becoming expected crop failures as the change proceeds. But all currently suitable areas are already under development. And most unsuitable land is already owned by someone who's doing as they choose with it. So relocation may not be possible. (And it's not clear where there would be to relocate to.)

So one thing that's needed is new plant strains that are more drought resistant and which will retain their nutritional characteristics under increased levels of CO2. Not easy. Drought tolerance has already been pushed rather hard, and nobody has much experience with how plant metabolic pathways change when atmospheric CO2 increases.

There are other problems, but that's one. And do note that IF civilization hiccups, one can expect a large die-off. 90% wouldn't be too high to predict...which means that a hiccup would turn into something quite a bit more serious. We've turned into a species where just about nobody knows how to raise food, and where there isn't going to be much place to raise food anyway, and in any case most of the plants we eat don't grow locally anyway. So most of the population will become desperate, which means that even those who *do* know how to raise food, won't be able to, because you can't do that around desperate people. And just where does your current water supply come from? It probably won't be there if the power's off. Do YOU know how to build a privy? And where? Building one in the wrong place is an excellent way to spread many diseases, e.g. typhoid. The list goes on. If you live in a city, don't expect to survive. If you live in a suburb, don't expect to survive.

So if we can, it's rather important to take steps to ensure that civilization doesn't fall. Unfortunately, greedy, short-sighted, and/or power-hungry individuals have sabotaged most attempts that I'm aware of to establish buffers against such a fall. So if there is one, it's going to be very hard. (I didn't say politicians, because many of them weren't politicians. Just most.)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[pixelpusher220]

I'll agree there is some semantics involved in calling the human burning of fossil fuels 'unnatural'.

I think most people when talking about this subject would define the 'natural' course to be how the environment would react/evolve without human intervention. We aren't behaving like a 'natural' animal anymore. No other animal builds homes strictly for pleasure, goes on vacations, or spends time and effort building sophisticated means of transportation.

That said, the net effect of our existence here is now making large changes to the atmosphere. These changes may cause profound changes in how we live and survive. We need to start addressing those changes before it's over a tipping point that we can't recover from.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

However, there is also evidence that it's not OUR fault, that it was going to happen anyway, and that nothing we are planning on doing about it will actually work becuase we are placing the cart in front of the horse in blaming CO2.

Then why aren't there any models built that show this? Surely this "evidence" could be plugged into a model which meshes up well with the historical data? Otherwise it is mere speculation - however scientific sounding.

The problem IMHO is that those who believe the current theories to be correct, believe with the certainty of a religious zealot.

Some do, and they aren't scientists. You are building up a straw man... the model's fit has nothing to do with the passion with which people defend it.

Here is more evidence that their models are incorrect.

Well, the current model certainly has more detail now... they knew that the cold water came back somehow, but the path it took was not guessed properly. No doubt this will affect the models - ultimately making them more accurate, since the input is now more accurate. I highly doubt it will change the predictions regarding CO2 much, but we won't know "for sure" until they incorporate the new data.

What those who've never done scientific modeling need to remember is that all models are wrong, but some models are useful

Agreed 100%... relativity is a model that is useful, but ultimately wrong. Newton's laws are also a useful model, but ultimately wrong. These climate models are still young, but they've come a long way since the 70s (global cooling) and 80s, with the ridiculous error bars that allowed one to interpret just about anything from the output.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[http]

Less ice in Greenland, thicker ice elsewhere.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

They haven't bothered to scientifically test to see if CO2 warms the atmosphere -- they've only shown that correlation exists between increased atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide content.

That's not true. They construct models with every input they can get their hands on, and they try to get the models to match known historical data. This is much more sophisticated than "showing a correlation". Further, the accuracy of the models has steadily improved over time. Of course, they can't model everything, and they can't foresee disruptive or non-recurring events... even something as simple a volcano going off can throw the models for a few years.

That said, they seem to have the models to a point where they match the historical data pretty convincingly.

What makes you think they'll "scientifically" incorporate this model?

What makes you think they won't? It's more data - it can only improve the model if it is reliable data.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Can you cite some specific examples?

I believe he was referring to the burning of billions of tons of fossil fuels.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

So what should we do? React to models we know to be 100% worthless bullshit?

I'm not on board with the "100% worthless bullshit" part. I would have agreed in the 80s or early 90s when the error bars were so wide that they showed a chance of cooling as well as warming.

But here we are 15-20 years later, and the error bars are much smaller, and even the most conservative models show man's portion of released CO2 having a warming effect.

I'm sorry, but your argument - while once perfectly valid - is simply out of date. The models are no longer the BS you make them out to be.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Either way, here comes Cap and Trade...

Yeah, I think it's a naive idea. I don't think there's anything to be done about our "carbon footprint"... the money is just being pissed away trying to stop it. It's pretty clear to me that mankind is going to burn everything until it is all gone, progressively moving to more and more expensive forms of energy.

But if it'll make the Europeans like us again, why not? :)

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

This is a very good point, an a much better tack to take than fighting based on the science.

There are all sorts of (unanswered) moral questions... are xxx number of lives in the future worth less than yyy number of lives now? What is the cost of attacking the problem now vs. the cost of dealing with the mess in the future? Is there a moral problem with rich countries blowing through the fossil fuel and then saddling poor countries, and their greater populations, with the effects? What about the fact that rich countries will be able to deal with rising sea levels and climate effects far more readily than poor countries?

These are really important discussions that we need to be having... not arguing over the science.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

When did I cherry pick?

You are picking out apparent flaws in the analysis of data rather than building your own model which matches historical data better.

That makes you a denier and critic rather than a scientist.

You say you are a chemist... if someone ripped apart one of your experiments, but couldn't produce an experiment which contradicted your findings, what would you think of them?

That's where climate science is. Everyone who builds a model which matches historical data agrees on the effects of CO2. So far, no denier seems to have emerged with a model to back them up.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[dachshund]

we have to act in ten years or it'll be too late

Even if there's a 90% probability that they're wrong --- i.e., the planet has the ability to absorb astonishing amounts of GHG-emissions without massive population displacement and loss of life (a highly unlikely proposition) --- the prudent course of action is still to curtail our carbon emissions. The radical position is to go on emitting at our current rate for a few more decades and hope that it's all ok.

But you know that.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Please. Researchers ignore data that break their theories all the time.

Of course they do... it's human nature. That's why we need the scientific method.

If you have an example of a climate model that ignores data because it produced a result that the researcher was not looking for, I'd love to see it.

My wife is a doctor - she'll be the first to tell you that medicine is NOT science. It is mostly detective work with a heavy influence from science. I wish more people understood this - it would significantly reduce the risk that I'll lose my life savings to a lawsuit someday.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

This'll probably come as a surprise to you, but do some research - there is not a single bit of scientific evidence that CO2 warms the atmosphere, the only link proven is that a warmer atmosphere brings more CO2 - usually 200-300 years later than an initial rise in temperature.

That's pretty hilarious, that you think I'd be surprised by this old gem of denier doctrine.

This has been thoroughly debunked.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ildon]

If the bullet is already fired, why not live it up until it hits? Unless you're Ozymandias or something.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

If someone pointed out problems with my interpretation and methods, then I would FIX THEM, and I would THANK them for it. In fact, we found recently that we had basically wasted TWO YEARS of research into a new form of anti-microbial plastic because we were binding non-specifically to the surface (which was only discovered when we sent material out to a client who then proceeded to test it in a manner that we thought didn't apply to us--they didn't have our preconceived notions). If we had been questioned earlier, we could have gotten a product to market a year ago, where instead we sat wringing our hands, steadily "improving" the product, when we were really only developing a timed release technology (which is cool by itself, but it isn't what we wanted, and is worthless for medical devices). Legitimate objections to the "science" of climate change have been papered over, and many words have been redefined for this particular argument. If you had to come up with your own model in order to criticize the current model, we'd still be looking for the philosophers stone! What we have in this case is a group of scientists driven by funding opportunities to come up with data in support of a theory, NOT against it. If this happened in my lab, I would fire the scientist perpetrating the fraud (actually it did, unfortunately the fraudster at the time was my boss, who set our work back by at least two years).

More likely, no-one has been able to get funding, because there aren't any groups that feel particularly threatened by such action. I would build a model, but I'm not a climate scientist. As a chemist I can, and regularly do, take criticism from a wide variety of sources, including other chemists, scientists from other branches, medical doctors, dentists, businessmen, and marketing people.

The sad fact is that scientists go where the money is. Currently, there isn't much money in a cure for AIDS (all the granting agencies are now funding vaccine work), which is why the cure we developed in our lab several years ago is sitting in a freezer for lack of funding for chimp and human trials. Now if something HUGE like that can get shoved aside, imagine how easy it is for contrarian research to take place in a field where dissent is immediately quashed by political forces at the granting agencies.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ppanon]

Yep, that big hole at the front of the ship indicates the Titanic is sinkable. No, we can't tell you yet how long it will take to sink. However, I wouldn't risk going back to your cabin for your warm jacket and would head straight to the lifeboats if I were you.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ppanon]

Because fundamentally, the real factor is in net heat gain of the Earth: radiation in - radiation out. Through a greenhouse effect, the atmospheric CO2 already keeps Earth warmer than it would be without it. More atmospheric CO2 (and CH4) means more IR reflected back in instead of let out to cool the Earth. The ocean currents affect heat redistribution around the Earth, how that heat is redistributed, where the resulting climate change will be focused (i.e. how fast will the artic ice cap melt) and how fast the whole process will happen. Ocean currents for instance travel latitudinally more than air (which primarily moves in Hadley cells) and transfers more heat due to water's high specific heat. So it has a pretty big effect on where that heat is going to go and how fast it will diffuse across the Earth. But that doesn't change that higher CO2 means more blackbody heat trapped under the atmosphere than before.

The damage is already done; the question is a) what's the real slow-mo rate of the catastrophe, and b) how aggressive do we have to be to prevent the worst of it? By starting now, we don't make the damage worse and we decrease how drastic we'll need to make reductions later when the models get more accurate and we find out just how much we really need to cut back.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[ppanon]

Well accurate direct temperature measurements or not, if you have some other explanation for retreating glaciers all over the globe that is still consistent with our thermodynamic understanding of the phase change of water, I would love to hear it. If you've got provable new ideas on the thermodynamic underpinnings of the phase change of water molecules, then I think the Nobel committee would like to hear it.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Morphine007]

While those statements of yours seem logically constructed at face value. It should be noted that CO2 isn't considered life-enhancing. That's like saying that logging companies should have never started replanting programs b/c cutting down trees is life-enhancing. Sure, cutting down trees is life-enhancing, but replanting programs make sure there's no shortage of supply. Your argument is akin to saying "cars are life-enhancing, so I should be able to drive mine through crowds at high speed."; The premise has absolutely nothing to do with the conclusion, other than the fact that they both involve cars.

So to with your argument, your premise and conclusion have no relation, unless your sole objection to "going green" is that decreasing CO2 emissions may affect your quality of life by lowering availability of creature comforts or significantly raising costs on them.

I share that concern. However, building/refitting skyscrapers to use solar panels, heat pumps, and self-contained greenhouses to deal with most of their heat/electricity generation and deal with most of their waste production would serve to enhance life: less pollution and less strain on the power grid (ie. less brownouts/rolling blackouts during heat-waves for places like california).

Given the cost of gas, if I could present you with two vehicles to choose from. The vehicles are identical in every way, except that one costs $1000 more, but gets twice the gas mileage. Which would you choose? $1000 more on a vehicle, over 5 years would cost an extra $16 a month on your car payments. But would cut your gas spending in half. Would that extra cash be life-enhancing? I pay $150-200 a month in gas, so it'd be pretty damned life-enhancing for me.

Basically, when people hear "this move will cause costs to go up. This is a trillion dollar program" it sounds like something we should immediately be against. But there are tangible benefits to many green technologies. In the case of hybrid vehicles, those costs are outweighed by the benefits. How many other changes would follow similar trends?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

I hope that wasn't his point because such a statement would only prove he is incapable of logic and has no valid point. After all, if there is zero proof man is behind global warming and his argument is that burning fossil fuels is behind global warming, he's attempting to use an unsubstantiated position to prove his second argument. Which of course means he's wrong.

In other words, that's the argument of either a fool or an idiot.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

After all, if there is zero proof man is behind global warming

And that is where your argument died.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

If someone pointed out problems with my interpretation and methods, then I would FIX THEM, and I would THANK them for it.

Right. Do you have evidence that climate scientist do not do this with their models?

If you had to come up with your own model in order to criticize the current model, we'd still be looking for the philosophers stone!

Huh? Sciences like astrophysics operate under different constraints than chemistry. You can experiment a little bit locally, but mostly you have to build models that fit observations. Climate science is the same. You aren't going very far without a model that incorporates your criticism.

There is plenty of money out there for competing models, it's just that you can't construct one without also coming to the conclusion that CO2 released into the atmosphere will warm the planet.

Currently, there isn't much money in a cure for AIDS (all the granting agencies are now funding vaccine work), which is why the cure we developed in our lab several years ago is sitting in a freezer for lack of funding for chimp and human trials.

I'm gonna need to ask for a citation, not that this has anything to do with climate science.

imagine how easy it is for contrarian research to take place in a field where dissent is immediately quashed by political forces at the granting agencies.

There's plenty of money available from the oil companies, mining companies, car companies, etc. Despite this, no alternate model has come forth, though lots of FUD, books, and criticism have.

This isn't a field where "contrarian" research does any good. The only thing you can do is build better models... it doesn't matter what your personal goal is starting out - the models all converge on the same results.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

You need to check your facts again. There is only proof the climate is warming. There is no proof man is behind it. That's the problem. The proof people have been largely using to validate their position are these models which are 100% invalid and total bullshit.

That's also the problem of discussing the issue with the zealots here - as soon you offer the only real known fact, people want to cover the ears and eyes while humming. That's zealotry to the extreme.

Case in point - your post.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[metaforest]

To draw on a very important truth with flying bullets.... and maybe nature as well

You don't hear the report until AFTER you have a gaping hole in your chest.

It seems that fate is not without a sense of irony.... it seems unlikely that we will perceive the bullet until it hits... I think this applies equally well to GCC and to PKAs....

One look at the ancient beaches 10 miles inland and 500 feet above the current beaches in Santa Cruz, kinda makes one wonder. Yes, Virginia, some of that was fairly recent tectonic up lift action, but not all of it.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

There is no proof man is behind it.

I'd say that your threshold for proof is too high. When every modern climate model shows human-produced CO2 to be responsible for warming the atmosphere, that satisfies me.

The proof people have been largely using to validate their position are these models which are 100% invalid and total bullshit.

So where is the climate model you are using to make this claim?

Scientists try to model a system and then test the model against known data. Deniers such as yourself try to pick out odd facts here and there, rather than do their own rigorous research. Of course, if they were interested in rigorous research and built a model, they'd be converts as their model started to produce results more and more like the existing models.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[crmarvin42]

Then why aren't there any models built that show this? Surely this "evidence" could be plugged into a model which meshes up well with the historical data? Otherwise it is mere speculation - however scientific sounding.

It's not that there are competing models that have different predictions, but that the models are leaving out major effectors of the global climate. I've been told by people that actually do work in the field of climate research that most models ignore the energy output from the sun. That strikes me as incredibly myopic.

Some do, and they aren't scientists. You are building up a straw man... the model's fit has nothing to do with the passion with which people defend it.

I'm not building up a straw man. If you express doubt in the "Humans are to blame for global warming" you will be labeled as a "Denier" and ignored. I've done it so I know what I'm talking about. Try it out some time, then get back to me.

Selectively pruning a data set is a subtle thing that can end up with the model saying what you want it to say with a high measure of goodness-of-fit without it being accurate. The "Hockey stick" graph that Gore used in his presentations has been shown to be generated in such a manner. The data set that was used to generate the chart was generated by a US government agency and as such cannot be hidden. Another researcher went back and was only able to get the hockey stick shape by using inappropriate transformations of the data.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

Agreed 100%... relativity is a model that is useful, but ultimately wrong. Newton's laws are also a useful model, but ultimately wrong. These climate models are still young, but they've come a long way since the 70s (global cooling) and 80s, with the ridiculous error bars that allowed one to interpret just about anything from the output.

That right there is the thrust of my skepticism. We cannot reliably model the goings on inside of many systems we've been studying longer than the environment. I know that we have indirect measure of past global climate, but they are all based on assumptions and with that many fundamental assumptions are included in a model the chances of it being more than marginally helpful are very slim. There are plenty of other models that are accepted as "good enough" in other fields, but most of those models are not being used as the basis for national and international policy. The fall out of all this being radical changes in the financial, energy, and other systems as thought these models are "Right," not just "Useful."

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[fygment]

If this were simply an academic debate, you would be right in your comments about cranks. But this isn't an academic debate. This debate affects people directly. Governments are enacting policies, people's reputations are being made and destroyed, money is moving in quantity to the detriment of other proven issues, and fear is being sown in the population. Therefore, yes, absolute faith and trust must be paramount.

In fear of highly speculative future possible problems, we are turning away from the real existing problems at hand. Enough worry about the sky maybe falling sometime to come, there are millions suffering and dying now.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[fygment]

You know ... yours is the first mention of "fat error bars" in any of the posts I've read so far. Is there a link?

I've wondered what the margins of error are on the models as they must be quite large. Weather models use linear techniques to reduce the number of variables to something more manageable. If the same techniques are used in climate models (as is likely) then there must be a quick growing and large error as you extrapolate.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[The_Quinn]

I agree that CO2 isn't the issue.

Ultimately the issue is: are people free to think, trade, and act in their best interest? Or should people kneel, steal, and sacrifice each other

To protect you: your health, property, family, etc. - one does not need the government (i.e. those with power), to manage our lives. All one needs is to enforce a simple idea: that you, the individual have a right to your life and property. Then nobody can damage your life and property, and if they do, they are liable.

Environmental regulation is not about protecting your life, property or happiness. If it were, all that would be required is to demonstrate in court that the actions of party X are damaging party Y, and then party X is liable, must stop harming you and your property, make restitution, etc.

Instead, the environmentalist movement is not pro-human. No matter what you do, you will exhale carbon. You will emit pollution. You will alter the environment to make your life better. Environmentalism regards all of these as evil. Why? There is no reason. It is a mystical belief system.

I think a lot of people implicitly accept environmentalism as a form of Original Sin. They regard themselves as inherently guilty. Why? Because they exist. Just like in Original Sin, every human is stained at birth. If people didn't exist, the Earth could exist in it's pristine, unstained form. But the existence of man stains the Earth, makes it fall from grace. Technology is the forbidden fruit that damns man and Earth.

If we shed our guilt and shed our mysticism, we could proceed down a different path, where we lived proud, happy, guilt-free lives, where comfort and joy is the picture, the Earth is our paint, and our mind is the paint brush.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Well, considering the criticism I just posted is so well known that it is posted as a standard "denier" argument, yet has not been addressed in any serious manner, I would say that yes, there is evidence of such.

You don't have to build your own model to point out the epicycles don't explain planetary movement. It helps to have a model that does explain observations, but it isn't necessary. If there is so much money out there for competing models, show me. I haven't seen any.

The results were never published, due to politics. If you want evidence that there isn't much money for AIDS cure research, take a look at the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and notice that they are now only funding vaccine work. The NIH is giving similar favor. That fact has EVERYTHING to do with climate science. It shows that unpopular things, no matter how amazing they are, can be squashed by bureaucracy and politics.

Those types of companies would like to disprove global warming, but the development of a new model for climate science is well outside of their field of interest. Not to mention that most of those types of companies aren't exactly in any position to be funding massive research projects at the moment. Only the government has any money right now, and they have blacklisted all climate change "deniers".

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[The_Quinn]

Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data?

Your premise: CO2 warms the atmosphere

Wanna bet that 1000's of individuals will gather in Washington DC this June for the 3rd time to hear 100's of scientists debunk your premise? 3rd International Conference on Climate Change

Wanna bet that a pro-human movement will rise to oppose the pro-environment movement?

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[The_Quinn]

The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?

Your family might cause a massive human extinction event.

Should we kill your family?

Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen. That is where science comes in, and there is plenty of debate on whether global warming is even happening at all - let alone whether people have any impact on it - and let alone what, if anything, should be done about it.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Wanna bet that a pro-human movement will rise to oppose the pro-environment movement?

Wow, that DOES sound scientific rather than political! Oh, wait...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[Thaddeus]

Here's a discussion of a study that supports my point nicely.

As I stated, fully half of people with heart disease have normal serum cholesterol levels. No one denies this. So it's a poor indicator - anyone with a good cholesterol test result still needs to be told that there's an equal chance they have heart disease anyway. There are better indicators such as C-reactive protein that are largely ignored. Even the recent, terminally biased JUPITER study gives that method of detection a backhanded compliment.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Well, considering the criticism I just posted is so well known that it is posted as a standard "denier" argument,

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

You don't have to build your own model to point out the epicycles don't explain planetary movement.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

If there is so much money out there for competing models, show me. I haven't seen any.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

The results were never published, due to politics.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

Those types of companies would like to disprove global warming, but the development of a new model for climate science is well outside of their field of interest.

