Slashdot Mirror
A Warming Planet Can Mean More Snow
Ponca City, We love you writes "NPR reports that with snow blanketing much of the country, the topic of global warming has become the butt of jokes; but for scientists who study the climate, there's no contradiction between a warming world and lots of snow. 'The fact that the oceans are warmer now than they were, say, 30 years ago means there's about on average 4 percent more water vapor lurking around over the oceans than there was... in the 1970s,' says Kevin Trenberth, a prominent climate scientist. 'So one of the consequences of a warming ocean near a coastline like the East Coast and Washington, DC, for instance, is that you can get dumped on with more snow partly as a consequence of global warming.' Increased snowfall also fits a pattern suggested by many climate models, in which rising temperatures increase the amount of atmospheric moisture, bringing more rain in warmer conditions and more snow in freezing temperatures."
One question for the warmers reading. Can the theory of AGW be falsified?
If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.
If a hurricane hits it is because of Global Warming.
If there is a drought anywhere it is because of Global Warming.
But if we get a blizzard it is bacause of Global Climate Change.
If it floods it is because of Global Warming/Climate Change.
If the North polar ice shrinks it is Global Warming.
Yet when the Antarctic ice grows it is Climate Change.
When the Northern ice returns it is nothing to see here, move along.
When Phil Jones says there has been no warming for fifteen years, it doesn't mean anything. In fact, to date only the Moonies at the Wash. Times and Fox News consider his statement worthy of repeating. (He said it to the BBC, btw, not known as a bastion of Deniers.)
So my question is this: For a theory to be Science it must be falsifiable; so what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
Democrat delenda est
Is this finding facts to fit theories, or theories to fit facts?
Didn't make this argument when it didn't snow much last few years, did they?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Since a shortage of fresh water is our next big crisis, doesn't that mean that global warming is a good thing?
A non-warming planet can also mean more snow year-to-year. And anyway it doesn't say anything about human-caused warming since we know the planet has gone through many warming and cooling cycles naturally.
Phil Jones has pretty much admitted most of the data is BS and nobody knows what it really means.
It all seems such a moot point to me... Honestly no matter what humans do to save or destroy the earth, in 4-5 billion years the sun is going to engulf the earth.
Save the whales, save the tree's, save yourself.... Death is the inevitable outcome of life.
On a more cheerful note I am going back to playing the Wii and enjoy my time here!
I rather thought all slashdotters knew and appreciated this simple notion. The weather is all about water moving around in the air. More energy into the water means more water into the air. More water into the air means more weather... more storms, more hurricanes, more snow... and what's really interesting is a new distribution of water. We will see deserts turn to jungles and jungles into deserts. The geologic record shows this kind of thing happening a lot. Some people think changes like these killed the dinosaurs.
It no longer matters if AGW is real (even though I think it probably is). It will never EVER go bye-bye, because there are now thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs, research grants, professorships, researchers' egos, bureaucratic hegemonies, and enforcement regimes riding on it. Too much money is flowing now for this thing to be put to bed, EVEN IF tomorrow we discovered a magical proof that AGW is bunk.
At this point the incentives are in place and we are stuck in a self-reinforcing pattern. Truth mattered thirty years ago, before the patten was strong enough to self-reinforce. It doesn't matter now.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
A guy I know ran with this today and was going on and on about it, going off about how climate-change advocates were such idiots and how this was a huge slap in the face for them, etc etc. He tried to sound really educated about it, talking laws of thermodynamics and saturation of 14.77 micron absorbtion and so on. I countered all his points but he wouldn't let up, of course selectively responding to the stuff I countered with and bringing up some new zany thing each time. I ran out of energy to deal with him, and was simply reminded of why I never really liked the guy.