Then why are they funding the deniers?

Only the government has any money right now, and they have blacklisted all climate change "deniers".

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

most models ignore the energy output from the sun.

Sort of... they tend to ignore short-term variation like sunspots. This is because they only have records going back about 100 years, so it would not be a sufficient input for a model fitting hundreds of thousands of years worth of data. Here's a good article addressing this common argument. In any event, if you are looking for long-term trends, why are you interested in short-term solar events and cycles?

If you express doubt in the "Humans are to blame for global warming" you will be labeled as a "Denier" and ignored.

First of all, I'm not ignoring you. Second of all, whining about how you are labeled has nothing at all to do with the accuracy of the climate models... that's the straw man.

Selectively pruning a data set is a subtle thing that can end up with the model saying what you want it to say with a high measure of goodness-of-fit without it being accurate.

That's true, but do you have evidence of this occurring in climate models? In all of them?

The "Hockey stick" graph that Gore used in his presentations has been shown to be generated in such a manner.

There were certainly flaws in the original model, but it wasn't exactly "wrong", it just wasn't as accurate as it could be - and the criticism was used in part to improve the model... this is exactly how science is supposed to work, so I'm not sure why you would hold this up as a criticism of climate science. Here is a good discussion of the hockey stick graph episode.

There are plenty of other models that are accepted as "good enough" in other fields, but most of those models are not being used as the basis for national and international policy.

During the 80s and 90s I would have agreed with you (and did, actually) - the models were too immature to base policy upon. Now, however, the error bars are much tighter and even the most conservative models show man-released CO2 to cause significant warming.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Yes, and never with any specific examples... just a broad accusation. Surely since you believe these accusations, you could point me towards a source? So that I'm not hypocritical, I'll direct you toward what I consider a very thorough defense of climate science. It's two years old now, but still relevant.

HA! That article talks about computer models being used for investment. Tell me, how well do you think THAT worked out for them? Also, check out the comments section there. Those guys do a better job of refuting it than I can, as there are some computer scientists in the computer modeling section. There is also a lot of interesting discussion in the "CO2 Levels Lag Behind Temperature Changes" portion. There are some posters who claim that water vapor accounts for 99% of heat retention. Having moved from 100% humidity southeast Texas, where the High temp is often 95, while the low is only 80, to low humitidy Lubbock, where The high is 105 and the low 50, not to mention the fact that a generally warmer planet will put more water vapor into the air kind of intuitively busts the "CO2 as main actor in Global Warming" thing. Thanks for posting that article. There is a lot of great stuff there, although most of it points in the other direction from your argument.

Yes, you do. Epicycles, before they were abandoned, did the best job to date of explaining the motion of the planets. Until a better model arose, it would have been silly to abandon it.

Unless people think it's right. You have to show that a scientific theory is lacking. Epicycles NEVER adequately explained planetary movements. Not even close, really. They would be sort of close for a few days out, then it would all go to hell, and that was simple, non-chaotic movement. In this world, a tiny error (like overestimating the "blanket effect" of CO2, or underestimating the amount of time the water spends in the atmosphere) would ensure that you got wildly erroneous results.

Exactly my point... the people presenting a contrary view are not building models. There is plenty of money. Here's an article about the well-funded deniers. How you can claim that the problem is money is beyond me. The big money would overwhelmingly prefer that global warming were a non-issue.

Businesses are focused on debunking global warming, not improving climate science. As such, they haven't funded climate research that could go against them.

So no sources, then? I thought so. Put yourself in my position... you are asking me to change my mind on an issue based on an unsubstantiated claim from a random poster on slashdot.

My company's website has some information on our cancer work, which comes from the same principle. www.selenbio.com

Then why are they funding the deniers?

They don't, not really. They try to get the most bang for their buck, so they pay people to publish newsletters and do PR. They aren't particularly interested in research that they can't control.

Do you have any proof of this? I'd assert that they aren't getting government money because they aren't interested in building a model. In fact, if I want to go all crazy conspiracy, I'd say that they know building yet another model will force them to come to the same conclusion as everyone else who has built a model, and the money will stop flowing their way from the denier gravy train. Here is a pretty hilarious list of the "scientists" who deny global warming. Sorry about the clearly biased source, but the list is too hilarious to pass up.

I have a few links:

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

HA! That article talks about computer models being used for investment. Tell me, how well do you think THAT worked out for them?

Hate to break it to you... they still use them for investment. They are right more often then they are wrong, which means money gets made. The mortgage risk models failed when the range of inputs exceeded the limits of the model... the same exact thing would happen in climate models, and no one pretends otherwise.

By the way, none of the quants that I know would classify their work as scientific - despite most of them being former scientists.

There is a lot of great stuff there, although most of it points in the other direction from your argument.

Yes, in the comments section, which is telling. You seem to be implying that climate scientists aren't aware of water vapor, which is pretty amusing.

Epicycles NEVER adequately explained planetary movements. Not even close, really.

What? Epicycles described the motions of the known planets quite well. It would not have worked for less-stable orbits, but it was a pretty darned accurate model.

www.selenbio.com

I remember the selenium stuff going around the internet a couple of years ago, but I don't know anything about it. The AIDS-selenium connection sure smells like quackery, though. Is there an actual drug?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1299305

While there may or may not be pressure on people to fall in line on global warming, that does not amount to a critique of the models themselves. In fact, this article itself concedes that "additional evidence in favour of the anthropomorphic global warming proposition has arisen since he wrote the article". So while I won't really argue about the central premise of the article, it does not argue against the science.

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007279.cfm

This is a he-said, they-said. There is no way to tell whether he is being attention seeking or whether they are truly punishing him.

http://www.faceglobalwarming.com/global-warming-silencing-the-critics/626/

You can't be serious? Did you read this article? It's hilarious! One of the quotes is a guy, who, paraphrasing, basically says, "There's no anthropomorphic global warming, and anyway, global warming will save lives because cold kills people." And to think I was embarrassed to link to that greenie site!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1789389/posts

This article brings up a good point, in that there is a fine line between an ad hominum attack and using one's funding source as part of a sniff test for BS. Still, the fact remains that nearly every climate scientist who positions himself as a "critic" has been tied back to the big industries.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090511.wscience11/BNStory/politics/home

Outcry? What about the fact that they are in the positions to begin with? Doesn't that sort of undermine your claim that they are discriminated against?

http://mises.org/misesreview_detail.aspx?control=348

Oh, lordy, please not Horner. Again, while I can see the appeal in going after the political side of things, I'm going to again remind you that I am defending the models themselves and not human nature.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[tmosley]

Well, I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall, so I'm going to cut it off here, though I will ask you which you would find more desirable, a mile of ice covering Washington, or extending the grain belt north into Canada? I'll tell you about the selenium based drugs, though. You did not see anything about it on the internet a few years ago. None of the drug work was published due to interdepartmental politics--a certain drunkard professor torpedoed (who somehow became a world famous AIDS researcher) the project, and wouldn't allow any more work on the project using university resources, which set us back about three years--we're getting ready to start some testing again). Yes, there are actual drugs (like I said, I have them in the freezer), though they are now focusing on Pseudomonas and Staph (including MRSA). The technology utilizes phage display libraries to generate peptide sequences with strong binding constants to the targeted organism or virus, which then delivers a payload of covalently bound selenium, which proceeds to kill the target by catalyzing the production of reactive oxygen species without affecting nearby cells.

We've had to focus on the shorter timeline projects (things like materials like paints and plastics, and as you can see from the website, certain class two medical devices), which are finally starting to pay off. If all goes well, we will be able to fund the drug work ourselves.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

Well, I'm tired of arguing with a brick wall, so I'm going to cut it off here

A more mature attitude is to "agree to disagree".

I will ask you which you would find more desirable, a mile of ice covering Washington, or extending the grain belt north into Canada?

I'm not worried about the US. Rich countries will be able to deal with climate change, whether it is hotter or colder. Poor countries will suffer, with no ability to move their dense populations, and no excess food production to deal with desertification.

I don't think an ice age is imminent, either... I think we've prevented that. But an ice age comes on slowly and gives you a couple hundred or thousand years to move around. This warming trend is somewhat faster and could be more difficult to deal with.

Since you are done talking to me, I feel like I should mention that though I believe that man is responsible for warming the planet, I have come to the conclusion that it is pointless to try and stop it. Even if all the rich countries agree to stop emitting more and more CO2, the developing world will quickly burn all the (now cheap) oil, coal, and gas. Mankind will use all of the easy energy... there's just no way around it.

If all goes well, we will be able to fund the drug work ourselves.

I wish you luck...

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[GooberToo]

I'd say that your threshold for proof is too high. When every modern climate model shows human-produced CO2 to be responsible for warming the atmosphere, that satisfies me.

Then you have set the threshold far too low AND the entire point of my post went completely over your head.

When every model, which we know is be completely wrong/invalid/incorrect/inaccurate has been specifically created to show man is responsible for the excess CO2, that's called bad science. If you are convinced by the very definition of bad science, then we have nothing else to discuss. After all, good science, logic, and reason certainly is not going to shift your opinion. If it were, you would not have already been swayed by silly, bad science which in turn is entirely rooted on bad science. You'll believe anything which is spoon fed to you - so long as they have a lab coat on when they tell you.

Re:deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyYar]

When every model, which we know is be completely wrong/invalid/incorrect/inaccurate

This is what I dispute. The models are inaccurate, thus the error bars. That does not make them useless, any more than Newton's Laws are useless simply because they are inaccurate. You don't need perfect accuracy - a flawed model can still be useful.

You'll believe anything which is spoon fed to you - so long as they have a lab coat on when they tell you.

Certainly you'd agree that you have to defer to someone else who specializes and thus has more knowledge? Obviously you have to use some judgment, but climate scientists have a lot more credibility than any denier that I've seen. I've not seen one denier create a model or follow any sort of scientific process - all I've seen is potshots cast at existing work.

Not that this is useless. For instance, when the deniers attacked the original "hockey stick", a lot of their criticisms were incorporated back into the improved model. It didn't fundamentally change the graph, but it did improve the science. But the deniers still didn't do any science on their own - they are more like car reviewers or film critics than they are scientists.

Better call Dennis Quaid on Sunday...

[anjilslaire]

cuz it's the Day After Tomorrow

Re:Better call Dennis Quaid on Sunday...

[Shakrai]

Yeah, but today is two days before the day after tomorrow!

Re:Better call Dennis Quaid on Sunday...

[anjilslaire]

offtopic? Climate shifting? Ocean currents? Must be too early for some...

Darn it

[bugeaterr]

And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!

Re:Darn it

[Shakrai]

And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!

I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.

They also seem to fail miserably if you have the misfortune of living somewhere that lacks stable voltage. My old apartment had voltage issues because the next door neighbor ran electric kiln's for a glass business. I'd watch the voltage dip from 118V down to 105V and back up to 118V for hours on end when she ran those damn things. The CFL's just couldn't take it. Most of them crapped out within six months. Regular incandescents worked just fine (albeit with annoying changes in brightness when the voltage dipped), as did regular fluorescents.

Re:Darn it

[mikael]

Worked for a company that was right next to a private school with their own electrically heated swimming pool. Every morning around 11.00am, the fluorescent strips in our room would start blinking one by one then going out. After 12.30pm when the pool had been heated, all the lights would come back on.

Re:Darn it

[Timothy Brownawell]

And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!

Dim? The lower energy usage and heat output means I can put "100 Watt equivalent" bulbs in fixtures that are only supposed to have 60 Watt bulbs in them, that's quite a bit brighter. Plus they don't have that horrid long-wavelength tinge to them.

I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.

Most of he ones I have hit full brightness pretty much immediately. The ones that do take a while are "floodlight" shape and can go in enclosed spaces without getting fried, don't know whether they're just crappy or starting quickly isn't compatible with surviving that.

Re:Darn it

[Shakrai]

Wow, I wonder what kind of wattage you have to draw to heat a swimming pool? That's kind of impressive, albeit scary.

In my experience the regular old fluorescent setups handled it just fine. I am not an electrical engineer but my guess would be that you could build a better ballast when you aren't limited to the footprint of a CFL. Or perhaps the old mechanical ballasts are more resistant to voltage changes than the newer solid-state ones?

I actually preferred the non-CFL fluorescents because they wouldn't dim as noticeably as incandescents when the voltage dipped. I just wish the CFL's would have tolerated it better. I wasted a decent amount of money trying different brands and swapping them out before I gave up on it and replaced them all with incandescents.

Re:Darn it

[clickety6]

Try getting ones designed for dimmer switches. They should handle it better.

Re:Darn it

[Shakrai]

Or I could replace them with cheaper incandescents which don't come with the added bonus of needing to be driven back to the store to be properly disposed of and which can't poison me if they break.......

Re:Darn it

[Diss Champ]

They also add to issues with getting stable voltage. CFLs have nasty characteristics as loads- one engineer who works in power management told me that they basically cost the power company 5x the amount that they are labeled as. Most non-industrial customers have meters where they are charged for power as rated, but big industrial companies actually pay extra if they have non-unity power factors. It's not just power factors though with CFLs, they induce harmonics with traditional power factor correction doesn't fix for you.

Re:Darn it

[GargamelSpaceman]

Ok, aside from the mercury, anyone has got to admit that those things are awesome. They aren't dim at all if you're using a bright enough wattage, and if you percieve a dimness, then you can increase the wattage and still be paying less than you would to run an incandescent bulb. They say right on the package in dollars how much they save you compared with incandescent bulbs over their life. It's always about four times what you pay for the bulbs or more. They don't get as hot ( less fire hazard ) and they last on the order of years rather than months. They beat incandescent bulbs in any contest. The only thing incandescent bulbs can do that the corkscrew fluorescent kind can't do is run off a dimmer. That's why my house has exactly 4 incandescent bulbs in a cieling fan running off a dimmer. And I could give a damn about the environment. I only care about it when it doesn't decrease my standard of living to, which is practically not at all.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

Most CFLs instantly turn on to about 70% of the rated brightness and take a couple of minutes to reach 100%. However, since they use less than a quarter of the electricity and produce much less heat, you can use a CFL which is rated as 50% brighter than the incandescent it replaces. That results in instant 1.5*0.7=105% brightness and 150% brightness after a couple of minutes, while still using less than a third of the electricity.

Also, get your electrical installation fixed.

Re:Darn it

[h4rr4r]

Buy better ones you shortsighted cheapskate.
The amount of mercury in the cfl is less than the amount a coal burning plant would put out due to the extra electrical draw an incandescent bulb would take.

If you eat canned tuna you should not even be thinking about the tiny amount of mercury in a cfl.

Oh and they will save you a ton on your power bills.

Re:Darn it

[commodore64_love]

>>>They don't even manage to reach full brightness

Agreed. Those are the "instant on" kind, which start dim and then gradually warm-up. I've reached the conclusion that the best fluorescent light is the "flickering" kind that takes 1 second to turn-on, but its at full brightness. IMHO that's a better bulb.

Re:Darn it

[commodore64_love]

>>>a better ballast [wikipedia.org] when you aren't limited to the footprint of a CFL.

I have older CFLs and they take 1 second to turn-on, but they are immediately at full brightness. So I don't think the issue is the small footprint size, but philosophy. For some dumb reason CFL manufacturers think "instant on" is better, even if the initial brightness is dim, and so that's what you find in stores.

I disagree with current CFL philosophy. I'd rather wait 1 second to reach full brightness (the old style), then 3 minutes.

Re:Darn it

[GargamelSpaceman]

Maybe they could just leave their lights on all the time and still save money. CFLs are quite a bit more efficient than incandescents.

Re:Darn it

[commodore64_love]

The 25 watt CFL you are discussing actually uses 50 watts total power. 25 watts at the bulb, and another 25 at the power company as they try to balance the reactive load. So if you're replacing a 60 watt old-style bulb with a CFL that uses 50 total watts, then you're not really saving much, are you?

I'd rather replace the 60 regular bulb with one of GE's new "ultra-efficient" incandescents that only uses 30 watts but still provides the same brightness. I think that's where the future lies, not dirty mercury-filled CFLs.

Plus:

Lighting doesn't really use that much power overall. When you compare a 60-watt bulb or 60-watt TV versus a 10,000-watt A/C or heat pump, the savings of switching bulbs are trivial. If you *really* want to help the environment, turn off your heat and wear extra layers of clothing. -or- Heat just one room at a time instead of the whole house. That's how you make a major change to help reduce greenhouse gas.

Re:Darn it

[commodore64_love]

I just toss my burnt-out fluoresents in the backyard. Fuck the EPA, after all, mercury is a naturally-occurring element. It was here before we arrived, and it will still be here after we're extinct. In fact the planet was pretty darn dirty before we cleaned it up, Where I'm living now used to be a lake of oil prior to 1800 - it was only the discovery that it could be refined into fuel that made it disappear.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

they basically cost the power company 5x the amount that they are labeled as.

That is bullshit. What you are alluding to is the difference between "real power" and "apparent power" (in case you want to look it up). Only the real power needs to be actually produced. The apparent power is important for sizing the components of the electrical grid and generators, but only minimally influences the amount of primary energy consumed for electricity generation.

BTW, dimmer switches have much the same "bad" power draw characteristics as switching power supplies and electronic ballasts, so unless you only use incandescents at full brightness, complaining about the power factor (look it up) of CFLs is hypocritical.

Re:Darn it

[Altus]

It seems like it would be less costly to keep it warm rather than letting it cool down and heating it back up everyday.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

The 25 watt CFL you are discussing actually uses 50 watts total power. 25 watts at the bulb, and another 25 at the power company

That is plain wrong.

one of GE's new "ultra-efficient" incandescents that only uses 30 watts but still provides the same brightness

That is either a very bold marketing lie or a misrepresentation of the marketing claims. Incandescent lights are almost perfect black body radiators, which means that the only way to get more light per watt is to make the filament hotter. That's why halogen bulbs are brighter (per watt) than regular incandescents. A side effect of making the filament hotter is increased UV radiation and a different (more blueish) light color. There are physical limits to the efficiency of incandescent lighting.

Re:Darn it

[mikael]

A single large electric pool heater consumes around 30kW for a pool size 16x32, but requires three phase power. For larger pools and reliability, it might be practical to have several of these. That could make the swimming pool rival a chip fabrication plant in energy consumption.

I could imagine the school just used four or five single phase heaters.

Electric pool heaters

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate them too. I bought halogen light bulbs a few years ago and they are still going strong, giving off more lumens and a better color spectrum that's closer to daylight than standard incandescent.

Fluorescent lights have been around for decades, but no one really wanted them for home use since they give off an ugly color spectrum. We sit under fluorescent lights in our offices all day, who wants to sit under them at home too.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

And I already replaced all my light bulbs with those dim, mercury-filled corkscrew kind!

If they are too dim, then get more watts. I don't use anything below 15W and most of my CFLs are 18-20W. You can also use more light sources (recommended). You still save a lot of electricity compared to light bulbs.

I can't be the only one that hates those damn things. They are useful in areas where the lights are left on for extended periods but I find them to be highly annoying in areas that I walk into and out of quickly. They don't even manage to reach full brightness before I've accomplished what I came into the room to do.

You are too cheap, go buy better ones. This was a problem 15-20 years ago, it's not a problem today if you buy good CFLs. In cold temperatures you have to use clustered LEDs or halogene lights.

They also seem to fail miserably if you have the misfortune of living somewhere that lacks stable voltage. My old apartment had voltage issues because the next door neighbor ran electric kiln's for a glass business. I'd watch the voltage dip from 118V down to 105V and back up to 118V for hours on end when she ran those damn things. The CFL's just couldn't take it. Most of them crapped out within six months. Regular incandescents worked just fine (albeit with annoying changes in brightness when the voltage dipped), as did regular fluorescents.

My experience is the opposite. I had to replace all my ordinary light bulbs with CLFs because in my current appartment they don't last more then 2 weeks. I haven't changed a CFL in 12 years, thats how long I lived in this appartment. This appartment have killed 4 new computers in this period... and no I haven't found any surge protection that works.

I live in Sweden and we propably have a slightly different supply of CFL than USA. But I belive GE Biax, GE Mini Eco and Sylviana Mini-lynx are available worldwide and they are good ones if you use just one light source. Philips also have some good ones, as well as really bad ones, but I don't recall what they are called.

I prefer to mix light using 2-3 CLFs with different light temperature. That gives you a more natural light quality (I'm a painter), way better then old fashion light bulbs or halogene lights and they don't make your studio into a sauna like traditional studio lights. But thats a bit complicated and requires a bit of experimentation in each room.

I've used CLFs since the 80's when they costed 2-3000 SEK (my first one lasted 20+ years) and both price and quality have improved significantly during that period, but you still have too avoid cheap ones. As a Swede I'm ashamed to say that IKEAs CLFs really sucks.

Re:Darn it

[wgaryhas]

Heat just one room at a time instead of the whole house. That's how you make a major change to help reduce greenhouse gas.

I tried that, had the heater turned off at all times except a space heater in the bedroom at bedtime. It ended up being more costly and less efficient than heating the whole house and keeping it heated.

My theory is that the insulation makes it pretty cheap to maintain the temperature, but the space heater has to work constantly to counteract the heat lost to neighboring rooms. The other possibility is that natural gas (whole house) is really cheap around here and electricity (single room) isn't.

Re:Darn it

[digsbo]

Am I the only person in the world who's more concerned about the 4,000 gallons of water that can be poisoned by a CFL in a landfill than I am about a possible slight improvement in carbon output?

Re:Darn it

[WindBourne]

Do not put them everywhere. They really were not meant for it. 5 years ago, I moved many of my lights to CFL, but not all. The closet lights, the one in the crawl space are incandescent. Likewise, the ones over the mirrors are incandescents. I am using a single 40 W LED (only uses 2 watt of power) on the outside, as well as 3 LED hockey pucks to light a desk/hallway area. Finally, ALL of my Xmas lights are LED except for one in blow-up penguin as well as on a wreath that plugs into an X10 plug outside (need something to pull the power down, otherwise, I noticed that the LEDs are lit). Finally, I have incandescents in the fans and the garage door opener. In both cases, the motion will harm the lights.

Basically, use what is appropriate.

Re:Darn it

[sFurbo]

No, that was a slashdot article a while back. And the points were thoroughly debunked, mostly by the fact that most household appliances are inductive loads, so the CFL's capacitive load actually makes the situation a bit better for the elctric company.

Re:Darn it

[Diss Champ]

As I said, it's not just power factor, it's the harmonics, which are not fixed by compensating passively. Tacking on an inductor (or capacitor) to adjust PF doesn't fix the harmonics issue, and neither does using an appliance that tends to shift the power factor the other way.

That's not to say there are no ways it can be fixed. It's theoretically possible to put a converter in each bulb that deals with this. Just that it isn't, to my knowledge, available en masse. So if you buy a CFL now, you're not saving energy to the degree claimed.

Re:Darn it

[MaWeiTao]

Every bulb in my house, excluding the 3 on a dimmer is a CFL. I've got no problem with them whatsoever.

What I do have a problem with is the fact that despite all my efforts to be economical my electricity bill is still absurdly high. I've got a friend in another state who is about as careless as anyone can be with their usage and they're paying half what I pay.

I shudder to think how bad things are going to get if things like cap and trade get implemented. And I assume things will only get worse as people start driving electric vehicles. The big irony, of course, is that the electricity in my area is generated with petroleum.

I'm looking to replace my electric water heater with a natural gas one. I can't help but wonder which one is more environmentally friendly, but certainly the gas one is far cheaper to operate.

Re:Darn it

[0xABADC0DA]

Most of he ones I have hit full brightness pretty much immediately.

1) How much did you pay for them
2) Where did you buy them
3) What does "pretty much" immediately mean

People always say 'oh my CFLs start instantly and were dirt cheap and lasted forever'. Then it turns out instantly is a minute, dirt cheap is $10 a bulb, and 'forever' is at 10 minutes a day.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you buy a CFL now, you're not saving energy to the degree claimed.

Yes, you are. The shape of the current has very (!) little to do with energy consumption.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm looking to replace my electric water heater with a natural gas one. I can't help but wonder which one is more environmentally friendly

The natural gas water heater is much more environmentally friendly, especially in an area where electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels.

If we could abandon all fossil fuels in electricity production, that would change. In the meantime, even transmission losses from delivering electricity far away from a power plant are less than the conversion losses in the fuel-heat-electricity-heat chain, so it's better to sell the power than to waste it on heating and use fossil fuels directly instead.

(Natural gas in particular has a low impact on the environment, because it's mostly methane: CH4. Like all hydrocarbon fuels it burns to CO2 and H2O, but it has the best ratio of hydrogen to carbon atoms, so burning methane creates relatively little CO2.)

Re:Darn it

[atraintocry]

I guess one man's comforting warm color temperature is another's horrid long-wavelength tinge. Or something like that. Not that I don't buy CFLs.

Re:Darn it

[jbengt]

The 25 watt CFL you are discussing actually uses 50 watts total power. 25 watts at the bulb, and another 25 at the power company as they try to balance the reactive load.

You are conflating Watts and Volt-Amps.
There are some increased costs in sizing wires and equipment for the harmonics and poor power factors of cheap CFLs, but it even if those issues double the transmission losses from 10% to 20% (which would be an exaggeration), that would only mean something like a 60 watt equivalent uses 17 watts instead of 14 watts, and it ignores the transmission losses of the 60 watt incandescent.

Re:Darn it

[Graff]

It seems like it would be less costly to keep it warm rather than letting it cool down and heating it back up everyday.

Not at all true. Remember that a body radiates heat in proportion to the difference between the hot and the cold areas. A hot body will lose heat quicker than a cold body so you will use a more energy per unit of time that the pool is warm as opposed to when it is cool.

Look at it this way, a warm pool is losing a certain amount of energy per second. As the pool cools it loses less energy per second. Once the pool is at ambient temperature it is no longer losing energy. To re-heat it you add in energy equal to what was lost in the first place. The end result is at worst you lost the same amount of energy that the pool contains when it is warm, but at best you save energy during the time the pool is at ambient temperature.

To sum this up: You only lose energy when the pool is warm, when it is cool it doesn't lose energy any more. When the pool is not in use let it cool down and you save energy.

Another factor is a warmer pool grows algae and bacteria faster and loses water and chemicals faster. By cooling the pool you save money on water and chemicals. You can also shut down the circulating pumps and save energy from that.

Re:Darn it

[Timothy Brownawell]

1) How much did you pay for them

I think about $10 or so. Maybe more like $7-$8.

2) Where did you buy them

Some at the Walgreens across the street, and I think some at Wal-Mart.

3) What does "pretty much" immediately mean

It means I was at work, where I didn't have one handy. Now that I'm home, I'd say it's less than a tenth of a second, barely long enough that I think I can see it brightening up. About the same as lower-wattage incandescent lights that also seem to be not-quite-instantaneous.

People always say 'oh my CFLs start instantly and were dirt cheap and lasted forever'. Then it turns out instantly is a minute, dirt cheap is $10 a bulb, and 'forever' is at 10 minutes a day.

Electricity costs about $1/watt-year. So for ~40 Watt savings (60 Watt incandescent vs 23 Watt "100 Watt replacement" CFL) and used maybe 6 hours/day (and more on weekends), they should pay for themselves in a year or so besides being brighter and a nicer color. And none of them have burned out yet, but we've only lived here two years and only bought the CFLs as space for them became available.

Re:Darn it

[Anonymous Coward]

I've never seen a CFL reach full brightness in less than a minute. It's annoying as fuck. If you don't notice it you're either blind or a moron.

Re:Darn it

[GlenRaphael]

Yes, dim.

CFLs are dim. A "100 watt equivalent" bulbs appear a lot dimmer than a 100 watt bulb. Even if they seemed as bright as that when fully warmed up right after you buy them, they'd still be much dimmer when they first turn on because they take a while to warm up and they'd still get much dimmer over time with use, so in order for the average apparent brightness to be that of a 100 watt bulb they'd have to be much *more* than that initially. Wikipedia says:

CFLs produce less light later in their life than they do at the start. The light output depreciation is exponential, with the fastest losses being soon after the lamp was first used. By the end of their lives, CFLs can be expected to produce 70-80% of their original light output.

I'd be fine with using CFLs if I could find one that was equivalent to a regular bulb of 150 watts or better. So far, no dice.

Actually in googling about this I just discovered what might be a big clue as to the difference between CFL-likers and CFL dislikers: I like traditional desk lamps. Consider a lamp with a vertical base, a bulb screwed into the top of the base, and a roughly conical shade around the bulb area. If you put a standard bulb in such a lamp, it creates an especially bright spot right under the lamp, because the brightest part of the bulb is wider than the base. If you put a standard CFL bulb in a similarly-designed lamp it might cast as much light into room generally but makes much less light in the area right under the lamp. Because the geometry of the bulb is different, you need a differently-designed lamp if you want to create the same effect. That had not occurred to me - that my old light fixtures were optimized to produce the best effect using the old-style bulb, so to get a similarly optimized experience I might need to throw out all my old light fixtures and replace them with new ones designed around the new bulb shapes.

Warning: NSFW!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish you had warned about that masthead.

Got into lots of trouble with my boss who just happens to be a jellyfish.

Don't tell me, let me guess...

[kclittle]

... we're all gonna die, right?

Re:Don't tell me, let me guess...

[quangdog]

Nope. The Obama administration will save us all by passing some legislation to regulate the currents back to the way they are supposed to work.

We'll be fine.

Re:Don't tell me, let me guess...

[cptnapalm]

I'm personally hoping that Congress repeals the laws of physics.

Re:Don't tell me, let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

100,000 union workers with paddles.

With a fleet of lawyers to monitor from the ocean floor.

Re:Don't tell me, let me guess...

[BlackSnake112]

Yes. Barring someone finding the fountain of youth or the golden apple that makes one immortal. We are all going to die, one day.

Re:Don't tell me, let me guess...

[Joey Vegetables]

It's already tried to repeal the laws of economics; hard to see how this would be any different.

that won't stop old Al

[Gothmolly]

Clearly this is a product of Western materialism. However, Al Gore will stop at nothing to demonstrate our danger:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/al_gore_caught_warming_globe_to

Re:that won't stop old Al

[Shakrai]

Manbearpig

No, No, now it's worse!!!!

[crypTeX]

Despite the fact that we didn't have accurate data about the pattern of ocean currents earlier, we can now welcome panicked decrees that we are changing the pattern of ocean currents!

Re:No, No, now it's worse!!!!

[maxwell demon]

Don't worry. It won't affect us before the CERN black holes have eaten the planet. :-)

more study required

[naeone]

more study required and then to re run those disaster scenarios the day after the week tomorrow

"long accepted"

[Anonymous Coward]

Something that everyone should keep in mind with nearly any theory regarding earth science -- "long accepted" doesn't go back very far. Most "modern" geologic (and oceanographic) theories only go back 40 or 50 years. When compared to the other major scientific fields, that's not very long at all. Hell, we've understood nuclear fusion and fission longer than we've understood the basic mechanics of the Earth.

Re:"long accepted"

[pj2541]

"... understood the basic mechanics of the Earth."

?

The whole point of this article is that we don't yet understand the basic mechanics of the Earth.

Re:"long accepted"

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: "...longer than we think we've understood the basic mechanics of the Earth."

Re:"long accepted"

[jhw539]

An increase in global temperatures if atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased was predicted over a century ago. The big question in climate change is why we haven't seen much warming - what are the buffer mechanisms.

Re:"long accepted"

[rickb928]

BTW, the point of TFA is that we pretty much *don't* understand some important parts of the basic mechanics of the Earth. So we can go back 3 squares in understanding deep ocean currents.

Nice. We're pretty sure we're ruining the planet, but we're really not sure what's happening now, so let's predict the future based on not knowing the present. Works for me. Not.

Re:"long accepted"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm... I hate to burst you bubble... but it would appear that we still don't understand the "basic mechanics of the Earth."

But Al Gore says

[Dunbal]

and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change

      But I thought the discussion was over, and there was no argument against climate change. All scientists agree on global warming. End of story.

      Of course really smart people will see all of these shenanigans as a way for the politicians to prepare the world for "carbon taxes", "carbon rationing" etc. Not being satisfied with a fair percentage of our incomes AND a chunk of every single transaction (sales/VAT, etc), the governments need to screw even MORE money out of the people. Carbon taxes are where the future is at. What better mantra to get the sheep braying than "OR THE WORLD WILL END".

      The amount of CO2 in the world is fixed. There is not more C02 in the world than there was several billion years ago. The oil came from somewhere, idiots. God didn't magically place it underground. It was once in the atmosphere. So it goes back into the atmosphere - big deal. Some species will die. Others will benefit. END OF STORY.

Re:But Al Gore says

[rhakka]

"some species will die".

yes, that's kind of the problem, isn't it? Since the oil predates human existence, who's to say the world that results from the release of all of that sequestered carbon leaves us a world in which WE will survive? We have never survived a world in which all that carbon was in the atmosphere before.

I'm not really a big worrier about climate change... other environmental issues bother me a lot more... but your argument is a bit weak.

Re:But Al Gore says

[Anonymous Coward]

There is such a thing as stable states. By your logic, uranium underground, uranium in atmosphere, no difference, right?

Re:But Al Gore says

[Timothy Brownawell]

The amount of CO2 in the world is fixed. There is not more C02 in the world than there was several billion years ago.

No, the amount of carbon is fixed (ignoring unnoticeably small effects like gasses lost to space, and nuclear decay, and the like). If I burn a pencil, that carbon goes from graphite and organic material to CO2, and the amount of CO2 actually increases a tiny bit. Carbon can also be found in various kinds of rock, such as limestone... I think the carbon in limestone is actually carbon that used to be in CO2 in the atmosphere, since it's sedimentary rock.

Re:But Al Gore says

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course the observant people will see that what the politicians says needs done very rarely matches what they're told by climatologists.

The amount of CO2 in the world is fixed. There is not more C02 in the world than there was several billion years ago. The oil came from somewhere, idiots.

Oh dear, I'm sorry but this made me lol. The amount of carbon and oxygen atoms has remained relatively constant of course, but the whole point is that when they are components of long chain hydrocarbons, they are not carbon dioxide molecules!

It was once in the atmosphere. So it goes back into the atmosphere - big deal. Some species will die. Others will benefit. END OF STORY.

And given our dependence on so many species of animal and plant, some think that its in our best interests to minimise such extinctions. And also, more specifically, we are trying to reduce the number of human deaths that occur, as we'd prefer to reduce our population in a controlled manner, rather than through famine and drought. You actually have a problem with that? Yeesh.

Re:But Al Gore says

[Splab]

It's kind of poetic how stupid you come off trying to dis on the global warming people.

1. Pretty much everyone agrees that the term global warming is bad, since what is happening is global climate change, which is very real and a very big problem.
2. The amount of CO2 is not fixed as you claim, CO2 is a by product of chemical reactions. There are also reactions going the other way, but unfortunately we are producing way more CO2 than is being consumed, this is a problem.
3. While you are correct that the world will probably survive just fine as a whole, some of us are rather concerned about the amount of climate refuges we are going to see and in time the wars that will most likely follow.

Re:But Al Gore says

[maxwell demon]

Some species will die. Others will benefit. END OF STORY.

The only question is in what group our species will be found.

Re:But Al Gore says

[cptnapalm]

I'm with you on the substance of what you say.

But even really smart people can be amazingly stupid, at least from time to time. It doesn't mean that they are stupid all the time, just that they are, well, people.

Case in point, I had this professor of ethics who was an incredibly bright guy. When in high school, one of his experiments went on the space shuttle. Attended Harvard, got his PhD at Brown. He had a phenomenal memory and a great broad understanding of his field.

He also was fired because he was living in his office, since he spent all his money on heroin. Actually, he didn't make enough money to support his habit, so he robbed houses. Pretty stupid.

Re:But Al Gore says

[maxwell demon]

3. While you are correct that the world will probably survive just fine as a whole, some of us are rather concerned about the amount of climate refuges we are going to see and in time the wars that will most likely follow.

Good point. Part of what killed the Roman empire was a slight climate change (the world getting colder), causing more people going southwards, where the Roman empire was "in the way".

Re:But Al Gore says

[GargamelSpaceman]

People are quite cockroachlike, though not quite cockroaches ourselves. We will survive as a species in some sort of existence if any animals of 30+ pounds survive.

Re:But Al Gore says

[MozeeToby]

Dude, we survive everywhere. There is no other species on the planet that comes close to being as adaptable as human beings. We live in the tropics and the arctic and everywhere in between. We can take food out of oceans, out of swamps, out of the forests, and out of plains. We can grow food in the desert if we're forced to. For crying out loud, we can survive limited amounts of time in the vacuum of space.

The idea that the climate is going to change so fast and so drastically that it is going to risk human civilization is just ridiculous. We might have problems that are worth working to avoid, but human extinction isn't one of them. We'll dome over our cities and grow food in skyscrapers before we die off from global warming.

Re:But Al Gore says

[ArcherB]

I live in Texas. It's 105 degrees in the shade. If it gets one degree hotter, I'm gonna kick your ass!

(with all due respect to Mike Judge)

Re:But Al Gore says

[Gat0r30y]

People are quite cockroachlike, though not quite cockroaches ourselves. We will survive as a species in some sort of existence if any animals of 30+ pounds survive.

[citation needed]. I'm going to have to disagree here. We may make it for 1000 more years, hell perhaps longer. Ultimately however, the bacteria still own this planet and they are going to do just fine regardless of what stupid shenanigans we are up to in the meantime.

Re:But Al Gore says

[starrsoft]

It's kind of poetic how stupid you come off trying to dis on the global warming people.

1. Pretty much everyone agrees that the term global warming is bad, since what is happening is global climate change, which is very real and a very big problem.

I appreciate how you raised the level of dialogue with a carefully reasoned, logical argument backed up with facts. /sarcasm

Re:But Al Gore says

[GargamelSpaceman]

No citation needed. It was a statement of my own opinion.

Re:But Al Gore says

[rhakka]

Have you ever seen a domed city?

Even one?

Biosphere is the closest we have ever come. But sure, if you are willing to gamble that as yet completely unproven technology will just save us all... which is just a variant of the "Aw shucks, sumbuddy'll figger it out" argument... I can see why you aren't at all concerned. Because you have a wildly optimistic faith in human foresight and technology.

Regardless: it's not really about human extinction. That's a pretty drastic event. Of course, killing 5/6 of our population (arbitrary number to illustrate a point) would be PRETTY FUCKING BAD, even if it weren't really "extinction". So perhaps we dial back the casual attitude that if it's not extinction, it's not bad?

I have no idea if climate change will even be a net negative or positive, really. But I don't pretend that it's definitely "all gonna be ok" either. it's a pretty damn big experiment really, and a lot of people would rather not play. Unfortunately, it's kind of an all or nothing thing. So the question is who do you listen to? the ones who would rather not guess, or those who are sure we'll "figure it out"?

Re:But Al Gore says

[Burnhard]

1. Pretty much everyone agrees that the term global warming is bad, since what is happening is global climate change, which is very real and a very big problem. 2. The amount of CO2 is not fixed as you claim, CO2 is a by product of chemical reactions. There are also reactions going the other way, but unfortunately we are producing way more CO2 than is being consumed, this is a problem. 3. While you are correct that the world will probably survive just fine as a whole, some of us are rather concerned about the amount of climate refuges we are going to see and in time the wars that will most likely follow.

Honestly, pretty much anyone who knows about the subject and does not have an interest in the political implications is uncommitted on the Science. The more distant people are from the funding cycle, the more sceptical they are.

On point 2, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been shrinking over geological time to what was an all-time low. It used to be thousands of parts per million. CO2 is an essential plant fertiliser and there is evidence the biosphere is becomming MORE green because of the recent upswing. Does that "concern" you in any way? I should hope not.

On your third point, wars because it's 1 degree warmer? Are you SERIOUS?

Re:But Al Gore says

[metaforest]

I think the carbon in limestone is actually carbon that used to be in CO2 in the atmosphere, since it's sedimentary rock.

That is a point I was exposed to almost 20 years ago. Between 3.5Bn and 2Bn years ago most of the oldest marble and limestone deposits were laid. These deposits are in a phrase, unfathomably huge.

It is believed that one of the first organisms that really took off as a runaway best-seller was a carboniferous blue-green algae that consumed CO2 and metal salts dissolved in the ocean for building blocks and converted IR radiation for energy. It is likely that the Sun wasn't visible much back then, so broadband solar radiation wasn't a direct source of light for the organism. Additionally the organism didn't have much use for oxygen so it's primary waste product was O2.

This little algae would shed it's calcium carbonate armor prior to cell-division thus binding up a small grain of Calcium Carbonate which fell to the ocean floor. There weren't any significant predators back then, and this process continued unabated for close to a billion years. During that time the ocean was gradually depleted of calcium (and other metal ions) and CO2. The CO2 was absorbed from the air. Metal ions were replenished by erosive processes on primordial land.

Eventually the massive populations of this algae died off, and there is evidence that a combination of two factors colluded to cause this first mass extinction:

1. Low CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
2. The first Ice Age caused by a lack of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere.

After a billion years or more of single handedly precipitating CO2 out of the ecosystem these single-celled organisms started dying off due to a lack of CO2. This set the stage for the first round of organisms that aspirated O2, ate blue-green algae. Interestingly a lot of that original calcium carbonate is still around, and will likely never be available to the carbon cycle again.