It's unfortunate to let him have the last word, as of course all his fan-club will read the thread (I confess... this was on Facebook) and of course they will all just see it as a victory and continue to reinforce each others' delusion... but I really don't see how I could ever change his or any of their minds on the subject. My only real hope is that all these curmudgeons with their lazy conservative and antiquated views on things will eventually die off in time for the newer generation of educated youth to step in and hopefully turn things around in time.
To some extent I think the question of whether the globe is warming (or climate is changing, or whatever terminology comes next) is secondary.
Whether or not it's already happening in any measurable way today, I think we can all agree that it *could* happen in the future, so we (as a country, and a global society, and a species) need to be careful that it doesn't. To that end, studying human civilization's side effects on the biosphere seems obviously worthwhile.
I think the original batch of climate scientists were well-intentioned but did themselves (and us) a disservice by overplaying the initial data. They saw a potential problem in the future and tried to rally the public by saying "it's already happening!", but when that ended up not being very obviously provable, people started dismissing the entire concern. That, to me, is a huge mistake.
World War III could be started by the following policies enacted by AGW research. Think international totalitarianism in order to "fix" the Earth at-all-costs. At that point, who gives a fuck if the planet turns purple.
Life is not for the lazy.
The "Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995" headline is simply false. That's not what Professor Jones said at all, and in fact if you'd bothered to read the article you linked to, you'd know that.
Actually it has warmed, but he said the warming was not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. I assume most people on Slashdot will know what that means, even if the headline writer at the Daily Mail (and you) do not.
It's bullshit that science is divided politically, with the left typically defending warming, and the right countering it.
Science is the search for facts, not the bending of data for political aims.
Disgusting...
The bigger question everyone fails to ask... Is all this crap we inject into the atmosphere good for us humans? Most likely not! So why not change for that reason alone, regardless if climate change is true or not.
Iraq billions
Hacked emails showing less than ethical behavior from prominent scientists. check
United Nations reports with future weather predictions based on he said she said data rather actual scientifically vetted data. check
A large number of recording stations being taken off line around the world in remote areas that tend to record lower temperatures (due to costs), but retaining stations in urban areas that are easily affect by the city heat island affect. check
Satelilte data that does not back up the "sky is falling" temperature predictions, but show a much slow temperature trend upwards. Check
Watching the Church of Global Warming froth at the mouth on the news at the audacity of mother nature for dumping record snows and low temperatures around the globe. Priceless
I could buy into global warming if it weren't for all the douche bag polititians using it as an excuse for a power grab and if the scientists would pull their collective heads out of their asses and conduct all the, you know science above the table in an organized manner. Until they do its all bullshit and hearsay.
Ah, so global warming is made up because a SOFTWARE ARCHITECT and amateur astronomer says so. As a Solutions Architect and amateur astronomer I say the world is flat. Through observation: - From sea level it looks flat - I have been up in an aeroplane and it still looks flat. - My world map is flat (well okay it is vertical, but still in two dimensions). - A marble I place a little way away from me doesn't roll away like it does when placed a little off centre on my wife's exercise ball - I have lived in the top and bottom halves of the world map (or "hemispheres" to you unbelievers) and the above still applies I suspect that those of you who think it is round haven't taken into account that light bends when it gets close to a mass.
Here's the relevant Phil Jones quote, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm/. Decide if Dailymail (a highly politicized news source, similar to Fox News in the US) reports it honestly.
"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?"
Jones: "Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."
Score one for the Daily Mail. In other words, "I desperately tried to cherry-pick some better numbers by manipulating the cutoff date, but even that failed. But it almost worked."
And later,
"How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?"
Jones: "I'm 100 percent confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity."
In other words, "I stand by the conclusions that my funding depends upon, no matter how thoroughly discredited the research becomes, no matter how much data I fail to produce, or how many FOI requests I have to ignore. Dude, it's all about the funding!"
The "debate" doesn't exist, it's just PR firms and confidence tricksters making money by telling people what they want to hear.
The scandals here are as relevant as thinking that whatever a police photographer paid for lunch after taking a photo of a crime scene has any bearing on the murder they photographed.