As for later carbon deposits.... oil, shale, coal.... It's likely that these deposits were created rather suddenly in some cases since they appear without intervening layers of sediment.... in other cases it's clear that there were long standing geological processes that were concentrating detritus (dead organic material) for many millions of years.... before they were capped with inorganic sediments. The geological record is riddled with evidence of sudden and often catastrophic GCC... Our 2 Million year slice of the record has been relatively calm.... and the last 100K years has been a relative cakewalk. ...

While I see concern for Global Climate Change in our economic future I have to say that I have no fear that it will extinguish life on this planet, or in any reasonable time frame extinguish humans.... the real question is what levels of loss will we suffer if we destabilize the environment to the degree that GCC advocates predict? And further: At what point in time will this Scythe of Doom have swing so far away from center that we will be unable to mitigate the return swing, or it's presumably devastating consequences?

None of the deniers, cranks, or scientists have any answers, or any solutions to these problems... and the political processes in the counties that contribute most to atmospheric CO2 are clearly not on a course to address the issue any time soon.

Either we will alter our consumption of organic fuels to reduce the supposed impact of increasing CO2 concentrations in the ecosystem, and forestal a renaissance of large, marginally warm-blooded reptiles two million years from now.... or we won't...

I replaced all my IBs with these gawd damned CFLs and turned off my winter heat.... don't use AC, and I am heading towards even more conservation.... *shrug....

Ultimately I believe we are no better off than the ill-fated blue-green algae that destroyed it's ecosystem ~2.5Bn years ago...

The current political climate might change.... it might not.... either way there will be dire consequences for many and a few well-positioned monkeys will get fantastically wealthy exploiting the rest....

The wheel turns,
Civilizations Rise.
The wheel turns,
Civilizations fall.
The wheel turns.

Re:But Al Gore says

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not real.

It would be a HUGE wonderful thing if it was real.

It is NOT be a problem at all.

The results of a massive volcano blast or a meteor strike would be to cool the planet greatly, as well as a renewed ice age glaciation.

ALL THREE OF THESE WE KNOW WILL HAPPEN SOON on a geological time span, and the first two are both very likely to happen in the next 50 to 100 years.

WHERE AS, THE GLOBAL WARMING SCARE PREDICTIONS CAUSE ONLY MODERATE WARMING COMPARED TO THE AMOUNT OF COOLING THESE COULD CAUSE EVEN IF THE EXAGGERATED WORST CASE SCENARIOS ARE PRESENTED.

Thus, even the WORST Gobal Worming and Primate Strange will not counter act these climate KILLERS !!!

Not sure if it is that big of a deal.

[vertinox]

TFA says there is a cold water current that exists, but it just happens to flow differently than previously thought.

FTFA:

"This new path is not constrained by the continental shelf. It's more diffuse," said Bower. "It's a swath in the wide-open, turbulent interior of the North Atlantic and much more difficult to access and study."

Oh no

[Anonymous Coward]

Grumpy comments from the "right to bear coal-fired-power stations" gang will be arriving in three, two, one ...

Chuck Norris of climate change

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what the research shows, Al Gore IS the Chuck Norris of climate change. If Al Gore says its warming then mis-understood ocean currents and insufficient data points be damned, its warming.

"The entire North Polar ice cap....

[Anonymous Coward]

...may well be completely gone in 5 years."

- Al Gore, December 2008

Re:"The entire North Polar ice cap....

[denzacar]

I guess that there really is no point in pointing out that "may well be" part of the sentence, but some actual data MAY BE useful.

what a suprise

[wjh31]

who would have ever guessed that we would have trouble forming an accurate model of a vast, complex, chaotic system

Re:what a suprise

[Zordak]

Apparently not the entire scientific community, which I was told all unanimously agreed that our models are infallible because they were blessed by His Holiness Al Gore.

Re:what a suprise

[DeVilla]

Perhaps all of the people would have been told that the world economies must all fall on their own swords because we have reliable models that tell us the world it going to become unlivably hot.

We hear all about Global Warming and when one asks about Global Warming in the face of the recent cooling trend and your informed that "it's been called `Global Climate Change' for some time now, Neanderthal!" We've been promised all sorts of catastrophes based on these models. Are they reliable or not?

Given the well understood negative impact of the proposed fixes to the world, do we really understand the problem we want to fix and the effect the proposed fix will have? That's not an unreasonable thing to ask considering how unquestionable this evidence has been up until now.

Re:what a suprise

[techno-vampire]

We hear all about Global Warming and when one asks about Global Warming in the face of the recent cooling trend and your informed that "it's been called `Global Climate Change' for some time now, Neanderthal!"

It's the first rule of junk science: "If the facts don't support your position, change the name of your theory and hope that nobody will notice."

Alas, the Rocky and Bullwinklke maxim says otherwise: "But that trick never works!"

Re:what a suprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask the economists that.

Not wrong, just wrong place...

[bl968]

Doesn't mean it's totally wrong, just that they are looking in the wrong place...

Using field observations and computer models, the study shows that much of the southward flow of cold water from the Labrador Sea moves not along the deep western boundary current, but along a previously unknown path in the interior of the North Atlantic.

Re:Not wrong, just wrong place...

[SnarfQuest]

The payroll program isn't totally wrong when it calculates that you owe 5X more taxes than you get paid, it's just a slight miscalculation. you wouldn't want to discredit the program for something this minor. Just leave a check to cover the taxes at the front desk every week.

Algore and friends are using flawed models like this to increase the costs of living. Higher taxes, more expensive goods and services. While he is using 50x the normal power for ONE of his own houses. It's "do as I say, not as I do".

The "science" always turns up flawed. Until they can come up with a model of the planet that can predict the current/past history, how do they expect to predict future events? How are you supposed to fix something when you don't even begin to understand, and aren't even sure it's happening? Are you sure what you're doing isn't having the opposite effect on the environment from what you want?

Re:Not wrong, just wrong place...

[bl968]

First off you discredited yourself by bringing up "Al Gore and friends". You showed your colors right off the shot. You should learn that politics and science never shall mix.

The science is not saying the current doesn't exist, just that it's not where they are currently looking for it. The law of thermodynamics makes clear that when you add heat into a system the system must change to accommodate it.

The current is a predicted effect of increased global warming causing the polar icecaps to melt. The worry is that with increased cold water entering the oceans that the flow of the current will cease. Nothing in here precludes that no matter where the current is. You have not discredited global warming at all.

I will be the first person to point out don't yet fully understand what the possible repercussions of this increased heat in our atmosphere.

Re:Not wrong, just wrong place...

[daveime]

You should learn that politics and science never shall mix.

It's just a shame all the politicians missed that lecture.

Re:Not wrong, just wrong place...

[techno-vampire]

The current is a predicted effect of increased global warming causing the polar icecaps to melt.

Funny, I've never seen any predictions of this in the past. If there are any, I'd like to see a citation, otherwise, it's just changing your story after the fact.

I love science

[SoupGuru]

Damnit, I love science!

This is how it's supposed to work.

Doesn't contradict global warming

[drinkypoo]

These results don't say that global warming is occurring. In fact, they neither support nor oppose the idea at all. The Woods Hole press release is fairly neutral:

And since this cold southward-flowing water is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters.

"May impact the work of global warming forecasters" is true; it might also influence the thinking of UFO chasers but that won't help determine whether they're piloted by little green men. This research will complicate models designed to model the specific effects of global warming. Given how much is unknown yet, and how much has yet to be determined by human activities (to the extent that we choose to mitigate or fail to mitigate our impact on the biosphere) those models are already only potentially correct by marvelous coincidence anyway.

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[hey!]

it might also influence the thinking of UFO chasers but that won't help determine whether they're piloted by little green men.

Well, the little green men are probably here because they use the cold, nutrient rich waters of the Western Current to irrigate the symbiotic culture of blue-green algae that colors their skin and from which their bloodstream harvests ATP molecules.

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[techno-vampire]

These results don't say that global warming is occurring. In fact, they neither support nor oppose the idea at all.

As the submitter of the story, I'd like to congratulate you. Not only did you RTFM, you understood it. Alas, AFAICT, nobody's mentioned what I consider the most important fact: the cold water is descending into the Abyss, and taking with it large quantities of CO2. This is sequestering it just as if it were taken up by old-growth forests, harvested, and the wood dumped down old coal mines. This acts as a moderating factor, taking up at least some of the CO2 we're spewing into the atmosphere, but nobody on Slashdot seems to have noticed.

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[ardle]

Sequestering it in what? Photosynthesis can't happen without light.

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[techno-vampire]

Sequestering it in cold water, miles below the surface.

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[atraintocry]

It must though! 99% of the Slashdot comments have to do with agreeing or disagreeing with global warming science!

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[Tenebrousedge]

That will help us right up until the time that the oceans turn anoxic, I think.

Re:Doesn't contradict global warming

[drinkypoo]

It really does't work that way. Gas exchange will normalize the oceans over time, and it will happen faster than the CO2 can be fixed out into exposed subaquatic limestone (allegedly where the bulk of CO2 in the ocean that doesn't come out at the top via gas exchange goes.)

Um, not quite.

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAPO (physical oceanographer).

The quoted blog is being a little over-excited about this. There's nothing in WHOI's press release that suggests that this brings the thermohaline circulation tumbling down, and certainly nothing to play "havoc" with climate models. Quoth the press release:

And since this cold southward-flowing water is thought to influence and perhaps moderate human-caused climate change, this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters.

"This finding means it is going to be more difficult to measure climate signals in the deep ocean," Lozier said. "We thought we could just measure them in the Deep Western Boundary Current, but we really can't."

In other words, the circulation is there, but it's more diffuse that expected, and so you can measure it by looking at a well-defined path along the continental shelf as expected. That requires some revamping of theory, and will make circulation model validation and data assimilation more difficult, but that's all.

The DWBC has an interesting scientific history -- it's one of the few ocean phenomena predicted by theory before it was observed, in part because its depth and slowness prevented observation.

But, hey, never mind, Al Gore, manbearpig, lalala I can't hear you.

ocean bug report?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me, or does the title sound like a bug report indicating that the oceans to not behave properly?

Can not reproduce. Will not fix.

Re:ocean bug report?

[NatasRevol]

We're working on fixing it!

Most things don't work like we expect

[UseCase]

We (mankind) are currently lacking in the capability to accurately quantify many natural phenomena. We may not ever, given our nature and the nature of the universe, be able to see somethings as they actually are.

News at 11!

[GordonCopestake]

Shock - Simplified computer models of $HIGHLY_COMPLEX_SYSTEM found to be inaccurate! News at 11!

I don't get it

[Overzeetop]

"...and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change"

So, they think it might make a difference in the model, but they don't know - which means they haven't tested it and are going on gut instinct that a single boundary condition to a problem with thousands of boundary conditions (not all equal, of course) will completely reverse the theory and find out that the earth is acting in a way opposite to our expectations.

Call me when they actually update the model and correlate it with global temperature readings. Being wrong in one area is no big deal. Being wrong and having it completely invalidate the overall results is quite different.

Driving Blind

[StCredZero]

In other words, now we don't know what might happen and we're *still* mucking with our climate.

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

Today's oil and coal was once carbon dioxide that floated in the atmosphere. What was life like back then? Pretty much the same as now, but more tropical. Giant reptiles roamed the planet, while smaller reptiles (proto-mammals) scurried underfoot. It was one of Earth's most-productive periods and a great time to live, not a tragedy.

I think global warming, if it happens, will be great. No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands and grow more food than in the entire existence of humankind. It requires adaptation, not fear.

Re:Driving Blind

[DamienNightbane]

And the best part is that in 360 million more years all the dinosaurs that Global Warming(TM) brings back will be ready for our gas tanks. Oil crisis averted!

Re:Driving Blind

[Ragzouken]

And what happens if this change comes too rapidly for most life to adapt to it?

Re:Driving Blind

[Nimey]

Also, screw those brown people who live near the equator and the Pacific islands.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

one problem. Reptiles are cold blooded. Humans are not.

Re:Driving Blind

[JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F***]

No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands...

As a Canadian I just wanted to let you know that we have already "settled" our land and you can't have it.

I really hope we don't warm up due to global warming as our climate is what keeps most of the idiots out.

Re:Driving Blind

[mangu]

Pretty much the same as now, but more tropical. Giant reptiles roamed the planet, while smaller reptiles (proto-mammals) scurried underfoot

Yes, that's pretty much what we see now...

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

Those species go the same place the other 99.9% of species currently are (extinct). I don't think the planet is going to cry if that increases to 99.9000001%

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

50-100,000 years ago "brown people" moved into Asia and Europe and North America (and then gradually faded from brown to pink). They can do it again. Migration is what humans do.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention all that fresh water for irrigation and human consumption from melting glaciers. Global warming means squat compared to the population boom and water shortages we are facing worldwide. The problem is if we can do it responsibly. Right now, the degree of CO2 production is accelerating, and that's a big ass problem. Tropical mid-Atlantic US may be nice, but back in the days of the dinosaurs, there were likely anoxic events, where gas levels wiped out entire swaths of life in a given area.

I believe global warming is occurring, but not due to most people's belief in the standard climate change crap. I believe it because ocean pH is changing, and any scientific person would realize that is a huge indicator of climate change. If the entire freaking ocean is becoming more acidic, something is clearly going on. Think of oceans like your blood pH for the planet.

I also believe that catastrophic events can occur, if unlikely. What I dispute against the blind global warming advocates is how to get out of the issue and the impact. That's not because I'm someone who gradually came to understand global warming; I read about it 20 years ago and thought it had strong credibility. The problem is, 20 years ago, they were making forecasts that were supposed to have occured in 2002 that haven't come to bear.

[rant mode]
iow, environmentalists are becoming like the doctors of the 1970s who claimed they would cure all cancers by the end of the decade.

You say want a carbon tax? All that will do is fuel more CO2 production, as people trade CO2 with uncapped countries like China and India. More wood will be burned, more coal, in woodstoves and the like, because there is a complete lack of enforcement even today to go house to house. How are you going to catch someone at 3am in the morning heating their house? You're not. People will use less electricity, because prices will skyrocketed because of rising energy prices, the carbon tax, and the higher cost of alternative energy, again all pushing people to even more original fuels.

Should the government invest in green energy? Damn straight. But they should do it straight up, not this carbon tax a la cigarrette tax which will slow CO2 production/smoking. It simply doesn't work. I'm one of those 20% Republicans called stupid and backwards these days, but if you want to spend money in this country for long-term physical infrastructure, go at it. Just don't be an ass and think you can slap in health care, bank bailouts, and all that crap in one roll; 6% of the stimulus money has been spent, and the economy is already slowly coming back, making me wonder where the proof is that the government is doing good there.

Re:Driving Blind

[Bender0x7D1]

Not to be picky, but how do you know it was a great time to live?

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we need more room for another billion or so people, right?

Re:Driving Blind

[Gat0r30y]

It requires adaptation, not fear.

Unless you live in Bangladesh. In which case you are straight fucked.

Re:Driving Blind

[Nimey]

I'm sure that will work really well with a far larger population and less land to work with. Do you think before you touch your keyboard?

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

Well I've driven through Canada. It's mostly empty. While traveling through the Yukon, I did not see another human being all day. I don't think you can claim you are suffering from overcrowding. There's a LOT of space there just waiting to be turned into farmland once the tundra thaws-out.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, screw this planet lets play with venus or something

Re:Driving Blind

[Nom du Keyboard]

In other words, now we don't know what might happen and we're *still* mucking with our climate.

No, you're wrong! We *always* muck with our climate simply by the acts of living, breathing, and eating. What we're doing is making *very* expensive decisions about how to handle something that we don't even understand. Al Gore should have stuck with "inventing the Internet" if he wanted a personal legacy that isn't going to look like muck itself in 50 years or less.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming's all fun and games until the raptors come back.

Re:Driving Blind

[somersault]

You obviously haven't met my mother in law!

Only kidding - I don't have a mother in law, but I should maybe get one just so that I can make jokes like this without having to backpedal.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

And the best thing is, all those pesky liberals who love the coast are gonna drown! Only the rustbelt, bible belt, and midwest will be left. Oh yeah, we'll have Detroit too, if you want what's left of GM. Just think about it: Portland, San Francisco, Washington D.C., New Hampshire; they're all gone thanks to global warming. Won't life be grand when the rednecks and bible thumpers are left alone to try to figure out how to survive the winter without government?

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our new giant lizard overlords.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

While we may be able to settle in Canada, Alaska or Siberia, much larger swaths of land around the equator will become useless. Add to that the costal areas that get flooded, and you have one heck of an expensive problem.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking steps to produce less garbage & waste is not the same thing as mucking with our climate. There is nothing wrong with cleaning up after ourselves / reducing our footprint on the natural environment.

Re:Driving Blind

[eddy the lip]

We might consider letting you in if you learn to spell "colour" correctly, ditch that pansy baseball thing for a real sport called "hockey" and learn how to brew a decent beer.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

>I really hope we don't warm up due to global warming as our climate is what keeps most of the idiots out.

Not true, it's already full of Canadians.

Re:Driving Blind

[definate]

Great point!

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

The soil on most of the upper Canadian Shield is pretty poor and not very suitable to farming. Most of the good stuff got scraped up by glaciers during the Ice Ages and moved south into the prairies. The good stuff is already being farmed.

Re:Driving Blind

[Reziac]

There's another word for "thawed tundra". It's "bogland", a state it already achieves for a couple months each summer, rendering it impassable to surface vehicles.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

"Won't life be grand when the rednecks and bible thumpers are left alone to try to figure out how to survive the winter without government?"

1. We were doing it just fine. That is why there are so many of us.

2. What winter? Global warming, remember?

Dumb ass.

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

YES the planetary environment back then was pretty much the same as now, but more tropical.

Re:Driving Blind

[pleappleappleap]

Wasn't there recent evidence that dinosaurs were warm-blooded?

Re:Driving Blind

[Dancindan84]

Dale, "I say let the world warm up...we'll grow oranges in Alaska."

Re:Driving Blind

[peragrin]

what part of turning Canada and Siberia into giant fertile plains didn't you understand?
Like most you only see the destruction. Not what gets created by it. So NYC is flooded? Land available for growing food will double. Nature can have it if that is all nature wants as nature unlike lazy humans doesn't let any go to waste.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens if this change comes too rapidly for most life to adapt to it?

Survival of the fittest.

Re:Driving Blind

[onkelonkel]

I remember after one flood there some clueless tv commentator asking why the Bangladeshis (Bengalis?) don't build dikes. The answer was - "build dikes out of what? We don't even have rocks"

Re:Driving Blind

[mR.bRiGhTsId3]

It it warms further, wouldn't it dry out?

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

I think global warming, if it happens, will be great.

I'm sure the people living in and around the Sahara would have an alternate opinion.

Re:Driving Blind

[jscotta44]

Lacrosse is more fun than hockey.

Re:Driving Blind

[credd144az]

In 360 million years, you will be ready for their gas tanks.

Re:Driving Blind

[geekoid]

"retty much the same as now, "

HAHAHa, no it wasn't.

We will lose more land then we 'get'.
Plus we are cutting down and paving area that could be used to absorb this. When that CO2 was in the enviroment, the plants could grow ans help, but since we are not getting more plants, or bigger, plants but less there isn't anything to absorb it.

Add to the it's putting a poison into the air that has other negative effects, an rational person would see that we need to take efforts to reduce CO2.

Adaptation requires money, and usually includes wars and death.

Re:Driving Blind

[ahodgson]

Giant fertile plains ... in a few thousand years after some soil has had a chance to develop.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, screw this planet lets play with venus or something

Again!? I'm not going back there!

Re:Driving Blind

[PitaBred]

What makes you think we have control over that?

Re:Driving Blind

[geekoid]

Hockey is a horrible sport.
On paper it's great, but when you go and just see people fighting, and not playing a sport.
Hockey fans are horrible. screaming and cheering at someone getting hurt. Fuck, they don't go to watch a game, they go to hope they can see a fight.

Baseball is a gentleman's thinking game. Granted TV never seems to show what is going on outside of where the ball is, and seldom discuss the strategy.

Re:Driving Blind

[JWSmythe]

    What you're asking is if ALL life could adapt quickly enough. But I'm sure the question on your mind is can humans adapt fast enough.

    There is plenty of life on the planet that can handle extremely harsh environments. As the weaker life dies off, the stronger life will thrive. New ecosystems will form, and life will continue. We may not be happy with it, but it will be life.

Re:Driving Blind

[DamienNightbane]

That sounds like something a quitter would say.

Re:Driving Blind

[clarkkent09]

I think global warming, if it happens, will be great

Many of the biggest population centers are vulnerable to being wiped out by the rising sea levels. If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean disruption of global economy on a scale far greater than WWII and over far longer period, with all the wars, famines and who knows what else this will bring. In short, yes humans will probably adapt to the changes in climate but the cost will be enormous, so I wouldn't call that "great".

Re:Driving Blind

[Reziac]

Probably to some degree -- perhaps to about like Britain's peat bogs. I'm not saying it'd be a bad thing over the long haul, but it wouldn't be instantly usable either.

However, the targa and plains that that are NOT just frozen bogland are another thing -- given even another month of growing season, those areas could go from zero production to being as productive as anywhere else for dryland farming.

Re:Driving Blind

[JO_DIE_THE_STAR_F***]

touche`
I would insult your nationality with some witty quip but you wimped out and posted as an Anonymous Coward

Re:Driving Blind

[Hubbell]

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/?postversion=2009051411
Read that, then try and tell me all the global warming hysteria is legitimate.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

"Won't life be grand when the rednecks and bible thumpers are left alone to try to figure out how to survive the winter without government?"

1. We were doing it just fine. That is why there are so many of us.

I thought there were so many of you due to inbreeding and the bible thumping intolerance to birth control

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands...

As a Canadian I just wanted to let you know that we have already "settled" our land and you can't have it.

Hmm ... I bet that's what the Sioux and the Iroquois thought - ask them how well *that* turned out ;-)

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Hilariously enough they're quite a bit better suited for it.

Re:Driving Blind

[karbyn-aceous]

Well, it's their fault for being on our land before we got here.

Re:Driving Blind

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

If we don't the whole business of natural reserves, "unharmed forest", environmental protection is ...

kinda stupid.

After all, we are not capable of making those preserves safe for the animals that live there, so we can't ensure their survival, protect them from invaders, ... We can't even ensure the survival of the animals we like in the midst of the most advanced nation on the planet. Yellowstone park has, despite many attempts to reverse the damage, lost many of the species it was meant to protect.

That would mean the whole business of environmental protection, at best, serves to create a nice view for the super-rich who can afford a villa in there anyway. To temporarily create enough game for them to shoot. And nothing more.

Which, of course, is the truth, but you'll never hear al gore say it.

Re:Driving Blind

[zoney_ie]

Ireland is about the same distance north as the south of Hudson Bay. Due to the Atlantic currents and coastal climate, it's fairly mild here all year round. Our midlands and indeed hillsides/mountainsides are mostly bog, and not particularly useful for anything (sheep or forestry have only made things worse on the hillsides). It does keep people warm mind you - one of the common heating fuels here is peat briquette - a processed form of peat (less smokey and hotter than turf but similarly slow-burning with lots of ash). We even manage to run some of the most inefficient power stations ever on vast amounts of mechanically harvested turf (needless to say the resulting countryside isn't much use after either - although it can be made quite nice and nature-friendly - just not particularly useful for humans). Also "peat production" provides compost material for gardening too - but despite the large amounts of peat "harvested" each year, and even some amount of exports, it's not exactly a massive moneyspinner.

I suspect thawed out Canadian wilderness would simply be like the Midlands of Ireland - fairly desolate despite the milder temperature.

Re:Driving Blind

[The_Quinn]

we're *still* mucking with our climate.

Being alive requires that we impact the environment.

Being comfortable requires even more impact.

I, for one, have no guilt about being alive, and comfortable.

Re:Driving Blind

[jdigriz]

Also, there was a giant fracking inland sea in the middle of north america.

Re:Driving Blind

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Actually last time the earth warmed (after the middle ages and the defeat of muslims in spain when the colonization of greenland started), it scarcely took 10 years. Plenty of soil pockets left in Greenland and Siberia. Of course it warmed only to start cooling again (and when that cooling, known as the "mauder minimum", stopped and reversed global warming started. Temperatures have been steadily increasing ever since). When the global warming streak stopped an entire country, Greenland, died out to the last man. Literally.

Greenland was scarcely the only country to die out due to global cooling, but it was the only western one, the only one we have something of an account of the decline and death of the cities.

But in Siberia, in fact, there are still humans living there that still till a few fields. Greenland has productive, if slightly confused neighbors. Especially Siberia will repopulate very very quickly indeed. And not with brown people.

Plants, bacteria and the other stuff in "soil" doesn't have to cross the distances, it's already there. Even humans don't.

Perhaps you should read Jared Diamond's book. It's not all that scientific (though more so than most websites on the subject), but it'll certainly make you think.

Re:Driving Blind

[mapsjanhere]

Nope, no fertile plains, just Sahara style desert. There's enough methane stored in the permafrost of Canada and Russia to make our bit of car exhaust look like cow farts.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

...rendering it impassable to surface vehicles.

Surface vehicles?! So waddaya mean, you burrow through the bog with your Underminer(TM) burrowing drill vehicle each summer?

Re:Driving Blind

[Waffle Iron]

Today's oil and coal was once carbon dioxide that floated in the atmosphere. What was life like back then? Pretty much the same as now, but more tropical.

During the most extreme episodes of prehistoric global warming, the oceans stagnated and became choked anaerobic bacteria. (These are the periods where much of the petroleum we use today was captured in sediments rather than recycled into the ecosystem.) With the resulting hydrogen sulfide bubbling out of the seas, life was pretty much the same as now, only you'd need a gas mask to survive.

Re:Driving Blind

[WindBourne]

The interesting thing, is that at the end of the ice age, the bogland was all around the great lakes. Now, it is SO FAR NORTH. And if warming continues, bog will continue to move further north.

Re:Driving Blind

[Reziac]

An AC japes, "Surface vehicles?! So waddaya mean, you burrow through the bog with your Underminer(TM) burrowing drill vehicle each summer?"

Actually that might be more practical, cuz you sure can't use wheeled or tracked vehicles on that soft summer bog. You can't build on it either, without accounting for the fact that your structures will sink during summer thaw (even deep pilings may not suffice).

For a good word picture of seasonal life in the tundra, read Farley Mowat's book THE SIBERIANS.

Re:Driving Blind

[Reziac]

And considering that we've built over the top of a lot of our best cropland (according to some studies, as much as HALF of the best cropland in America had been paved over by 1985) -- winter retreating northward, and tundra/targa/bogland becoming usable/farmable over the next few centuries, might actually save us over the long run.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

No more frozen Canada or Siberia - we can settle those lands and grow more food than in the entire existence of humankind.

I can't speak for Siberia (high school geography was a long time ago), but almost all of Canada was scraped by glaciers during the last ice age and the climate over most of Canada since then is such that there hasn't been very much soil formation. So when northern Canada gets warm enough to grow wheat and corn, you still won't be able to because you will be trying to farm rocks.

Meanwhile, if the climate changes enough that northern Canada is warm, there is a good chance that what is now prime North American farmland will end up as desert.

Re:Driving Blind

[Capt.DrumkenBum]

As another Canadian I just want to say "Come into my country and die Yankee pigs!" :)

Re:Driving Blind

[gpronger]

Shit; and what would happen to ice hockey!!!!

Re:Driving Blind

[gpronger]

Your point is very valid, in that our chance to remain dominant is about as likely as the proto-mammals not to be a late night snack or find themselves toe-jam for a dino.

Re:Driving Blind

[Chris Burke]

Those species go the same place the other 99.9% of species currently are (extinct). I don't think the planet is going to cry if that increases to 99.9000001%

I don't really care whether or not the planet is crying. I care about whether we are crying because we realize we're the next species that's going to go extinct.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but I watched "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" last night. Your strategy has failed.

Re:Driving Blind

[drwho]

Actually, algae, probably something similar to Botryococcus braunii, that are responsible for the petroleum we all know and love.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Bangladesh? Make sand bags out of jute -- last I knew it was their major agricultural product.

Re:Driving Blind

[ckaminski]

Keeping in mind that some of America's Prime Farmland already is desert except for the liberal use of irrigation. There is no limit to the amount of food we can grow on this planet, except for the amount of potable water.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

I think global warming, if it happens, will be great. [...] It requires adaptation, not fear.

As they say--never change a running system. Additionally, I'd say life is hard enough as it is, no need to make it more complicated.

Then, if you're a creationist and believe He will make us adapt so that we will happily live together in a warm world of peace and abundance, all your arguments are sound. But in my humble opinion, evolution will do the adaption trick without caring for believers and disbelievers. And adaption includes the option that the ones adapting properly are not too closely related with what we call "humans".

In other words, the change, as natural as change is, will very likely be experienced as a rather destructive catastrophe.

Re:Driving Blind

[d3ac0n]

I care about whether we are crying because we realize we're the next species that's going to go extinct.

Then the best thing we can do is to stop meddling with our economies by trying to pass cap and trade (and other socialist, big govt. style) legislation, and freeing up our industry to devise ways to get us off this rock if and when the need to do so arises.

Currently, every single solution proposed by the high priesthood of the Unified Church of Climate Change (formerly the Church of Global Warming) has been essentially Socialism, Communism, and Fascism (not necessarily in that order). Which will (of course) utterly cripple our industry and our ability to adapt to change.

Top heavy centrally controlled monolithic organizations (AKA: Socialism, Communism, Fascism) are slow to change. Decentralized open organizations (AKA: Federalist Capitalism) are rapid adapters. GNU and OSS have taught us this. Why the GW acolytes haven't gotten this yet is beyond me.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural Selection.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Put on a sweater or shorts depending on which direction the drastic climate change takes.

Oops, you just adapted to your environment.

Or better yet...

Run to the concession stand for a refill of your popcorn.

Re:Driving Blind

[Mattsson]

No more frozen Canada or Siberia

And the fertile, temperate regions of today will be dessert wastelands... =)

Re:Driving Blind

[DinDaddy]

Well, yeah, in SOviet Russia.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are undeniably and provenly full of shit.

I can't even begin to tell you just how fucktarded you are, but I'll try:

How does the free market deal with a catastrophe? It asks for government bailouts. How do you 'bailout' a climate that's destroyed?

FUCKING RETARDED. Stop breathing my oxygen and do us all a favor - cut your balls off so that retards like you don't reproduce.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you THOUGHT about what you have just said?

The WORST predictions (predictions? Ha!) are for 8Cdeg in a century.Leaving aside the fact that the Earth is actually COOLING at the moment, the range of temperatures that life exists in on the Earth at the moment ranges from -89DegC to +58DegC. More if you include thermophiles living at +250DegC.

If a lifeform can't adapt on the spot, it will change its latitude....Doh!

Re:Driving Blind

[Chris Burke]

Then the best thing we can do is to stop meddling with our economies by trying to pass cap and trade (and other socialist, big govt. style) legislation, and freeing up our industry to devise ways to get us off this rock if and when the need to do so arises.

Oh yeah, cus that's totally what industry would devote their time to, not continuing to ignore and externalize all costs and consequences of their anti-environmental actions to maximize their personal gain.

And surely the best possible option is that "if and when the need arises" (which of course won't be decades after the real need arose) we'll all abandon the planet. God blees free enterprise, am I right?

Currently, every single solution proposed by the high priesthood of the Unified Church of Climate Change (formerly the Church of Global Warming) has been essentially Socialism, Communism, and Fascism (not necessarily in that order). Which will (of course) utterly cripple our industry and our ability to adapt to change.

Of course! Since there's never been a non-crippled Socialist economy, including ours, how could anyone think otherwise? But yeah, if a company was not allowed to externalize the costs of their pollution, that's Communism... or Socialism... Fascism? Pastafarianism?

Top heavy centrally controlled monolithic organizations (AKA: Socialism, Communism, Fascism) are slow to change. Decentralized open organizations (AKA: Federalist Capitalism) are rapid adapters. GNU and OSS have taught us this. Why the GW acolytes haven't gotten this yet is beyond me.

Linux is top heavy and centrally controlled. Linus is a Benevolent Dictator. Just thought I'd point that out.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

People who don't agree with the principles in the Declaration and writings of the U.S. Founders should move to the E.U.

Why??? I'm happy right here in Japan.

Re:Driving Blind

[amRadioHed]

Every scientific theory has its critics, no matter how well established. This is usually a good thing since science needs to be challenged in order to advance. But just because you found a critic of the established theory doesn't mean that he has any more credibility than the majority of climate scientists who disagree with him.

I am not a climate scientist, so I don't know if it's true that others have not considered the points he makes. If he has something to add it will only make our understanding of climate stronger, which is a great. However it's not likely that he will single-handedly invalidate the countless contributions from other scientists.

Re:Driving Blind

[atraintocry]

They haven't gotten it because the actual problem of global warming should be separate from how we choose to deal with it in the political arena.

Having society bear the cost of pollution rather than the polluter...isn't that socialism?

I have had good and bad arguments against cap and trade. I'm not even sure where I stand on it. But you definitely get points with me for the argument that it's bad because it diverts resources from migrating to another planet 50s-sci-fi-style. That was art.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL hope you were aiming for that Funny mod, though it'd still be funny-because-its-sad if you weren't.

Re:Driving Blind

[corprew]

All the topsoil on the canadian shield (the center parts of canada n. of where they grow grain now) pretty much got tossed south during glaciation. That's poor farmland, and acidic even where there's significant soil. It isn't trading one great plains for another, it's trading the great plains for a wasteland. Getting it warmer won't help this land not suck for crops.

Re:Driving Blind

[StCredZero]

I, for one, have no guilt about being alive, and comfortable.

There's nothing in the laws of thermodynamics that says you can't be alive, comfortable, and playing an X-Box 360 *without* releasing fossilized carbon.

Re:Driving Blind

[Angst Badger]

Actually, the atmosphere during much of the dinosaur era was likely lower in CO2 and higher in oxygen than the present era, due to sequestration of CO2 in all that vegetation that later turned into coal and oil. The high oxygen content is indicated by the presence of the large insects like the famous giant dragonflies: because insects lack lungs, the level of atmospheric oxygen imposes an upper limit on their body size.

Despite the popular superstition that scientists just like to overcomplicate things -- which is, in fact, almost the polar opposite of what scientists actually try to do -- the fact of the matter is that climate is complex, and simplistic reasoning like, "If warmer weather was good for the dinosaurs, it will be good for us," can pretty much be dismissed out of hand.

Re:Driving Blind

[operagost]

There are over 6 billion people on the planet, we're the only species capable of controlling its own environment, and you think we're the next species to become extinct?

Re:Driving Blind

[snowraver1]

While traveling through the Yukon, I did not see another human being all day

Wasn't it great! I took a trip up there last summer. You have never experienced the open road until you go north. I remember seeing beautiful views and just stopping in the middle of the road. Being away from EVERYTHING feels so great... I hope it stays that way.

Re:Driving Blind

[operagost]

Your comment seems a bit absurd, considering that Canada has a baseball team (used to have two) and last time I checked, the NHL was mostly American teams. Oh yeah, and our beer is just fine but we won't let you have any of the good stuff.

Re:Driving Blind

[Chris Burke]

The word "whether" is intended to create a conditional.

My point was that it's my species that I'm ultimately worried about. And we should be concerned. Yes we are capable of controlling our environment (this is not unique, though we certainly have the most extreme forms of it), but fundamentally a human can only survive in a very limited range of environments, and creating that environment today is based on a giant interlocking pyramid of technology and industry. It could be up-ended very easily. Would we go extinct? Eh, depends, maybe maybe not. 6 billion people doesn't mean much. Most of them would be dead from starvation before too long. On the other hand, there's speculation that at one point homo sapiens went through a population bottleneck of less than 1000 individuals, yet obviously survived. On the other other hand one unfortunate extra Act of God and 1000 people can die in the blink of an eye.

And even that wouldn't change the fact that billions and billions of people would be dead. So, yeah.

Re:Driving Blind

[Hubbell]

A critic? There are tens of thousands, and hundreds alone that had their research 'used' by the IPCC in it's report who have come out and talked a ton of shit about the UN and the IPCC for fraudulently presenting their data and studies as supportive of climate science. You can read numerous quotes here from those who criticize the religion of climatechange/global warming (manmade mind you, as the climate is ALWAYS changing)

Re:Driving Blind

[ChaosDiscord]

So, wait, industry, powered by free market pixie dust, will be able to move us to other planets (and presumably terraform those planets so we actually want to live there) if the world become inhospitable. But confronted with relatively modest regulations, they'll be utterly crippled. How strangely fragile of industry.

Industry whines and cries about the end of the world whenever regulation is proposed. Industries have wailed about limits on rat droppings in food, lead in paint, asbestos in insulation, minimun fuel efficiency, minimum wages, adding seat belts, banning smoking from restaurants. Somehow the world hasn't ended.

Of course, I can appreciate the agility of the free market. Take for example all of the freedom the banking industry had to agilely create new derivative securities and self management. That worked out gangbusters!

I'd have more faith in the free market to solve our problem if it wasn't so easy to turn costs like pollution into externalities, if the stock market didn't demand that companies think no further than a few years into the future. A few percent hit in our GDP today may be a good investment if it will save us from a massive hit in a decade.

Re:Driving Blind

[db32]

I'm not sure what you are getting at... As I understand it "cow farts" are actually a pretty significant source of methane. The massive population explosion of the various 4 legged cud chewers to feed the huge growth in demand for tasty meat products has had a significant impact on things even when you aren't directly considering the other environmental damage caused by this type of livestock.

The methane stored in the permafrost will make our bit of car exhaust look like a significant problem?

Re:Driving Blind

[ChaosDiscord]

Oh, wow, gosh, a single scientist disagrees. My mind is totally changed! At least until some article from a single scientist argues the other case.

Yes, there is a great deal of debate about global warming. But a clear majority of research and scientists supports the hypothesis that there is global warming, that humans are a significant part of the cause, that it's likely to continue if we don't change anything, and that it's going to suck hard for us if it does continue. As with other scientific issues that I lack the time to become an expert in*, I defer to the widest consensus among scientists.

*Such things as, best medical treatments (vaccines are overwhelmingly good), will the LHC destroy the world (no), source of multiple species (evolution), and more

Re:Driving Blind

[John Hasler]

And if you ask nicely and have something interesting to offer in trade the Canadians just might let you have some of the food they grow on that land.

Re:Driving Blind

[atraintocry]

That was an interesting article. I think this is worth a read as well.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

They found in most cases, urban warming was small and fell within uncertainty ranges. Surprisingly, 42% of city trends are cooler relative to their country surroundings as weather stations are often sited in cool islands (eg - a park within the city). The point is they're aware of UHI and rigorously adjust for it when analysing temperature records.

I'm not sure anything of this nature is worth getting hysterical over. We need to be careful and make sure the science is done rigorously. Only at that point can the politicians have a slim chance of not screwing this up.

The thing I don't like about what Christy says there, is that he's using the urban heat island effect as a rationale for cherry-picking his data. The article seems to paint it as a positive thing too. It's not right to dismiss out of hand all of the surface data. First of all, trends related to city growth are already accounted for, at what came out of NASA was. And not all of the surface temps come from the land!

Another thing: I refuse to believe that the majority of climatologists are part of some secret left-wing cabal or something. But Christy wastes no time in using divisive labels like "the alarmist camp" to dismiss his colleagues. You'd hope a guy poring over atmospheric data would learn to deal in specifics rather than generalizations.

Regardless, the main point he brings up is one about the urban heat island effect...that in particular is something that's still debated and his word is not final there. Perhaps he has some novel objection that isn't covered by the corrections already made, but if so, that article didn't get specific enough to need to bring that up.

The link I gave above contains an alternate viewpoint. You may not dig the tone of that site ("what the science says" headings, etc), and I can't say I do either. But it's worth a look.

Re:Driving Blind

[The_Quinn]

The laws of thermodynamics also don't say we can't enslave each other, or torture children. Should we do those things, too?

Re:Driving Blind

[BoogieChile]

Only till you drain the water out of it and pipe it off to the desert where it's supposed to be...

'It', in this case being the water, of course, not the bog that you're piping it out of.

Re:Driving Blind

[mapsjanhere]

Yes, right now the methane from farm sources are a huge issue, just most people don't realize that. I shouldn't try to be funny on Friday afternoon before the first beer.

Re:Driving Blind

[gangien]

why waste more vowels? someone think of the vowels!

Plus hockey isn't a bad sport, but football > hockey any day, and we'll ditch pansy baseball when you ditch (pansy ^ pansy) curling.

And ALSO i've been to canada, i've drank your beer, it's about the bloody same, so it's aboot time u hosers stopped acting so much better, eh?

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

How much fertile soil do you believe to be buried under the permafrost?

Re:Driving Blind

[Reziac]

I wonder how feasible that might actually be?

One problem is once you remove the water that keeps the soil in a slurry state, you've got a lowland subject to potential flooding. Tho I'm not sure that's really a problem, so long as you don't let morons build housing developments on it. Farming can be rather more flexible about its location, especially with annual crops.

Re:Driving Blind

[HiThere]

Not so recent. Yes, many dinosaurs WERE warm-blooded. (Shouldn't be surprising, as birds are descendants of dinosaurs, and we know they're warm blooded.)

Were ALL dinosaurs warm-blooded? Dunno. I doubt it, but can't think of any actual evidence. (Remember, dinosaur is more specific than "Big huge animal that lived a long time ago". [Actually, also less specific. They weren't, by and large, huge. Only an occasional species went that direction.])