If you think scientists are all evil tricksters then go talk to an old farmer or someone that has been involved with a ski resort for decades.
My country (Canada, clouded in shame) declared 4 years ago that the time for studying climate change was over, and that it was now time for action. The action was to fire all of the climate scientists that disagreed with idiot^hlogy of the government. Your title is eerily reminiscent of that BS. [ ref John Baird, Minister of Environment, Canada, 2006-2007 ].
Everything that ever lived deposited its stored carbon into the ground. Now we are releasing it into the atmosphere at levels unprecedented in the history of human civilization. Does it actually take a scientist, that is somebody whose plodding methodology makes lawyers look like they are actually alive, to notice this is a road to nowhere?
I have next to zero expertise in evolution, paeleontology (see, I can't even spell it) etc... I do know that people, with roughly identical abilities to us have been hanging around for at least 100000 years, yet there is next to no trace of their accomplishments until the last 10% of that time. That time roughly approximates a narrowly stable climate which permitted the rise of farming and the subsequent developments we have all grown to love.
I get that some people want to believe the end is near - it fits both a fatalistic or theocratic disposition.
I get that some people want to believe there is no problem - it fits both an optimistic or ignorant disposition.
What I don't get is how those that fit neither have stuffed their heads so far up their asses as to believe the world is an endless sink for everything they want to dump in it; and somehow believe there will be no repercussions.
I don't want to save the world, but I wouldn't mind if my kids (and maybe their kids) got to enjoy a little of it.
If it gets hotter it is because of Global Warming.
The consistent and scientific standard you're looking for is if mean surface temperature decreases over time. Global Warming, by contrast, is indicated by a rising mean surface temperature over time.
AGW is more complicated, probably a topic to wait on for people who haven't digested the above, but essentially comes down to trying to doing accounting for different warming contributions based on related measurements. The closer the accounting is to adding up, the more credible AGW looks. The farther, less.
what would it take for one of you True Believers to reconsider your theory?
A complete investigation on the part of each individual is a rather time-consuming proposition, so a lot of us use heuristics. One of mine tends to be that opponents of AGW are often doing things like:
(a) making no distinction between individual weather events and climate
(b) confusing the term "Global Warming" with " monotonic temperature/ice thickness increase across every point of the globe
(c) asserting there exists some input or dynamic that accounts for most of the warming and implying that climate scientists supposedly have ignored it, when in fact it turns out that there exist climate scientists who have considered and done the accounting on said input or dynamic (see increased solar output)
Now, I'm not a true believer, so maybe my bar is lower than some others, but I'd say that if I can go 2-3 years where less than 10-20% of the AGW criticism I read has one of these features (or similar ones: the list I gave is hardly exhaustive), I might start to give the opposition as much credibility as the proponents.
Tweet, tweet.
That's an interesting argument, trying to phrase the pro-AGW argument in terms of dollars. Ineffective, but interesting.
You claim that previous temperature changes were caused by changes in the Earth's orbit --- that may be a contributing factor, but certainly not the whole story. Earth's atmospheric makeup has changed many times.
I *am* concerned about mankind's impact on the global ecosystem, but I don't understand how something so poorly understood can be seen as requiring the drastic, harmful changes proposed by the left's current cap and trade agenda, the Kyoto Treaty, or a myriad or other legislative burdens in the works.
This is *especially* true since America actively discourages the use of diesel in small automobiles, while other countries enjoy the cleaner emissions and higher efficiency vehicles. Meanwhile, we subsidize corn production for ethanol - starving people who were purchasing that corn for food. If you want a good fuel source, try sugar beets, they have a much higher yield than corn.
Let me put it this way -- the far right in this country has an element of steadfast opponents to AGW. They don't believe it is happening, period. They are so venomous in their accusations, though, because they perceive that a dangerous legislative agenda is being pushed because of it - when in fact, the legislative agenda if fueled by simple corruption in state and national politics, and AGW is simply the diversion used to shovel tax dollars into friendly companies via grants and government contracts.