Re:Driving Blind

[Squeedle]

Ignoring that back then the weather, the makeup of the atmosphere, and the mammal population were different, and your glib implication that coal and oil were created by CO2, what happens if currently temperate areas turn to desert instead of jungle? What happens in the Sahara, and other equatorial regions, when they get hotter? They could easily grow larger and become even more inhabitable. You don't think people will just stay there, do you? I don't think you've thought this through.

Re:Driving Blind

[credd144az]

I'd mod that funny if I could. I was actually thinking of playing that card.

Re:Driving Blind

[rantingkitten]

Okay. I read it. The guy makes his arguments, but then glosses over the last question which was basically "What's wrong with trying?" Here's his answer:

The problem is that the solutions being offered don't provide any detectable relief from this so-called catastrophe. Congress is now discussing an 80% reduction in U.S. greenhouse emissions by 2050. That's basically the equivalent of building 1,000 new nuclear power plants all operating by 2020. Now I'm all in favor of nuclear energy, but that would affect the global temperature by only seven-hundredths of a degree by 2050 and fifteen hundredths by 2100. We wouldn't even notice it.

What the hell is that? We wouldn't notice the temperature decrease? Here are things we'd notice:

• Improved quality of air. Very little smog and pollution.
• Same with water.
• Factor in the health benefits of the above and the reduced cost of healthcare.
• Little to no dependence on fossil fuels, which are finite resources and nobody knows how much longer they'll last.
• Little to no dependence on usually foreign, sometimes hostile nations for our energy needs.

There are dozens of other benefits that I'm not covering. But it astonishes me when people argue about global warming and the detractors -- usually conservative -- deride it all as a myth, shrouded in veils of anti-capitalism.

Let's assume global warming is total BS -- there are still huge, tangible beneefits to taking steps to reduce greenhouse emissions, fossil fuel usage, and step up nuclear power generation. On top of all that is a "green market" economy waiting in the wings. Do anti-global-warming types think all this stuff is going to magically appear? Companies will have to design, maintain, and install the air scrubbers, the newer and better engines, the nuclear power plants, the power transmission infrastructure, and all the other things that could be done, employing hundreds of thousands, or millions in the process. Then all the companies that would make money doing business with them for materials, office supplies, labor, transportation, R&D, marketing, and so forth.

To do all that and be energy independent, and he's saying we shouldn't bother because it won't lower the temperature. Please.

Re:Driving Blind

[kramulous]

That would have to be very quick ... I remember adapting to WinME

Re:Driving Blind

[ElectricRook]

Won't life be grand when the rednecks and bible thumpers are left alone to try to figure out how to survive the winter without government?

If you study the history, the rednecks, the openly religious and the free thinkers came to the US to get away from oppressive European governments, but oppressive governments keep following economic success of these types.

Re:Driving Blind

[NoMaster]

I'll believe that a completely free to act econo/socio/political system can solve the CC (or overpopulation, or resource depletion, or whatever...) problem on the day that your GNU/OSS poster children solve the spam problem...

Please note: most of the current "solutions" for the spam problem don't solve anything; they just move it away (or hide it) from you in a "I see no spam - I'm alright, Jack!" manner.

To paraphrase Darth Vader: "I find your excessive faith ... charming".

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

>>>>>Those species go the same place the other 99.9% of species currently are (extinct). I don't think the planet is going to cry if that increases to 99.9000001%

>>I care about whether we are crying because we realize we're the next species that's going to go extinct.

Oh puleeze. The human race is not going to go extinct just because Canada and Siberia thaw-out and the climate turns tropical. We've been through worse crap than that (like the retreat of the glaciers circa 8000 B.C.) and survived just fine.

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

TV reporters are dumb. During the last week of April all they kept saying was, "Why's it so cold? Why's it so cold? Where's the heat?" Then 7 days later we had a 90-degree heatwave and they complained they were burning-up and that it's evidence of global warming. Uh. Okay. And now it's cold again, but they are strangely silent about that. They clearly have an agenda and they are pushing it hard.

Anyway... it looks like this spring/summer is going to be one of the coldest on record.

(Shhh... don't say that outloud. It spoils our global warming agenda.)

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

>>>spell "colour"

Why insert a silent "u" when it's not needed? That makes no sense. Besides I was thinking maybe it's time to increase the United States from 50 to 61 states (by colonization of course; same way we took-over half of Mexico). You can keep Quebec. Maybe France will take it.

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

>>>Add to the it's putting a poison into the air that has other negative effects, an rational person would see that we need to take efforts to reduce CO2.
>>>

Rational people know that CO2 is not a poison. You breathe it constantly.

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

That was over 1 billion years ago, before the Cambrian Explosion. It has no relevance to recent history when life flourished and settled the land.

Re:Driving Blind

[commodore64_love]

>>>the presence of the large insects like the famous giant dragonflies

They predate the dinosaurs by a huge amount of time. When giant insects existed, there was no such thing as reptiles.

Re:Driving Blind

[lawpoop]

Are the rainforests dry? They're pretty hot.

Re:Driving Blind

[Waffle Iron]

That was over 1 billion years ago, before the Cambrian Explosion. It has no relevance to recent history when life flourished and settled the land.

Nor has all the stored carbon been dug up and released at one time in the last billion years. What's your point?

Re:Driving Blind

[Bigjeff5]

You can't build on it either, without accounting for the fact that your structures will sink during summer thaw (even deep pilings may not suffice).

That's bull, we can build massive million+ ton floating drill rigs with only limited attachments that are stable enough to suck oil through a straight pipe for thousands of feet out in the middle of the ocean. If we can do that, a stable domicile on a mushy bog is absurdly simple.

Piling tech is even fine, build the pilings long enough to hit bedrock and you won't sink. Ever. Unless you weren't paying attention and built on a fault line, then it could sink if the earth decided to swallow it up.

Don't confuse impracticality/laziness with impossibility. It doesn't even take an engineer to work out how to build a decent structure in a bog. People do it all the time in other places.

Re:Driving Blind

[Anonymous Coward]

http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/24/james-hansen-john-christy-house-ways-and-means/
In the interest of balance.

Re:Driving Blind

[CTachyon]

Today's oil and coal was once carbon dioxide that floated in the atmosphere. What was life like back then? Pretty much the same as now, but more tropical.

Actually, no, it wasn't like that at all. The coastlines were warmer and sometimes wetter, but the continental interiors formed vast deserts, and as CO2 levels rose in the Cretaceous, even coastal areas became deserts. Of course, the fact that Pangaea existed at the time is a confounding factor for any direct comparison, because the configuration of land and ocean has a huge effect in shaping the climate.

Re:Driving Blind

[db32]

The worst part of this is that the solution is also the problem. Eat all the cows fixes the problem, but causes the problem to repeat as the farmers want to sell more cows to be eaten! It is a vicious cycle I tell you.

The way I see it we are all totally fucked anyways so why bother worrying about stupid details? An object of size X or larger could hit us and destroy all life on the planet. Or solar system alone has more than a few of these X sized things, when you start adding up all the unknown extrasolar X sized objects whole thing gets pretty dismal. Then you add in things like gamma ray bursts, super volcanoes (we have one brewing at Yellowstone), and a whole variety of other doomsday scenarios that don't have anything to do with human behavior that could end us all in an instant. The end result is that we are completely, totally, and undeniably fucked so long as we are squabbling over silly bullshit rather than learning how to get all the eggs out of this one basket called Earth. In the meantime $diety has intelligently designed the universe in such a way that life exists and interacts in such a great way with that most important hydrocarbon... alcohol (Proof that $diety exists and that he loves us and wants us to be happy).

In all seriousness, I think the whole warming debate is hilariously unimportant. 1. The models involved are horrifically complex and ultimately have very little predictability due to the wide array of variables involved. 2. It is fucking stupid to not err on the side of caution when all your eggs are in one basket. Fuckall the rest of the "evidence" for one side or the other. This is purely a game of chance and it is fucking stupid to not take the safe bet of "quit spewing shit into the air that we have not been spewing into the air for the vast majority of human history". Shit, even if this whole global "climate change" or whatever it is called these days is totally wrong, we will at least have fresher fucking air to breathe. To even begin to try and play the whole economic impact vs fate of life on Earth as even remotely equal is mindbogglingly stupid. It doesn't exactly take a brilliant scientist to figure out shitting into the air results in breathing lots of shit. You can bet your ass the same assholes that insisted on the negative economic impacts being more important will also be the first motherfuckers to buy breathing apparatuses and premium land in "safe" areas if things do go horribly wrong.

umount /dev/soapbox

If a star within ~3000 light years (I think this is the number I saw) goes nova and sends a nice gamma burst our way it could eradicate all life on the planet regardless of the state of our climate. The best part is (as raised elsewhere in the threads for this story), EOL != EOHL. The parameters required for Earth to support life are MUCH wider than the parameters required for Earth to support HUMAN life. The Earth can shake us off at a moments notice and keep on spinning through the inky blackness of space still teeming with life. So! Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we will surely die!

Re:Driving Blind

[KingBenny]

good, then nothing's changed and i can still claim my throne in hell since the end is obviously pretty dam' near

Re:Driving Blind

[Hubbell]

"Christy criticized the Hadley and Canadian models, suggesting that they were extreme and were downscaled unreliably. Tr. vol. 14-A, 121:13-122:4 (Christy, May 4, 2007). Although Christy testified that he had used climate models, however, he did not claim to be an expert on climate modeling. Id. at 78:20-79:3. In fact, his view of the reliability of climate models does not fall within the mainstream of climate scientists;"

Ummmmmm, there are still people who claim that climate models are accurate, reliable, or in any way legitimate? It's already been proven that climate models/simulations are only reliable in terms of simulating PAST CLIMATE CHANGES/EVENTS and utterly incapable of any form of prediction.

Re:Driving Blind

[GlenRaphael]

Oh, wow, gosh, a single scientist disagrees. My mind is totally changed!

It only takes one to be right...

Yes, there is a great deal of debate about global warming. But a clear majority of research and scientists supports the hypothesis that there is global warming, that humans are a significant part of the cause, that it's likely to continue if we don't change anything, and that it's going to suck hard for us if it does continue.

Did you read the article? John Christy agrees that measured temperatures are increasing and that humans are a significant part of the cause, which means he agrees with the widest consensus among scientists but notes that one of the mechanisms by which humans cause increases in measured temperatures is urbanization. The satellite temperature record he prefers also shows warming, just less of it. Less warming means less cause for alarm. If you actually look at a few of the statements of consensus that are out there you'll notice that last part of your summary, the matter of how hard for us it's going to suck if it does continue is the most speculative and poorly supported part if it's even present - it's often left out entirely. That's the part of "the consensus" that relies the most on rhetoric and offhand guesses rather than data.

Re:Driving Blind

[GlenRaphael]

Your link is based on Jones et al (2008), whose chief conclusion was that urban warming accounts for about one degree per century of the measured surface trend in China. Or to quote from the abstract

Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1ÂC/decade over the period 1951â"2004, with true climatic warming accounting for 0.81ÂC over this period"

Cute, isn't it, how he compares a rate-per-decade with a rate-per-specific-54-year-period in order to make the former appear small. Here's a chart of China's warming since 1900; if UHI accounts for 0.1ÂC/decade there's not much left. The other plots featured - the ones that don't involve China - are basically cover fire, answering a claim nobody made. But it actually gets better than that. Jones claims urban trends are carefully accounted for in the NASA data, but the nature of these corrections is basically a secret. Jones is famously uncooperative with anyone who wants to look at the source data and try to reproduce his calculations. Jones is the one who said:

We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.

Re:Driving Blind

[sapphire wyvern]

The Netherlands, also, is very short on rocks.

On the other hand, the Dutch *did* have a colonial empire at one time, extremely competent traders, and still have one of the world's most important seaports. So technical and mercantile advantages do go quite a long way.

Re:Driving Blind

[fygment]

If the most pessimistic global warming predictions are true it will mean ....

... that someone will have to have made an accurate model about the global economy. And there don't seem to be any of those.

Inaccurate climate model + inaccurate economic model = ?

Scaremongering for the most part seems to be the answer.

Re:Driving Blind

[eddy the lip]

Well, we have a better version of football up here ;) There's still a lot of silk pants going 'round, though.

Curling I'll give you - I have no idea what the obsession is with curling. But we didn't start it - I blame the Scotts.

Hell, I'll throw you one - Celine Dione. That was all our fault. (Although, she is from Quebec, and the rest of us really haven't figured them out yet.)

Beer? I have two words: Coors Light. Now own up!

Re:Driving Blind

[gangien]

Coors light? hah, Molson! Now you own up, wannabe European.

Mmmm, CPMA

[ndg123]

Its been a while since I worked a problem queue for a living, but this sev 1 defect which has been raised "Ocean Circulation Doesn't Work As Expected" is just going to be closed as "Working as designed".

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,

[idontgno]

the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

-- Isaac Asimov

I don't care. I BELIEVE in climate change.

[commodore64_love]

We KNOW the truth, we KNOW it will happen, because we KNOW we are the chosen people of Gore. These scientists are just heathen sinners trying to make us stray off the path to liberation.

Can I get an amen?

Yeah! Faith brothers, hold onto your faith. Global warming is coming and we must be prepared for the grand revelation.

/end

I think that pretty much sums-up the current state of climate change supporters. Although some are rational, most are not. They claim to trust science, and yet when science shows data that questions climate change, suddenly that science is "right-wing propaganda" or some other nonsense. It's more religion than logic.

but it's not just one thing

[SpiceWare]

Has the global sea ice decline stopped?

The planet has not shown substantial warming for a decade now. The Gore Effect seems to be holding. Some glaciers are advancing . And the Arctic Sea ice appears to have halted its decline, if only temporarily.

Re:but it's not just one thing

[Anonymous Coward]

You've done exactly what the parent you reply to says:

So a demand for absolute perfection gives the crank license to engage in cherry-picking, rationalizing away the data he doesn't like, while accepting that which feeds his obsession.

The Difference Between Science and Politics

[LordKaT]

Science: "We've observed that the Earth's climate is getting warmer by nearly a full degree Celsius over a period of observation of around 200 years. We've noticed a correlating increase in CO2 emissions in that timespan."

Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT OUR LIVES!"

Science: "But the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, so our dataset is incomplete."

Politics: "THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS GLOBAL WARMING, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE EARTH!"

Science: "Of course, we've seen in tests that increasing the level of CO2 in an environment can significantly increase the temperature of an environment."

Politics: "CO2 CAUSES WORLD OT GET HOTTER!"

Science: "One of the leading theories we have as to the increase in global temperatures is this so-called 'blanket-effect'"

Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING IS BLANKET EFFECT! WE ALL MUST USE HYBRIDS NOW OR DIE!"

Science: "On the other hand, it's still a possibility that we're in a natural cycle of global warming. We saw a similar pattern in history, which occurred right before we experienced a miniature ice age."

Politics: "GLOBAL WARMING NATURAL CYCLE. ICE AGE IMMINENT!"

Repeat until you either change the channel or become so psychotic from the endless political bashing that you go out and kill 50 or 60 people, just to relieve the stress.

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[buback]

With the cure being apathy and indifference to the world around you, of course. 'Cause it's so difficult to make decisions and have an opinion, you know? It's much easier to change the channel and put on some Perfect Strangers or TMZ. That Balki, eh? What a character!

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[whiledo]

Very well put. Unfortunately, you find that when you talk to someone who doesn't like the scientific conclusions for political reasons, they'll use any rationality on your part in talking about the inherent uncertainty as weakness and claim it invalidates anything you say.

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Well not all scientists are making it political, it is mostly those who agree with AGW who do so.

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[atraintocry]

WE ALL MUST USE HYBRIDS NOW OR DIE!

I know you're kidding, but holy crap are hybrids ever fools' gold. The nerd in me thinks that regenerative braking is too cool of a technology to just ignore, but we need to figure out a do this without causing more NET carbon output, and without the terrible battery-chemical-mining pollution to boot.

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[atraintocry]

Yours is well put as well.

I hate that hesitate-and-we'll-exploit-it behavior. Those who would tell the truth and avoid oversimplifying need to have *even more* integrity than would have initially been required, in order to stop themselves from compensating for the effects of other peoples' spin.

It is a great irony that intellectually honest folks lose sleep over how honest they're actually being, while the liars get to sleep at night, safe and warm inside their massive ego.

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[QuoteMstr]

I know you're kidding, but holy crap are hybrids ever fools' gold. The nerd in me thinks that regenerative braking is too cool of a technology to just ignore, but we need to figure out a do this without causing more NET carbon output, and without the terrible battery-chemical-mining pollution to boot.

When will you people stop touting this ridiculous myth? It's been thoroughly debunked.

Re:The Difference Between Science and Politics

[atraintocry]

Well, I read through that, and I don't consider still don't anything thoroughly debunked.

My spreadsheet

He says this a lot. It's not exactly confidence-inspiring. Owning a Prius doesn't make you a statistician.

Things like low-weight steel, large batteries, and hybrid drive trains will become the norm if we progress to cars like diesel plug-in hybrids and hopefully from there to all electric.

A big if, and in any case, it doesn't affect the here-and-now so much. If hybrid cars require more investment to be more efficient, let's absolutely make that investment, but let's be honest with consumers.

that the fancier the car, the more energy will be required to produce, maintain, and recycle it

Which he doesn't debunk, he agrees with.

The study contains its share of bias...Spinella has to be glad he got the results he did.

He could wear Ninja Turtles pajamas, too. There's no proof. When it comes to a study, bias isn't having an opinion, it's letting that opinion color your results. Which, if true, should be easy to detect and demonstrate.

If you own a Prius, relax. Because the Prius presently has high status, it has replaced a lot of other high-status cars that would have been even more energy intensive (lifetime and otherwise) and it also has some of the lowest emissions of any gas-powered car you can buy.

I like this. It's good news. It doesn't debunk much, but it's definitely a point in the hybrids' favor.

This study could have different effects...it could help kill hybrid technology

So is he arguing for intellectual dishonesty here?

He does, however, point out the fact that the data for the original study is kept under lock and key. I agree that that's highly suspicious.

This is getting too long, sorry. Look, I am not an automotive expert and I could be very very wrong about this. I was going off of what I had read and what I had heard from close friends who I trusted to be right about such things. It's just that what you posted doesn't qualify for me as a debunking. It's definitely another side to the story and raises a couple of good points, but a good amount of it is posturing and sloppy logic. You've certainly sparked my interest and I'll have to go out in search of more articles like that. It looked like there were some solid points along those lines in the comments to the article, which I haven't had time to read yet, but I definitely will.

Nice FUD

[drinkypoo]

I like how you've used this story as a place to post your rant, when in fact this particular piece of information only suggests that our models for precisely what will happen as the globe warms are wrong. As they were pretty much guaranteed to be wrong anyway (which is why we call weather a chaotic system — we don't get it yet, and "small" inputs can have large so-far-unpredictable outputs) this is entirely irrelevant to the question of global warming. Science still says the answer is "yes". If you want to know whether your particular valley is going to get warmer or cooler, then this information is directly relevant to you. If you want to know whether the Earth is warming or cooling, it's not that relevant. It says where and how, not what.

Re:Nice FUD

[commodore64_love]

Yes but how can you claim to "know" the future environment, if our models are inaccurate? We can't even come-up with explanations for previous warm/cool spells, like the 300-1300 warm spell that allowed grapes to be grown in northern England, or the circa 3000 B.C. warm spell that helped Egypt become a dominant empire of the region.

I'm skeptical because I studied science and know its history - which is essentially a series of mistakes. For example in the 70s Carl Sagan was telling schoolchildren about dust-in-the-air causing an ice age. And we all know the story of how scientists thought disease was caused by bad air, or bad blood, or "germs".

I'm skeptical because that's what the scientific method demands.

Sounds like "denier" talk

[geoffrobinson]

Being skeptical of scientists giving dogmatic claims of incredibly complex weather systems with billions of variables, known and unknown, sounds like Denier talk to me. Either that or you are obviously under the employ of oil companies, Dick Cheney or you are the guy who controls Karl Rove's weather machine. The one Bush used to destroy New Orleans.

Re:Sounds like "denier" talk

[kyliaar]

Hey, if someone can give a plausible (not probable) explanation of pending disaster, we better sit up and listen!

Facts are for ... well, idiots who don't see the need for radical change of the status quo.

Cranks descend

[tgibbs]

A fairly reliable indicator of a crank is the conviction that the dominant view is a house of cards, and the most recent finding, whatever it is, is about to bring the whole thing down. Press releases tend if anything to overstate the significance and novelty of a result, but what does the press release say? The lead sentence is "Oceanographers have long known that the 20-year-old paradigm for describing the global ocean circulationâ" called the Great Ocean Conveyor â" was an oversimplification. " And as far as the impact on climate theory, "this finding may [my emphasis] impact the work of global warming forecasters." Doesn't exactly sound like a startling, paradigm-shifting result, does it?

So while we'll have to wait for the modelers to incorporate the new data to see what the real impact is, I think that it is safe to say that anybody who is seizing upon this finding at this early stage as casting doubt on global warming certainly qualifies as a crank.

Re:Cranks descend

[BobMcD]

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation%E2%80%93evolution_controversy

Science is had not, historically, been infallible.

I dare propose that it is also not infallible today.

Re:Cranks descend

[tgibbs]

Science is had not, historically, been infallible.

I dare propose that it is also not infallible today.

This obvious fallacy is a virtually infallible indicator of a crank--science is not infallible, therefore any result I don't like is most likely wrong.

Re:Cranks descend

[BobMcD]

science is not infallible, therefore any result that cannot be questioned is most likely wrong.

Fixed that for you.

Who cares about Al Gore?

[Kohath]

Yeah, they all just hate Al Gore.

Nevermind the huge extra costs everyone is going to have to pay for every product that uses energy. Nevermind the worse standards of living we'll all have forced on us. Nevermind the loss of freedom.

It's just that people personally don't like Al Gore.

Re:Who cares about Al Gore?

[ppanon]

Well I for one am more than willing to believe that your motivation is as stated in your second paragraph, and that you have an unwillingness to face how your continued insistence on the status quo is going to lead to even greater privations for everyone later. But, hey maybe you'll get lucky and you'll die of old age before water shortages and violent storms force lots of Central Americans to come across the border and take your water by force. Or you could always hope that in your ripe old age you'll have the strength to lift an assault rifle, and move north to do the same to the Canadians. You might have to walk too, as fuel for that truck of yours might be a little scarce and expensive for a fixed income by then.

Perhaps the models were once right, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible that the Ocean's circulatory system itself has changed because of global warming? Suppose that the models we had before were correct, but because of global warming and ManBearPig the system is changing its' 'configuration'?

Yeah, I have no idea what I'm talking about, but just a thought.

Re:Screwing 100 watt equiv bulbs into 60 watt fxrs

[GargamelSpaceman]

This prooves the small size fluorescents are a case of technology raising your standard of living. You bought the 60 watt fixture thinking you didn't want to pay for more than a 60 watt bulb anyway. But now you can put 100 watt equivalent bulbs in there because they are brighter for the same energy use, or choose to pocket the savings. It's like the photocopier. Before that, no more than three copies were ever made of anything, and then email which meant even more (electronic) copies sent to MORE people. If a tech raises someone's standard of living they will use it whether or not it's environmentally friendly.

Evaporation...

[dtjohnson]

Reading the news release makes it sound as if the problem was that the expected deep ocean return current was just in the wrong location. They put the floats in the areas where the current was supposed to be and only 8 percent of them actually even went in the 'right' direction. So...their 'conclusion' is that the current is just in the 'wrong' location but that it still exists, although they have never actually observed it. Without being any sort of climate 'expert' it seems obvious that evaporation of water in the northern latitudes is a far more important contributor to the gulf stream flow than the hypothesized deep ocean return current. It even seems probable that most of the evaporation of water on this planet occurs in the northern and southern latitudes. In that model, warm water flows north and south around the planet from the equatorial regions towards the poles and evaporates, thereby cooling the ocean waters and transferring heat and moisture into the atmosphere where it eventually falls as precipitation as it moves back towards the equator. Of course, this evaporation model cannot be correct because it allows the atmosphere to be a major conveyor of heat (as vapor phase water) which does not fit well with the 'greenhouse gas' idea in which the earth is surrounded by atmospheric gases which are blocking the radiation of long-wave infrared radiation into space, thereby warming the earth. I don't think there are any Eisteins in the atmospheric sciences field at the moment.

Re:Evaporation...

[dtjohnson]

...or Einsteins either...

Re:Evaporation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Without being any sort of climate 'expert' it seems obvious that evaporation of water in the northern latitudes is a far more important contributor to the gulf stream flow than the hypothesized deep ocean return current.

... I don't know the first thing about medicine, but regardless of what your doctor just told you I reckon I can clear up that case of ...

you see the problem here?

having theories are good (it shows intelligence), and doing your homework is good (it shows discipline), but to really make a difference you do need to have a good portion of both.

today's homework: consider the effects of latent heat of evaporation and condensation, and for bonus points read up on Hadley cells. and if you're really feeling plucky do a search for "gulf stream sverdrups" and figure out how many warm moist clouds of vapor your going to send equatorward to preserve continuity of mass.

and then there's the bit about all the evaporating water when it's really cold. I mean have you never tried to dry laundry outside in the winter?

and do please RTF{deeply linked original press release}. the deep water return current is still going to be there. it's just a bit to the right of where we guessed it was. all the model physics still works, we're just watching it come into better focus that's all.

signed,
your friendly neighborhood physical oceanographer who is trying to say "please keep off the crack" in an encouraging way

Re:Evaporation...

[dtjohnson]

Reading past your denigrations, the only thing you actually say is:

and then there's the bit about all the evaporating water when it's really cold. I mean have you never tried to dry laundry outside in the winter?

Even though you pose this as a question, you seem to be saying 'water will not evaporate in a really cold climate' which is incorrect. The evaporation of water into the air is driven by the enthalpy difference between the water and the air and, in the presence of a relatively-warm gulf current, that enthalpy difference can be considerable. Those 'sverdrups' of gulf stream flow are obviously cooled in the northern latitudes and, again, obviously, that cooling mechanism is 'evaporation.' Once the water evaporates, where do you think that it goes? Obviously not to the poles. Again, obviously, the air/moisture circulates back to the equatorial latitudes where the condensed moisture falls as precipitation. Another obvious thing to consider: water flows 'downhill' from a higher gravitational point to a lower one. The gulf stream flow is obviously flowing from a 'higher' point to a 'lower' one as precipitation falls at the equator and water is removed to the atmosphere via evaporation in the northern latidudes.

Ocean models ...

[frogzilla]

Ocean models model the physics of the ocean. They certainly don't attempt to model a cartoon (shown in the linked Deep Sea News article) presented years ago as a way to illustrate a principle. The cartoon had utility but no physical oceanographer actually thinks it really reflects reality any more. Many versions of the cartoon have been made including some with many more complex flows and recirculations. All of them are attempts to simplify something spanning spatial scales from millimetres to thousands of kilometres and time scales from seconds to thousands of years. None of these gross simplifications was ever accepted as "the real, actual, true circulation".

I don't think that this study has any significant implications for ocean and climate models.

Re:Ocean models ...

[frogzilla]

For goodness sake. Look at the first sentence of the press release.

"Oceanographers have long known that the 20-year-old paradigm for describing the global ocean circulation -- called the Great Ocean Conveyor -- was an oversimplification. It's a useful depiction, but it's like describing Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as a catchy tune."

Silly but we get the idea. Also, "this finding may impact the work of global warming forecasters."

At least WHOI isn't responsible for the perception that this study actually changes anything important.

But the science is "settled".

[Kohath]

But you don't understand. The science is "settled". Didn't you hear? The conclusions are "settled". It's a consensus. Everyone who disagrees is a "denier". The calls for these deniers to be prosecuted have already begun.

Why is there new data? What is it for? Why does the new data almost always support the position of the "deniers"?

Maybe we should prosecute these researchers as denier-accomplices so we can stop anyone else from undermining the settled consensus with new data.

Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article

[bhima]

I am a nature subscriber and I just read the letter which this crap is 'based on'. In what I find to be depressing regularity the content in Nature Magazine is misrepresented. Presumably because some of the content at Nature.com is only available to subscribers.

So the title of Slashdot submission is wrong. The summary and free article at deepseanews it is based on mischaracterize the content of the letter. And naturally most of the comments here on Slashdot don't take into account the article, the letter, or anything that smells to much like reality.

If anyone is particularly interested the study found additional new details about ocean currents which the suggest should be included in future model of global ocean currents. This isn't especially exciting but I suppose it's interesting from a point of view of making our understanding and models more complete.

So nothing there about ocean circulation not working the way scientists have described (or a "a major paradigm shift in ocean circulation theory.") Nothing there about failure of models. Nothing there about climate change being either true / not true or stronger / weaker.

This is just what most science is all about... making current understanding more complete or more correct. Below is the excerpt, which I believe to be publication available.

To understand how our global climate will change in response to natural and anthropogenic forcing, it is essential to determine how quickly and by what pathways climate change signals are transported throughout the global ocean, a vast reservoir for heat and carbon dioxide. Labrador Sea Water (LSW), formed by open ocean convection in the subpolar North Atlantic, is a particularly sensitive indicator of climate change on interannual to decadal timescales1, 2, 3. Hydrographic observations made anywhere along the western boundary of the North Atlantic reveal a core of LSW at intermediate depths advected southward within the Deep Western Boundary Current (DWBC)4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. These observations have led to the widely held view that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for the export of LSW from its formation site in the northern North Atlantic towards the Equator10, 11. Here we show that most of the recently ventilated LSW entering the subtropics follows interior, not DWBC, pathways. The interior pathways are revealed by trajectories of subsurface RAFOS floats released during the period 2003â"2005 that recorded once-daily temperature, pressure and acoustically determined position for two years, and by model-simulated 'e-floats' released in the subpolar DWBC. The evidence points to a few specific locations around the Grand Banks where LSW is most often injected into the interior. These results have implications for deep ocean ventilation and suggest that the interior subtropical gyre should not be ignored when considering the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.

Re:Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article

[frogzilla]

Why do we read slashdot? It's becoming almost as bad as Digg. Where can people on the internet actually discuss things? Candy mountain?

Actually I'm having second thoughts about my use of the word "becoming" above.

Re:Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article

[jfengel]

I'm out of mod points, so I'll just say "thanks".

Re:Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article

[eddy the lip]

You and your reality. How are we supposed to get into a self-righteous, drill-baby-drill froth if we get accurate news?

Re:Bad Title, Bad Summary, Bad Article

[spicifer]

Slashdot is often at it's worst when it comes to science, especially when the story is even tangentially related to global warming. Judging from the summaries, the stories almost always seem to be submitted by people with an agenda. So they just post the most misinformed summary possible of a subscription-only original article. And Slashdot editors have time and again demonstrated their readiness to publish anything they think somehow proves global warming false.

If only open access publishing would become more commonplace. Then everyone could see the original article and actually make their own minds up.

Even now it would be nice if they at least linked to the freely available abstract.

Does this mean

[Richy_T]

that they'll be reshooting "Finding Nemo"?

We have a large plastic field to follow

[rAiNsT0rm]

Just like tossing a stick in a river to watch the flow, we *luckily* have polluted the ocean with a massive continent-sized field of plastic bits we can now follow! Brilliant! Who needs fancy computer models and theoretical conjecture?

Re:Screwing 100 watt equiv bulbs into 60 watt fxrs

[blueg3]

They're actually brighter for lower energy use. Also, people rarely buy an N-watt fixture thinking that they don't want to pay for more than an N-watt bulb anyway.

In Short...

[Nom du Keyboard]

...and likely plays havoc with global models of climate change.

In short, we don't know what's really happening, but our political leaders are making very expensive decisions based on the belief (of some) that we do.

That's a great textbook definition of Stupidity!

Re:In Short...

[blueg3]

Oddly, if you recharacterize "expensive" from dollars now to impact on human civilization later, your statement works just as well for the opposite group!

Except that the people most likely to know what is really happening sides with one group. Hmm.

Re:In Short...

[atraintocry]

The answer is to avoid generalizing.

It takes guts, however.

I was always suspect of the DWBC model

[Anonymous Coward]

And for this reason. I did not think the forces to confine the cold water along the east coast would be sufficient to sustain a narrow conveyor. It just doesn't seem to work that way stably in the atmosphere. This discovery alone could improve our climate modelling and help us understand why our current models seem to consistently underestimate human caused global warming. We should expect that the western boundary of the Pacific shows similar characteristics.

+1 Informative

[slyborg]

(Never have mod points except when tedious faggotry like the World's Biggest Lego Soup Spoon stories are up....)

Re:+1 Informative

[LenE]

(Never have mod points except when tedious faggotry like the World's Biggest Lego Soup Spoon stories are up....)

Absolutely! I was thinking the exact same thing, but your hypothetical article title was better.

-- Len

Re:+1 Informative

[Ginger Unicorn]

perhaps you'd both be happier if you had mod points when there were some stories about homophobic bigots were posted, then you could mod up comments containing infantile terms like "faggotry".

Re:+1 Informative

[Anonymous Coward]

fag
1/fæg/ verb, fagged, fagging, noun
-verb (used with object)
1. to tire or weary by labor; exhaust (often fol. by out): The long climb fagged us out.

Origin:
1425-75; late ME fagge broken thread in cloth, loose end (of obscure orig.); sense development appar.: drooping end > to droop, tire > to make weary > drudgery, drudge (cf. relationship of flag 1 to flag 3 ); (def. 6) a shortening of fag end (a butt, hence a cigarette)

Re:+1 Informative

[bhima]

Infantile for sure but I generally I don't believe the kids that use such terms are consciously bigoted. My daughter's boyfriend comes up with such tidbits from time to time. I am determined to make him more aware of exactly what he is saying and more importantly exactly what people think when they hear it.

BTW: Wolfram|Alpha groks your sig... and for whatever reason I am amused.

Re:+1 Informative

[Ginger Unicorn]

Noun

Singular

faggot

Plural

faggots

faggot (plural faggots)

1. (rare in US) A burning or smouldering piece of firewood.

2. (British only) A bundle of sticks tied together.

3. (British only) A meatball made from pork.

4. (pejorative, US, slang) A male homosexual.

5. (obsolete, US) The cast off end of a smoked cigarette.

nothing in that definition about being worn out is there? so "faggotry" can have nothing to do with that definition you posted, can it?

Unless perhaps the OP meant it was something to do with smouldering firewood, tying sticks together or making meatballs, which are all so likely is MUST be true.

Re:+1 Informative

[LenE]

No, the homophobic or heterophobic bigot stories don't do anything for me.

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "exact same thing" because I was taking the connotation of frivolous, useless, or pedantic, for the word that got your panties all bunched up.

I'll keep in mind that I should politically cleanse my quoted material, least I transgress a member of our community who is easily offended or aroused by words that may call into question the asexuality of the Lego Soup Spoon builders. I wouldn't want to imply that they may have found sexual partners of either same or opposite sex.

-- Len

Re:I don't care. I BELIEVE in climate change.

[technobabblingfool]

It's more religion than logic.

Exactly...the entire atmospheric sciences field is being stifled by the climate change zealots who attack anyone who even suggests that are questions yet to be answered or...even worse...hints at the heresy that the entire basis of the global warming model is...wrong. There are powerful political forces at play in the global warming debate...and they are driven by the wealthy oil have-not nations of the world. The actual science is just something to be used and manipulated to achieve their ends...enforced rationing...and the political power that accrues.

Dear deniers

[Cally]

None of this makes the slightest difference to the expected global warming, except insofar as rainfall patterns may change slightly faster or slower in some places. How the heat is distributed around the planet is pretty much irrelevant to the global energy balance (as would be obvious to anyone with half a brain cell.) Now, please FOADIACF.

Re:Dear deniers

[gordguide]

" ... None of this makes the slightest difference to the expected global warming. ..."

I like your title. "Dear Deniers." Perfect.

You could have stopped at the first part of your first sentence (quoted above), though. And you might not like to whom the finger points, with "Dear Deniers.". Because the truth is, garbage in=garbage out notwithstanding, this won't make any difference in the "Global Warming" mindset. Nothing will. Getting a critical input 100% wrong, to the extent that the entire model shows a complete reversal of the predicted outcome, won't matter either.

It's now the established creed. Those who have always proposed clean air, less pollution, more responsibility, higher taxes to pay for clean initiatives, mass transit, the whole kit and kaboodle, finally have most of the world drinking the Kool-Aide, and they are not about to let some indcidental "facts" get in the way of the freight train that is the current thinking on Carbon, Climate Change, etc.

This is being reported in Science, a fairly respected journal. It is most pointedly not being reported on CNN, your local news, or talked about over a round of drinks at the local watering hole. Because that's how the machine works today.

It's irrelevant whether this changes anything, or not. It's irrelevant whether this totally disproves, slightly disproves, or wholeheartedly supports the 10+ year old computer models used to initiate the Climate Change paper issued by the IPCC in 1995 and again in 2001. It has become a commonly accepted "fact", the facts be damned.

It has the defining characteristic of a religion (facts are facts based on belief) rather than science (facts are established to test hypothesis and theories, with the intent of accepting what is the actual, reproducible result, regardless of the expected result).

Who is the denier here? It doesn't matter; both sides are experts at effective deployment of the blinders.

Re:Dear deniers

[Burnhard]

Please, for the love of (insert favourite supernatural entity), give me some mod points for this fine fellow and his entirely reasonable, intelligent, articulate and insightful comment.

Re:Dear deniers

[Tenebrousedge]

No, it really doesn't mean that, either. It will be published in Nature, not Science, and the research does disprove all of the climate science that's been done in the last thirty years, much as you'd like to believe that.

Now, sit down and actually read the Woods Hole paper. Then, having been appraised of the facts, you can continue ranting as if nothing had happened.

Re:Dear deniers

[gordguide]

" ... No, it really doesn't mean that, either. ..."

Doesn't mean "what" exactly? I did not post anything at all regarding what it means; I said only that it doesn't matter what it means. Which your rebuttal proves, quite perfectly, I might add.

  " ... It will be published in Nature, not Science, ..."

Point taken. I stand corrected.

" ... and the research does disprove all of the climate science that's been done in the last thirty years, much as you'd like to believe that. ..."

I think you meant "does not disprove" and I said nothing at all regarding what I myself "believe". You painted me with that brush, the way any avid believer can pick out those who ask questions rather than simply going out amongst the masses and preaching to the unwashed, preferably quoting rather than thinking, lest they get some subtle aspect of the gospel wrong.

I instead prefer to refer to "all of the climate science that's been done in the last thirty years", not just the parts that agree with a "belief" that reinforces a predetermined conclusion.

I would like to thank you for your post; it would be perfect if we could now have one from someone who thinks Climate Change is a bunch of hooey. I can't, because that's not my conclusion based on the current literature, despite your quick judgement to the contrary.

He can even use your exact words:

" ... Now, sit down and actually read the Woods Hole paper. Then, having been appraised of the facts, you can continue ranting as if nothing had happened. ..."

Woods hole published this

[Anonymous Coward]

in 2002, not exactly NEWS for nerds, by maybe it matters.

So...

[copponex]

...when confronted with a choice, you choose money over the only known planet that sustains human life in the entire universe.

I'm not sure I can get on board with that. And something tells me that using less energy to do everyday tasks will lead to more technology, not less. Sticking with the status quo is the choice that provides no technology, and possibly spends finite resources on luxuries that could be used later for needs.

But fuck it. Hop in your hummer, crank the AC, and rush to sit in traffic. Buy the house tens of miles away from work so you can have a library and basement bar that get used about twice a decade. Terraform your yard with nice looking weeds, so the neighbors can enjoy it the whole 30 seconds they spend outside their front door.

Enjoy these pinnacles of human achievement, while they last.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

But fuck it.

interesting suggestion

Re:So...

[greenbird]

...when confronted with a choice, you choose money over the only known planet that sustains human life in the entire universe.

It's not choosing one over the other, money (and technology which is a directly by availability of money) is the most significant factor in the solution. If the world economy collapses I guarantee that people will be just a little less focused on being green and more focused on surviving. People like you seem to think you can magically completely shift the economic/industrial system of the world without having significant effect on it. You think if everyone drove electric cars today it would be a good thing? Batteries are made of nasty toxic and in many cases rare materials. The disposal problem would be far worse than that for nuclear energy. Actions have consequences and those are often ones you didn't expect. 20 years ago it was much worse. 10 years from now it'll most likely be much better.

Re:So...

[SBrach]

Ok

Water Shortages

[pleappleappleap]

Many water shortages today aren't cause by a lack of water, but a lack of clean, fresh water.

just because the variables have changed...

[Anonymous Coward]

doesn't mean that the outcome has changed. For all we know this could mean more proof tha humans are causing global warming because we have changed the pattern of the water flows or that the water flows are even more significant than first thought. The fact of the matter is that the planet is warming, ice caps are melting and we are in a massive species extinction. We are obviously having some effect on the planet, the question is how much.

Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[mangu]

If we have to choose between spending a trillion dollars now and spending a trillion fifty years from now, which should we do? Personally, I'd rather wait the fifty.

If you have to remove that cancerous tumor now or wait a year, what will you do?

But more importantly, there's a philosophical point to be made. When faced with a possible problem, should you always make a radical change to the status quo? Well, what do you do in your personal life? Most people don't do this, unless the potential problem is both very serious and has a high probability

Right now, it has already been proven to an extremely high degree of certainty, that global warming is both very serious and has a high probability.

broken models like this one do damage to the radical policymakers

Broken model? What broken model? The model for global warming is fully intact. The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.