If you truly believe AGW is real, and that it has immediate and catastrophic consequences for the world, the absolute best thing you could do would be to try to put a halt to all the legislation being proposed in its name. Nail down the science, and get it well understood - then take simple, opportunistic steps to combat the problem. That means paying farmers to raise crops that are efficient in the production of biofuels, removing the subsidies on undesirable industry, and lower taxes on desirable industries.
Learn about Photography Basics.
The Anti-intellectual is the easiest to stir up into a fervour, simply state that something threatens their rut and they will ignore all facts and all common sense in their mad crusade to destroy whatever they have perceived as a threat.
Oddly enough, you accuse Scientists of fear mongering when the media driving the anti-intellectual movement uses the exact same method and gets away with it.
The ages old "X will raise taxes" is the most widely used anti-climate change argument, also the most transparent and entirely based on fear mongering. Yet the somnabulant public tends to buy this like it's going out of fashion. Remember, most of this centuries tragedies were caused by one person saying that another group was destroying their livelihood, it's a big lie that never gets questioned.
Does mentioning the Big lie, count as Godwins Law?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
On one hand we have thousands of climatologists from dozens of countries armed with super computers and the resources of government. They tell us we have a problem. Arguing against them are a bunch of people, most of whom are not climatologists or even scientists, who do not have super computers or any data of their own. They argue that there is a worldwide conspiracy to falsify data. Thousands of scientists from Europe, Asia, Australasia and the Americas all working in harmony to defraud the world, to drive up taxes and bring down civilisation - all led by the anti-christ Al Gore. Think about who you are siding with and why you believe in what you believe.
What you are saying is that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not real science!!! There are numerous physics Professors around the world for example that don't have a full grasp of the standard model or general relativity.
The suggestion that a random person of the street could make useful comments on the validity of either without years of study is utterly laughable.
I have a physics masters should my views on black holes be given as much weight as say Stephen Hawkins?
Let's get some simple facts out on the table. The Earth's climate IS changing. It has been changing since it was created (long before humans infested it). The Earth's climate will continue to change up until the "day" it ceases to be (astronomers tell us that in a few billion years the Sun will swallow the Earth; now THAT is real global warming). There is NOTHING humans can do to STOP climate change. NOTHING (even "modifying" the non-anthropomorphic climate change is CHANGING the climate).
Now, if the REAL issue is the "anthropomorphic" in anthropomorphic climate change (or anthropomorphic global warming if you prefer) that then please deal with it honestly. Get rid of the people and there's no more anthropomorphic ANYTHING.
The proponents of ACC (or AGW) typically point out how terrible things have become since the industrial age began and use of fossil fuels began in earnest. Well folks, we've added about 5 billion people to the world population since then. What if we got rid of those extra 5 billion people?
In the 1970's there were a number of studies done to determine ecologically sustainable populations. At the time the numbers for the US were about 110 to 120 million. We've pretty much busted that into 200 million pieces. The US is now a bit over 300 million and heading up. Imagine the impact (or lack thereof) on the ecology and climate if the population was only 5 milllion as in the beginning of the 1800s. Now repeat that exercise for the rest of the world.
The only real answer is to quit having kids. Quit providing incentives for having them (instead of providing tax breaks to parents they should have to pay more taxes to make up for the "force multiplier" effect of their "bundle(s) of joy"). Provide health care only to the level that was in effect at the beginning of the 1800s (no antibiotics, no immunzations) and let the populations die off.
Yeh. Not very palatable or likely. But IF the problem is the with "anthropomorphic" part of climate change (or global warming) then deal honestly with the "anthropomorphic" part of it. Otherwise, trying to stop non-anthropomorphic climate change (or global warming) is an irrational fools errand (or a big time money maker if you get in on the "carbon tax" gravy train).