The only thing this study shows is that water that circulates in depths of 700 to 1500 meters under the surface travels in wider and slower paths than had been previously thought. The total flux of water is, naturally, the same, water isn't accumulating in the Arctic.

And how can we possibly justify spending such massive sums with that much uncertainty as to the outcome?

You speak as if we weren't already spending hundreds of billions to keep companies that cause global warming alive.

Ocean currents are important

[Anonymous Coward]

6 meters of ocean water contain more heat than the above atmosphere.

bzzt....wrong

[Chirs]

"The 25 watt CFL you are discussing actually uses 50 watts total power. 25 watts at the bulb, and another 25 at the power company as they try to balance the reactive load."

Please read up on your electronics. It doesn't "use" another 25 watts at the power company. At the most, it uses a very little bit of power due to the extra current flowing in the transmission lines. Maybe a watt or two. This has been discussed here before.

Re:bzzt....wrong

[Colonel Korn]

"The 25 watt CFL you are discussing actually uses 50 watts total power. 25 watts at the bulb, and another 25 at the power company as they try to balance the reactive load."

Please read up on your electronics. It doesn't "use" another 25 watts at the power company. At the most, it uses a very little bit of power due to the extra current flowing in the transmission lines. Maybe a watt or two. This has been discussed here before.

Also, a 60 W equivalent CFL uses about 10 W, not 25 W.

Conservative Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, you have to appreciate conservative sarcasm. Debunking the "myth" of science while praising Bush and simultaneously playing the victim. It's like a recap of the past eight years. I hope you guys stay out of power for a very long time.

Re:Conservative Sarcasm

[geoffrobinson]

Now, why do you think I'm praising Bush? There is nothing in my post to support that.

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[tmosley]

Ok, you go have surgery to to remove that tumor that you may or may not have, even though the surgery may or may not kill you. Also, we don't know if the tumor is actually cancerous or not. Actually, we're not even sure if its a tumor, or something that comes naturally from aging.

This is the problem with taking massive action based on a model. If the model turns out to be wrong (yes, the whole thing could still be wrong--I haven't seen any evidence that it takes into account any natural climate cycles that have a period of more than 5,000 years, the current warming trend is nothing more than noise compared to such cycles), then you have done all this damage to industry worldwide (and lowered everyones standard of living, not to mention the fact that you caused a large number of people to starve to death). What if these climate cycles are natural, and we were actually helping to stop an ice age from wiping out a good sized portion of human civilization? Global cooling is a much scarier thought than global warming. A warmer planet encourages more wildlife diversity, opens up more cropland, though it will pose a problem for many low laying nations.

The significance of this finding is that we no longer have to worry about the gulf stream shutting down due to warmer climate, which would have hit the Western democracies hard. Who cares if it's a little warmer? So long as the weather isn't significantly affected (ie New England an England become as cold and dry as Siberia), then it really isn't a problem.

Really?

[TaleSpinner]

> This confirms suspicions that have been around
> since the 1990's, and likely plays havoc with
> global models of climate change.

Not that this will change our country's fixed delusion about global warming...

Re:Screwing 100 watt equiv bulbs into 60 watt fxrs

[GargamelSpaceman]

Well, there's more expense than just the electricity for the bulb, when upping wattage. There could be: the cost of the fixture, the wiring possibly needed to support the wattage, ( you wouldn't want to blow a circuit breaker every time you turn on the light ). Etc.

Doesn't work as expected?

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody should open up a bug. Why didn't QA catch this?

C02 - global warming || global warming - C02

[Anonymous Coward]

you idiots still can't determine if rising C02 is causing a rising global temerature; or IF a rising global temperature is causing a degasification of the ocean forcing an increased release of C02.

Hubris

[Magdalene]

It never fails to amaze me just how much hubris the human race can muster up on its own behalf.

The thing is, if you want to take an actual look at the history of the earth's geological age, and say, use a year as an analogy for how long its been around compared to us, we don't show up till around 5 seconds to midnight December 31. --thank you David Attenborough for that image--

Life on earth will continue blithely on without us. The earth will sweep us off its back as surely as a water-buffalo swats a gnat, with about as much notice, and future palaeontologists will look back at the 'human' era as one of the many branches that was doomed to fail and become extinct .... something just a wee bit more successful than the Neanderthal.

And we thought the dinosaurs were a failure. Take a look at how long they lasted in geological time compared to us so far. I think they win.

Claws down.

Global Warming, believer or not, it's early

[drwho]

It's too early to even guess what the smashing of this old model will mean, in terms of disproving or
proving Global Warming. Don't jump the gun. I think it's significant, but it may not actually end up as
a significant factor is widely accepted theories about global warming. Let's let the experts digest this data before making any grand pronouncements.

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[greenbird]

Broken model? What broken model? The model for global warming is fully intact. The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.

The only thing this study shows is that water that circulates in depths of 700 to 1500 meters under the surface travels in wider and slower paths than had been previously thought. The total flux of water is, naturally, the same, water isn't accumulating in the Arctic.

Wait...you mean the ocean currents have no effect on global climate? Oh, they do but this major misunderstanding of how the global currents function doesn't matter because the water isn't accumulating in the arctic? Let's face it. You are one of the faithful. Even in the face of SCIENTIFIC evidence that our understanding of the ocean currents, which by SCIENTIFIC evidence affects the global climate, was significantly wrong you STILL BELIEVE.

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[greenbird]

You speak as if we weren't already spending hundreds of billions to keep companies [chrysler.com] that cause global warming [gm.com] alive.

Yeah, that'll take care of it. We'll just get rid of all the car companies.

if its not falsifiable, its not scientific

[peter303]

Soem discussions of global warming sound like creationism in this regard.

Not to worry

[Quila]

"likely plays havoc with global models of climate change"

No it won't. It can't challenge the models. The models are correct. Evidence doesn't matter. The Global Warming economic and political machine will not allow itself to be threatened.

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[mangu]

Yeah, that'll take care of it. We'll just get rid of all the car companies.

Not all of them. Just get rid of those that bet their future on big gas guzzlers -- and lost. Let Darwin and Adam Smith take care of that.

It's amazing how people who think we should do nothing to fight global warming because it would cost too much are the same who propose spending as much or more to save companies that are among the causes of global warming.

an Observation about this article and a question

[weiserfireman]

I get a kick out of people who think the ocean will quit circulating because of salinity changes.

Warm water will still rise, cold water will still sink, As long as warm water flows from the tropics north, water will still flow south to replace it. It actually makes more sense that the southern flow is more diffuse than people thought. Picture a river flowing into the ocean, as it reaches the ocean it diffuses and spreads out, eventually you can't see it anymore. As the Gulf stream loses energy on its trip north, it will become more diffuse and spread out and eventually disappear. Its the thermal energy in the Gulf Stream that makes it flow so fast and in such a contained manner.

Salinity may change some of the flow patterns but I never thought it would be enough to stop this process.

It brings another question I have always had though, Won't increased global temperatures have a tendency to increase overall precipitation levels worldwide? Warmer Oceans would evaporate more, producing more clouds and rain. I don't get a chance to talk to climate scientists a lot, but most of the lay people I talk to seem to think that increasing global temperatures will automatically result in bigger deserts and more drought. I can see weather changes happening, but to me, it makes more sense that there will be more moisture in the atmosphere not less.

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[_Sharp'r_]

It's amazing how people who think we should do nothing to fight global warming because it would cost too much are the same who propose spending as much or more to save companies that are among the causes of global warming.

Maybe I'm confused by your statement, but in the U.S. it's the auto unions and their friends the Democrats who want to "save" the car companies and the environmentalists and their friends the Democrats who also want to destroy industry to "save" us from CO2 and Global Warming. Granted I mostly hang around a bunch of libertarian Republicans (hang around being defined as get exposed primarily to their random political comments as opposed to other groups), but it sure seems that those who oppose the "stimulus" and who oppose the bailouts also oppose Cap and Trade, CO2 treaties, etc...

So for the record, I don't believe that we should spend anything on limiting CO2 emissions and I also don't believe the government should spend anything to save companies, including the auto industry.

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now, it has already been proven to an extremely high degree of certainty, that global warming is both very serious and has a high probability.

[Citation needed]

Sumitted paper is here, PDF

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.uwpcc.washington.edu/documents/PCC/loziernaturesubmission2008.pdf

Re:Parent is STUPID, MOD DOWN!!!

[greenbird]

Not all of them. Just get rid of those that bet their future on big [wikimedia.org] gas guzzlers [wikimedia.org] -- and lost. Let Darwin and Adam Smith take care of that.

From an economic viewpoint I agree with you. But that has nothing to do with the environment and getting rid of them won't help the environment. So you think hybrids are the answer? Do you know the environmental problems involved in having every car in existence have batteries? Batteries are full of toxic nasty things some of which rare to the point that there is just not enough of them. Imagine battery disposal issues in places like China or Mexico where rules aren't very well enforced. The solutions aren't as simple as the environmentalist make them out to be. What will fix the environment is a healthy world economy that allows for rapid advancing technology not forced radical changes that would hamper those.

Re:an Observation about this article and a questio

[Starcub]

It brings another question I have always had though, Won't increased global temperatures have a tendency to increase overall precipitation levels worldwide? Warmer Oceans would evaporate more, producing more clouds and rain. I don't get a chance to talk to climate scientists a lot, but most of the lay people I talk to seem to think that increasing global temperatures will automatically result in bigger deserts and more drought.

The answer to your question is yes, there will be more moisture in the atmosphere, generally speaking. However, the moisture will be distributed unevenly, with most of it being generated and precipitated in the northern hemisphere. This compounds a problem in that many regions in the world that are most populous will experience more problems with the desertification of their lands.

This helps with the population problem in that we will no longer have to rely on third world dictators and governmental irresponsibility to manage third world populations... the weather will help us out.

Efficiency

[copponex]

If the world economy collapsed, we would have no choice but to have less of a carbon footprint. Industrial society began when we started using oil as fuel, and once that supply is disrupted, it's unlikely to come back for some time. America will be lucky, since we leave near a lot of arable land.

Cuba is the only society that's survived a disruption, and they did it while under US embargo. Their oil imports dropped by 70% after the Soviet Union collapsed. Electricity no longer lasted through the day. Food supplies vanished, transport halted. If you research it, you'll discover that our entire society depends on oil. Plastics, fertilizers, roads, tires, electronics, pesticides... and for every calorie of food you consume, three thousand oil calories were spent to get it to your mouth. Going to Iraq was a lie, but not a mistake in the minds of the people who did it. Whoever controls what's left of the oil controls the world. There's not a single military force on earth that could operate without a huge supply of oil.

And the point is to have an effect, a massive effect, in reducing use of finite resources such as oil, especially those that destroy the only life-sustaining rock we can get to right now.

The only problem is that technology has brought great efficiency, but efficiency means less profit. Efficiency is the arch enemy of our current economic system, which depends on growth of consumption. Our survival depends on the opposite - reduction of consumption. Until there is an economic incentive to consume far less, we are not in control of when we make the switch. And if we're not slowly choosing to make the switch, the chance the world can survive an oil disruption without a world wide war is, in my opinion, almost impossible.

Batteries are made of nasty toxic and in many cases rare materials. The disposal problem would be far worse than that for nuclear energy.

Many modern batteries can be almost completely recycled. America has enough electricity being wasted right now in off-peak hours to power tens of millions of vehicles for their daily commute. But electric vehicles are too reliable and efficient to be politically possible, because you're asking corporations to accept 15 cents per mile in fuel and maintenance costs instead of 50. No spark plugs, oil changes, belts, transmissions... electric motors will probably last decades with very little maintenance. Batteries have lasted 180,000 miles, and that's on current technology.

Why else do you think GM killed their EV and sold the patents to Exxon Mobil? It's the classic story of the cobbler who makes his shoes too well, and manufactures himself out of a job.

Re:Efficiency

[turing_m]

Great post.

Until there is an economic incentive to consume far less, we are not in control of when we make the switch.

I'm not so sure. Personally speaking, the key to being financially independent or even wealthy lies at least partly in efficiency. The typical variable costs in a typical consumer's life have great scope for reduction. Living close to work, bicycling everywhere, wearing extra layers of clothing instead of turning on the heater (in every room), growing your own food if you have the area to do so, and in general, living low on the food chain instead of eating higher order animals... all will cut your expenses to a fraction of the typical. Almost anything I can think of that costs money, I can usually think of a better solution that is cheap or free, it just takes more research. Of course, there is no economic incentive to advertise/brainwash consumers into this behavior. The difference is that because I do so, I can afford to have more kids than those who don't. That behavior will propagate. Stupid consumers will by contrast be "overfished" by corporations into extinction.

In fact, it's the classic commons problem - while it is in the interest of every corporation to kill off the miser who is resistant to their advertising and make sure new generations of brainless consuming idiots come into being, who will provide the resources to do that? It's easier to let another corporation deal with that problem, and just up your sales, advertising and R&D budgets.

Regardless, whether or not global warming is anthropogenically induced is really immaterial to me. Using resources that have taken billions of years to produce in the space of centuries is just really, really, horribly dumb. It's the equivalent of diligently saving a lifetime of income and then converting it all to cash to use to light a fire to warm your house. We may need to use those resources for something actually worthwhile (in the sense of benefiting all future generations), and to get them back will literally take billions of years.

Peat?

[zogger]

Tundra? About as fertile as it gets. It is just frozen now. The big worry is rapid release of gigatonnage of methane from that frozen tundra. If we can live through that, and that is a whopper "if", and I have serious doubts about it meselfs, the resultant areas will be quite suitable for farming (after the surface dries out a little of course, which it should if the permafrost completely melts).

Speak English Man!

[Dareth]

Are you saying it is a bit more swirly than expected?

Or did God "pee in the pool" again?

Let's try a hypothetical

[marcus]

What if...just suppose that the climate change that you fear for its cost is natural and not man-caused?

Should we then muck with the environment in an effort to stop it, because of the cost if we don't?

As far as economic disruption goes, that's going to be no big deal in a free country. People will move out, move uphill/inland and their assets(other than real estate) and work will follow. More will be employed building new harbors, new levees, etc. The economy can readily adapt and does so way faster than any ecosystem can change.

Re:Let's try a hypothetical

[NoMaster]

What if...just suppose that the climate change that you fear for its cost is natural and not man-caused?

Should we then muck with the environment in an effort to stop it, because of the cost if we don't?

As someone who is on the never-ending path to becoming a scientist (in the field of environmental science, no less), I say "yes". Plenty of other organisms muck with and adapt their environment to suit them; we wouldn't be doing anything particularly unusual in the great scheme of things, just that we'd be particularly capable of it.

Still, you're going to need a damned good understanding of what you're doing, and what the effects - intended and unintended - are going to be before you do it. Either way, you're going to need good accurate and reliable models of global processes to help you with this.

Or are you going to rely on the magic pixie dust of human ingenuity to solve individual problems as they crop up, without any understanding of the overall system? Because that's just stupid; a sort of inverse pyramid scheme where one solution creates two problems which require two solutions which create four problems which require four solutions which create 8 problems which require ...

Face it; regardless of whether you believe GCC is an imminent threat or a crock of shit, a good understanding and model of global systems is the starting point regardless of which way you want to go...

Re:Let's try a hypothetical

[Bender0x7D1]

There is one small problem with you "freedom to move" plan... There are already people living in those uphill/inland areas that might object to millions of "refugees" moving in.

Here, here!

[WheelDweller]

Did you know that for something like 700 years the speed of light was 34 mph? That's the speed at which a junebug, tied with a string to one's hand, would start to blur. "Must be the speed of light!"

The point is, man is putting all the clues together from ideas and testing. Sometimes BOTH are wrong, but the attitude needs to be one of skeptical application of the known information, not blocking out entire works because of genre.

Case in point: one ancient book specifies the Earth as "suspended from nothing". Same book talks about being one land mass, then splitting (plate tectonics). Same book talks about the singularity that started this reality. Oh, and there's much, much more that it got right, but NO SCIENTIST would consider reading the Bible, would they?

It's not just bull; science and religion agree. And when they don't, it's bad theology or bad science. And there's a lot of both.

Key Point: why "must" dinosaurs be mentioned in the Bible? No one alive would see one, learn from one, get sat upon by one....why must there be a mention in the Bible?

try asking scientists if they use vi or emacs

[Anonymous Coward]

see how 'calm' they are then

Worst denialist argument EVER

[Livius]

Uncertainty about the cause is no excuse for inaction. If the human race becomes extinct or human civilization is destroyed, it's not going to matter whether it was caused by human activity or not.

I never knew

[Anonymous Coward]

I never knew that ocean circulation models were how we discovered the greenhouse gas effect of CO2!!!

Look at the EFFECT of CO2 in there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the order.

Does the effect of extra CO2 cause more warming?

Yes?

If so, then CO2 causes warming.

If not, why are you so happy with the "800 year lag" since there should be NO LAG AT ALL, since CO2 can and will be released without correlation with the temperature.

Try this

[marcus]

Katrina was simultaneously the fastest hitting and most severe localized ecological disaster this country has ever experienced. There were real live refugees. Are there any more today?

If there are, it's because they want to be or were already effectively socioeconomic refugees when Katrina hit in which case nothing has changed except their location.

Climate change and rising water will not hit anywhere near as fast. The wiser ones will sell their real estate and move out and buy something else while fools and/or speculators buy it cheap and move in. Later I'm sure there will be some sort of federal buy-out program(if there still is a federal gov by then) that will make the speculators smile. Even the fools will have resources to buy a new house inland. Renters can continue to do just that, just somewhere else.

CFLs are dimmer than "equivalent" incandescents

[GlenRaphael]

in 2007, Popular Mechanics compared a variety of CFLs. The headline finding was that their staffers subjectively preferred the light from any of the CFLs they tested to that of the incandescent bulb they used as a comparison point. This would be more compelling if they'd included a variety of incandescents rather than just one - perhaps that Sylvania bulb was particularly poorly suited for their tests. But set that aside and just look at the numbers they measured. Every CFL they tested put out less measured light than the "comparable" incandescent. They were all "rated" as being 13% brighter (1200 versus 1075 lumens) but actually measured output was 5-15% dimmer (eg, the Westinghouse Natural Light was 840 lux versus 975 lux for the Sylvania). A difference between "13% brighter" (as advertised) and 5-15% dimmer (as delivered) explains quite a lot of the disappointment surrounding CFLs.

It also might explain their findings - perhaps being 10% dimmer made a significant difference in the subjective light quality. They probably should have compared with a 90 watt incandescent to make the comparison more apple-to-apples.

Re:CFLs are dimmer than "equivalent" incandescents

[GlenRaphael]

correction: the article was comparing "like 75 watt" bulbs so they should have used a 65 watt incandescent to have comparable light output.

The BOTTOM LINE ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys haven't really put your finger on the problem.

The bottom line is, if they can't get the most basic parts of the science correct, why should we trust them on the advanced stuff ???

!!! WE SHOULD NOT !!!

Re: Adaptation will happen

[fygment]

There was a time when they said that birds of prey nesting areas were being wiped out by city expansion. The birds adapted. The lesson was repeated over and over. Coyotes adapted. All manner of other creatures adapted.

Life is about change. Change will happen whether we want it or not. Always.

There will always be those for whom it will happen too quickly. And there will always be those who will adapt quickly enough. Enjoy the ride, don't fret about it.

Re: One small accessory? MOD DOWN!

[fygment]

The fact that one small part of an accessory needs some adjustment in no way breaks the model for global warming.

The oceans cover what, two-thirds of the planet? The study shows that they are not understood completely ... in a significant way.

Here's the problem: climate is a chaotic system. Remember how a butterfly flapping it's wings in China, can create a storm in North America ie. small changes have potentially large effects. Therefore, this change to an "accessory" could have a potentially large effect on the models ... and that can be said of all aspects of the models that are not completely understood.

The inactionist doctrine

[tgibbs]

If this were simply an academic debate, you would be right in your comments about cranks. But this isn't an academic debate. This debate affects people directly. Governments are enacting policies, people's reputations are being made and destroyed, money is moving in quantity to the detriment of other proven issues, and fear is being sown in the population. Therefore, yes, absolute faith and trust must be paramount.

And since absolute certainty never occurs in science (indeed, the scientific consensus about the cause, extent, and danger of global warming is about as close as it ever gets), nothing is ever to be done about anything...

Anti-deniers come out in 3 .. 2 .. 1 ..

[MightyDrunken]

Oh please!

. It then goes on to claim that somehow the CO2 STILL causes it.

The first link actually says, "Though this period does not demonstrate greenhouse gas initiated warming, it does lend support to the importance of CO2 and CH4 in setting the planetary thermostat."
The key point is that it has long been suspected that the variation in Earth's climate in the past is usually driven by Milankovitch cycles. What the CO2 and temperature records indicate is that seems to be true. AND that increase in temperature increases CO2 which in turn leads to a higher increase in temperature.
How do I support that CO2 makes it worse, basic physics.
So in reality we do not have CO2 either causes past climate or is driven by the climate. We have both!